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

[DavidPT]

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.

This might be one of these deals where Amil might make better sense. Now if Amil only made better sense in regards to some other things as well, then we might be getting somewhere finally.

 

[sovereigngrace]

This might be one of these deals where Amil might make better sense. Now if Amil only made better sense in regards to some other things as well, then we might be getting somewhere finally.

To many of us that have made the jump from Premil, Amil makes more sense from every angle.

 

[DavidPT]

To many of us that have made the jump from Premil, Amil makes more sense from every angle.

I totally disagree that it makes more sense from every angle. From some angles it does appear to make more sense. I'll give you that. But that is not the same as from all angles. Per Premil as well, though I already know you disagree, from some angles it appears to make more sense as well. Some of you have already decided Amil is the correct position, regardless. Others have already decided Premil is the correct position, regardless. Me, though I am Premil I'm still not 100% certain which position is the correct one. Until and if I ever fully make up my mind, in the meantime I'm still Premil.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I totally disagree that it makes more sense from every angle. From some angles it does appear to make more sense. I'll give you that. But that is not the same as from all angles. Per Premil as well, though I already know you disagree, from some angles it appears to make more sense as well. Some of you have already decided Amil is the correct position, regardless. Others have already decided Premil is the correct position, regardless. Me, though I am Premil I'm still not 100% certain which position is the correct one. Until and if I ever fully make up my mind, in the meantime I'm still Premil.

I understand. I just don't see many of your difficulties.

 

[Guojing]

I totally disagree that it makes more sense from every angle. From some angles it does appear to make more sense. I'll give you that. But that is not the same as from all angles. Per Premil as well, though I already know you disagree, from some angles it appears to make more sense as well. Some of you have already decided Amil is the correct position, regardless. Others have already decided Premil is the correct position, regardless. Me, though I am Premil I'm still not 100% certain which position is the correct one. Until and if I ever fully make up my mind, in the meantime I'm still Premil.

To be an amill, you have to accept that Jesus reigning over the Earth does not really mean anything.

Believers can still fall sick, sin can still run rampant on Earth, the wolf is still not lying down with the lamb, no children can play with serpents.

 

[sovereigngrace]

To be an amill, you have to accept that Jesus reigning over the Earth does not really mean anything.

Believers can still fall sick, sin can still run rampant on Earth, the wolf is still not lying down with the lamb, no children can play with serpents.

And how exactly does your list of theological add-ons to Scripture negate Christ reigning now at the right hand of majesty on high, as taught repeatedly in the NT?

 

[Guojing]

And how exactly does your list of theological add-ons to Scripture negate Christ reigning now at the right hand of majesty on high, as taught repeatedly in the NT?

Christ is reigning in the 3rd heaven, no one is denying that.

We are talking about Christ reigning over THIS earth.

 

[claninja]

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.

Davidpt seems to believe so.

I’m not aware of the premil belief that Christians don’t presently reign spiritually over sin because of the resurrection of Christ. However the premil believes the “type” of reigning in revelation 20:4 is different.

do you believe the spiritual reigning that the believer does now is the exact same as when the believer goes to heaven? The OP says “there is a big difference”.

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.

sure, but thats irrelevant to arguing against a premil.

the premil doesn’t believe revelation 20:4 is about souls reigning in heaven, they believe it’s authority to reign at the resurrection and 2nd coming. So what other scripture demonstrate that souls go to heaven to reign?

The Amil often demands the premil use other scripture to support a future literal thousand year reign, so where is the Amil support that this is about souls going to heaven to reign?

Ephesians 2:5-6 doesn't say anything about our souls going to heaven and I never said it did.

bingo! So the OPs use of this to prove revelation 20:4 is about souls reigning in heaven is irrelevant.

It means the body we have now has died.

agreed.

So would you agree that “away from the body” means the same thing?

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).

It’s also called a “house”, but absolutely agreed.



