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

[ShineyDays2]

Revelation 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth,

~ What is the difference between Gog and Magog?
~ Where are the "four quarters of the earth"?
~ Our planet earth does not have corners to it so what does that mean?
~ What "nations" are going to be deceived?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I believe the destination of the resurrected saints is heaven, as Christ said he would go to to His fathers house to prepare a place for us and then come again to take us to where he is. I believe this is the “Home” that Paul referred to as the house not made by human hands which would further clothe us. I believe this is where our citizenship is. I believe this is where Christ went as our forerunner. I believe this is the heavenly city we belong to, while we are exiles on earth.

This didn't answer my question. But maybe you didn't understand the question. What I'm asking is what you believe happens to a believer immediately after they die. Are you saying you think they are immediately bodily resurrected and go to heaven?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Op Note

Rather than pointing out 21 different errors regarding Premillennialism, I decided to highlight one point in this thread in order that the poster would not be overwhelmed, have excuse and would be tempted to get sidetracked. It also allowed us to address the Op in detail. But alas, here we are at post #1223 and we still haven't got a Premillennialist to address the Op and acknowledge the biblical reality on this matter. That is likely because to do so would immediately negate Premillennialism.

 

[claninja]

That will happen at Christ's future second coming. Unless you think somehow that all the righteous blood shed since 70 AD won't be avenged?

Christ stated all the righteous blood would fall upon the wicked scribes, pharisees, lawyers, and those who killed the prophets:

matthew 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,f whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

luke 11;50-51 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

Christ stated the destruction of Jerusalem would fulfill all that is written about the days of vengeance

Luke 21:22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

So I'll stick with Scripture: the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled the avenging of righteous blood, for the killing of prophets and murdering Christ. Christ being the reason anyone has "righteous blood".

I disagree. The following verse indicates that when He comes it will happen fast/quickly/speedily.

I can concede with your position on Matthew 24:27 in regards to "speed", if in fact Christ is using the lightning simile to describe how fast his coming is.

While, I know you won't care about any of these commentaries, my point is only to show the readers, that there are other non full preterists that apply this same passage to Christ coming in vengeance upon jerusalem. I would agree with the following commentaries that this passage can be applied to Christ's coming in judgment upon Israel in 70ad, and can concede that it can possibly refer to his future unknown coming.

Ellicot
The disciples in their questions (Matthew 24:3) had connected the destruction of Jerusalem with the “coming” of their Lord, and the two are connected even in His own words and thoughts. In whatever way He came, whether in the final destruction of the Temple and polity of Israel, or at the end of the world’s great drama, the advent would be sudden and unlooked-for as the lightning-flash.

Benson
The coming of the Son of man shall be in a very different manner, and for very different ends from what you are imagining. It shall be like lightning, swift, unexpected, and destructive. His appearance will be as distinguishable from that of every false Christ, as lightning, which shines all round the hemisphere, is from a blaze of straw. What Bishop Pearce observes from Josephus is very memorable, that “the Roman army entered into Judea on the east side of it, and carried on their conquests westward, as if not only the extensiveness of the ruin, but the very route which the army would take, was intended in the comparison of the lightning coming out of the east, and shining even unto the west.” For wheresoever the carcass is, &c. — For though the coming of the Son of man shall be like lightning, swift, spreading, and destructive, yet he will not come personally; his servants only shall come, the Roman armies, who by his command shall destroy this nation as eagles devour their prey. Thus our Lord, after his usual manner, applies a proverbial expression with a particular meaning; and the Romans are very properly compared to eagles, both because eagles are the fiercest birds of prey, and because the Roman ensign was an eagle, to which probably our Lord alluded in this passage.

Barnes
The coming of the Son of man - It has been doubted whether this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to the coming at the day of judgment. For the solution of this doubt let it be remarked:

1. that those two events are the principal scenes in which our Lord said he would come, either in person or in judgment.

2. that the destruction of Jerusalem is described as his coming, his act.

3. that these events - the judgment of Jerusalem and the final judgment in many respects greatly resemble each other.

4. that they "will bear," therefore, to be described in the same language; and,

5. therefore, that the same words often include both events, as properly described by them.
The words had, doubtless, a primary reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but they had, at the same time, such an amplitude of meaning as also to express his coming to judgment.

Gill
and shineth even unto the west; to the western part of it, with great clearness; in a moment; in the twinkling of an eye, filling the whole intermediate space;

so shall also the coming of the son of man be; which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

***HOWEVER, what is interesting is that the passages in revelation 22 where Christ states "I am coming", the verb "I am coming" is present indicative active, and NOT future tense.

Notice, Paul uses future tense for "I will come", so by your argument, when Paul comes in the future, it will be speedily. Which I think is a possible understanding.

Philippians 2:24 and I trust in the Lord that I will come quickly.

However, Jesus states "I am coming" quickly, which is present tense. If quickly is to be understood as literal speedy, well 2,000 years isn't literally speedy.

revelation 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”

According to Strong's Lexicon on blueletterbible.org, the Greek word translated as "little" in Satan's "little season" is "mikros" and that is a different word than the one translated as "little" in Hebrews 10:37, which is "mikron".

Your argument that they are different words is incorrect. They are the same word. Adjectives will typically match the gender of the word they are describing.

In the TR, "while" is neuter, thus "little" is mikron, which is also neuter.

In the mGNT, "while" is masculine, thus "little" is mikros, which is masculine

hebrews 10:37 (TR) For, “Yet a little (neuter) while (neuter), and the coming one will come and will not delay;

Hebrews 10:37 (CT): For, “Yet a little (masculine) while (masculine), and the coming one will come and will not delay;

Again, the word is the same, the only difference is the ending, which matches the gender of the word it is describing. So it is completely wrong to state they are different words. Therefore, your counter argument doesn't work.