So then why are you creating a difference between “presently having a house, not made by humans hands, eternal in the heavens” and “home with the Lord”?

 

[claninja]

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.

I’m not talking about Greek tenses. I’m talking about grouping things together based on purpose/relation (Hebrew block logic).

Let’s test it:


1.) was revelation written by a Hebrew who was seeing a vision?

2.) when are the dead saints awarded in revelation 20? At the first resurrection or at the great white throne judgement?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I’m not talking about Greek tenses. I’m talking about grouping things together based on purpose/relation (Hebrew block logic).

Let’s test it:


1.) was revelation written by a Hebrew who was seeing a vision?

2.) when are the dead saints awarded in revelation 20? At the first resurrection or at the great white throne judgement?

They claim their authority and power through and since Christ's first resurrection. They rule as kings and priests (in life and death) from then.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Davidpt seems to believe so.

I’m not aware of the premil belief that Christians don’t presently reign spiritually over sin because of the resurrection of Christ. However the premil believes the “type” of reigning in revelation 20:4 is different.

do you believe the spiritual reigning that the believer does now is the exact same as when the believer goes to heaven? The OP says “there is a big difference”.





sure, but thats irrelevant to arguing against a premil.

the premil doesn’t believe revelation 20:4 is about souls reigning in heaven, they believe it’s authority to reign at the resurrection and 2nd coming. So what other scripture demonstrate that souls go to heaven to reign?

The Amil often demands the premil use other scripture to support a future literal thousand year reign, so where is the Amil support that this is about souls going to heaven to reign?



bingo! So the OPs use of this to prove revelation 20:4 is about souls reigning in heaven is irrelevant.




agreed.

So would you agree that “away from the body” means the same thing?




It’s also called a “house”, but absolutely agreed.



So then why are you creating a difference between “presently having a house, not made by humans hands, eternal in the heavens” and “home with the Lord”?

We do not just reign over sin. We reign over our spiritual enemies today.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Christ is reigning in the 3rd heaven, no one is denying that.

We are talking about Christ reigning over THIS earth.

What are you talking about? Jesus testified after His resurrection: “All power [or authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18).

Jesus rules and reigns today over all creation. There is nothing that is not under His feet. What He says goes! This is biblical bedrock! This is a foundational Christian truth.

I mean, how much more power than “all power ... in heaven and in earth” does He need to exercise power and authority over His enemies?

This proves that Christ has already come and now exercises kingship today over all mankind. It means: He carries the Father’s divine authority. He is currently enthroned. This is Sovereign power! He holds this today upon His Father’s throne as God and upon David’s throne as Messiah. Him and the Father are one spiritually in authority.

In our main text this morning, Jesus is described in Revelation 3:7 as, “he that hath the key (or authority) of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

He holds all power (without qualification). After all, He is God! God either causes or permits - as He is God and He is sovereign. Simple! That is an explicit biblical truth and a Christian fundamental. The powerful language that accompanies the mention of Christ holding the key of David proves that this is referring to His majestic power and might.

 

[Timtofly]

That's how I tend to see these things correlating. If the scene is heaven in Revelation 5, how do Amils propose that anyone that is in heaven at the time shall reign on the earth? Obviously, they have to be bodily resurrected first. Why can't that be what the first resurrection is involving?

The first resurrection is only the physical aspect of the life in Paradise. Those in Revelation 5 will not be on earth until the New Jerusalem comes down. This verse is not telling us the point in time they will reign on earth, it just claims they will.

Those people in Revelation 5 are not even the same people in Revelation 20:4 being resurrected. Just like we today are not the same people resurrected in 30AD when Jesus died on the Cross.

The whole error of the OP, and Amil is that they have to force Revelation 20:4 to fit every other resurrection found in God's Word, and they plop that into 30AD to prove Satan was also bound in 30AD.

So to fix one error, they create another error.

The first resurrection is not chronological at all. The first resurrection is physical and a type of Resurrection. The first resurrection applied to those resurrected in Matthew 27. The first resurrection applied when Stephen's soul left his corruptible body and entered the permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise.

The point is as you state, that after the first resurrection, no one is subject to this corruptible body any more. They are not going to loose their Atonement and redemption in Christ. They will not have to stand at the GWT. They are literally no longer dead in their sin from Adam's flesh and blood.

Those souls resurrected in Revelation 20:4 will live on earth and Revelation 5 is not the proof of that fact. Revelation 5 takes place years before those in Revelation 20:4 even have their heads chopped off, much less resurrected.

Nor can Revelation 5 be proof the church reigns on earth during the Millennium when Satan is bound. That would mean, like some have wrongly pointed out, the Lamb started opening the Seals at the Cross.

John used the phrase in the OP, "I saw" many times throughout the book of Revelation. So if the tense is the point that Revelation 20 has to be in 30AD, that would make the OP take a full preterist position about the whole book of Revelation, not just chapter 20.

That is why the OP fails. The thread starter is vehemently against the "full" preterist ideology, while attempting to use full preterism to make his point. He is his best rebuttal.

Now if SG is going to come back and say all 7 recaps start out in 30AD, and end in the Second Coming a future event, he is still rebutting his own argument. Because the same tense applies to John also seeing the return in Revelation 19 on a white horse in the same tense.

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."

The same tense as:

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand."

"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."

Recap fails and amil fails if one is going to use tenses to prove a point.

John uses the same tense at the "start" of an alledged recap as at the "end" of an alledged recap, and the point of the OP was to use tenses to render one's eschatology wrong.

Revelation was written as a future event and will remain future until what is written starts to unfold. Revelation 20 is still future and can never be used to describe past events. Not even for full preterist ideology. Ideology does not make nor create facts. Ideology is the manipulation of facts.

 

[Timtofly]

I remember now that he said that. Honestly, that interpretation is even worse than Premil. It's complete nonsense. And he criticizes our view? Amazing.

The thousand years of Revelation 20 has no relation to the 1000 years from David to Christ whatsoever. That is a huge stretch. Even though we see the thousand years as figurative, it clearly represents an actual time period with a beginning and an end. I don't know how anyone can deny that. The beginning is obviously marked by the beginning of Christ's reign and the binding of Satan. The end is marked by the loosing of Satan. This couldn't be more clear.

It cannot be a literal time frame and an indefinite one at the same time. Amil only applies Revelation 20, just like claninja does, and not literally. How does one symbolically apply a literal time frame? Is that not called an oxymoron?

"a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction."

You are combining the literal thought with a symbolic thought. The last 1991 years is literally 1991 years, not literally an indefinite 1000 years. At least there was a literal 1000 years between David and Christ as you have not denied that fact.

It does not matter what time frame one uses against each other, because the literal time frame is still future. There is no symbolism in the use of 1000 in Revelation 20. Thus no contradiction with pre-mill as both the time talked about and how it was presented is literal, with no alternative interpretation necessary.

Pre-mill literally do not need Revelation 20 to prove those in Christ are reigning with Christ and have done so from 30AD.

Amil also do not need Revelation 20 to prove a point that Pre-mill already have.

The only point left is that amil and pretrist are trying to deny a future 1000 year reign, and that is the elephant in the thread.

 

[DavidPT]

The first resurrection is not chronological at all. The first resurrection is physical and a type of Resurrection.

I'm mostly in agreement with you here. I agree it's physical and a type of resurrection. But it's also chronological in relation to when any of the lost rise. None of the lost ever rise before anyone having part in the first resurrection do. Jesus rose in this type of resurrection, the first resurrection. No lost souls rose before He did. Those resurrected in Matthew 27 you brought up, they rose in this type of resurrection, the first resurrection. No lost souls rose before they did. The 2 witnesses rise in this type of resurrection, the first resurrection. No lost souls rise before they do. The dead in Christ who rise first, rise in this type of resurrection, the first resurrection. No lost souls rise before they do. It makes it the first resurrection in this sense as well, that all of the saved rise before any of the lost ever do, since Revelation 20 only mentions 2 resurrections.

I have no clue what Amils are trying to do with the first resurrection? They are trying to make something plain and simple complicated instead.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

They learn how to March and be consumed by fire?

Sounds Iike a one shot March. How many times does one practice being consumed by fire to get it right?

I think you are adding "war" to the scenario to boost your odds of an argument.

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

It is Satan's intention to decieve them to gather them to battle.

First point is: it is never confirmed people literally changed their minds about war. The only fact is they did come across the breadth of the earth and arrived at the camp of the saints.

Sure we can assume they came prepared for battle. Is assumption your friend? Not necessarily. The point is moot when fire comes out of heaven. Not even a battle happened. No white horse with a rider. Only fire. Can we assume your assumption goes beyond the point of proof? They did not have time to become hardened warriors fighting battle after battle until they reached some destination in their endeavors.

Satan already knows the outcome. We know the outcome. No where does it state humans learned the art of war again. They are so decieved by Satan, they did not even prepare against the inevitable outcome. Your assumption of war is as valid as the assumption of a "protest March against the capital". All you have are Satan's desires. No where does it give the state of mind of the humans about to be consumed by fire. Even if they had copies of Revelation, would not Satan have convinced them, "Surely you will not be consumed by fire"? That is how he decieved Eve.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

I am sure he used less words than this evasive post full of man made opinion, with not a literal nor symbolic point to stand on.

"The bigger the post" means what? What makes a point big?

No where in Revelation 20 does it declare Nation against Nation. Is that not the definition of war? "War" is your point. "No war" is Douggs point. Seems like Douggg approached your error head on. No evasion in that post.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

Surround Christ?

Is this proof Christ is on earth? The whole Millennium? Do you refute your own point or change your post? Do you conclude Christ arrived before the fire did, then?

 

[DavidPT]

They learn how to March and be consumed by fire?

Sounds Iike a one shot March. How many times does one practice being consumed by fire to get it right?

I think you are adding "war" to the scenario to boost your odds of an argument.

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

It is Satan's intention to decieve them to gather them to battle.

First point is: it is never confirmed people literally changed their minds about war. The only fact is they did come across the breadth of the earth and arrived at the camp of the saints.

Sure we can assume they came prepared for battle. Is assumption your friend? Not necessarily. The point is moot when fire comes out of heaven. Not even a battle happened. No white horse with a rider. Only fire. Can we assume your assumption goes beyond the point of proof? They did not have time to become hardened warriors fighting battle after battle until they reached some destination in their endeavors.

Satan already knows the outcome. We know the outcome. No where does it state humans learned the art of war again. They are so decieved by Satan, they did not even prepare against the inevitable outcome. Your assumption of war is as valid as the assumption of a "protest March against the capital". All you have are Satan's desires. No where does it give the state of mind of the humans about to be consumed by fire. Even if they had copies of Revelation, would not Satan have convinced them, "Surely you will not be consumed by fire"? That is how he decieved Eve.

A lot of times verses are simply compressed, giving the illusion that something immediately follows something else. That means that the details involving them marching to surround the city and God then raining fire down on them, these things are likely recorded in other passages in great detail, either in the OT or NT, and in some cases both. That means this battle likely involves way more than what you are taking it to involve.

 

[Timtofly]

And how exactly does your list of theological add-ons to Scripture negate Christ reigning now at the right hand of majesty on high, as taught repeatedly in the NT?

Nothing Negates Christ reigning now just as nothing Negates Christ ruling on earth for the next 1000 years. Pitting one against the other seems pointless.

If you accept Christ is on earth, why reject the amount of time spent on earth?