If you want to think that Satan's little season can last at least 2,000 years, so be it, but I don't find that to be plausible.

I agree mikros/mikron = literally short. I believe both are literally short. I was simply stating it is more consistent for you, or any futurist, to argue they both mean the opposite of the definition.

its pretty inconsistent for you to argue that mikron/mikros is not literally short in hebrews 10:37 about Christ's coming, but is literally short in revelation 20:3 in regards to Satan's little season.

 

[Bob_1000]

Christ stated all the righteous blood would fall upon the wicked scribes, pharisees, lawyers, and those who killed the prophets:

matthew 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,f whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

luke 11;50-51 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

Christ stated the destruction of Jerusalem would fulfill all that is written about the days of vengeance

Luke 21:22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

So I'll stick with Scripture: the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled the avenging of righteous blood, for the killing of prophets and murdering Christ. Christ being the reason anyone has "righteous blood".




I can concede with your position on Matthew 24:27 in regards to "speed", if in fact Christ is using the lightning simile to describe how fast his coming is.

While, I know you won't care about any of these commentaries, my point is only to show the readers, that there are other non full preterists that apply this same passage to Christ coming in vengeance upon jerusalem. I would agree with the following commentaries that this passage can be applied to Christ's coming in judgment upon Israel in 70ad, and can concede that it can possibly refer to his future unknown coming.

Ellicot
The disciples in their questions (Matthew 24:3) had connected the destruction of Jerusalem with the “coming” of their Lord, and the two are connected even in His own words and thoughts. In whatever way He came, whether in the final destruction of the Temple and polity of Israel, or at the end of the world’s great drama, the advent would be sudden and unlooked-for as the lightning-flash.

Benson
The coming of the Son of man shall be in a very different manner, and for very different ends from what you are imagining. It shall be like lightning, swift, unexpected, and destructive. His appearance will be as distinguishable from that of every false Christ, as lightning, which shines all round the hemisphere, is from a blaze of straw. What Bishop Pearce observes from Josephus is very memorable, that “the Roman army entered into Judea on the east side of it, and carried on their conquests westward, as if not only the extensiveness of the ruin, but the very route which the army would take, was intended in the comparison of the lightning coming out of the east, and shining even unto the west.” For wheresoever the carcass is, &c. — For though the coming of the Son of man shall be like lightning, swift, spreading, and destructive, yet he will not come personally; his servants only shall come, the Roman armies, who by his command shall destroy this nation as eagles devour their prey. Thus our Lord, after his usual manner, applies a proverbial expression with a particular meaning; and the Romans are very properly compared to eagles, both because eagles are the fiercest birds of prey, and because the Roman ensign was an eagle, to which probably our Lord alluded in this passage.

Barnes
The coming of the Son of man - It has been doubted whether this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to the coming at the day of judgment. For the solution of this doubt let it be remarked:

1. that those two events are the principal scenes in which our Lord said he would come, either in person or in judgment.

2. that the destruction of Jerusalem is described as his coming, his act.

3. that these events - the judgment of Jerusalem and the final judgment in many respects greatly resemble each other.

4. that they "will bear," therefore, to be described in the same language; and,

5. therefore, that the same words often include both events, as properly described by them.
The words had, doubtless, a primary reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but they had, at the same time, such an amplitude of meaning as also to express his coming to judgment.

Gill
and shineth even unto the west; to the western part of it, with great clearness; in a moment; in the twinkling of an eye, filling the whole intermediate space;

so shall also the coming of the son of man be; which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

***HOWEVER, what is interesting is that the passages in revelation 22 where Christ states "I am coming", the verb "I am coming" is present indicative active, and NOT future tense.

Notice, Paul uses future tense for "I will come", so by your argument, when Paul comes in the future, it will be speedily. Which I think is a possible understanding.

Philippians 2:24 and I trust in the Lord that I will come quickly.

However, Jesus states "I am coming" quickly, which is present tense. If quickly is to be understood as literal speedy, well 2,000 years isn't literally speedy.

revelation 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”



Your argument that they are different words is incorrect. They are the same word. Adjectives will typically match the gender of the word they are describing.

In the TR, "while" is neuter, thus "little" is mikron, which is also neuter.

In the mGNT, "while" is masculine, thus "little" is mikros, which is masculine

hebrews 10:37 (TR) For, “Yet a little (neuter) while (neuter), and the coming one will come and will not delay;

Hebrews 10:37 (CT): For, “Yet a little (masculine) while (masculine), and the coming one will come and will not delay;

Again, the word is the same, the only difference is the ending, which matches the gender of the word it is describing. So it is completely wrong to state they are different words. Therefore, your counter argument doesn't work.



I agree mikros/mikron = literally short. I believe both are literally short. I was simply stating it is more consistent for you, or any futurist, to argue they both mean the opposite of the definition.

its pretty inconsistent for you to argue that mikron/mikros is not literally short in hebrews 10:37 about Christ's coming, but is literally short in revelation 20:3 in regards to Satan's little season.

Just throwing this out there for you to consider, you don't have to agree. Matthew 24:27 was fulfilled in Matthew 28:2-3 when the angel of the Lord (Jesus) whose countenance was like LIGHTNING descended from heaven and rolled away the stone and sat on it.

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Mat 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Mat 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

 

[claninja]

The contrast in Revelation 20 is clear. It is comparative. We have a long period (the thousand years) where Satan is bound and a short period (Satan’s little season) where he is released to wreck havoc before the end

I absolutely agree that WITHIN the vision a long period of 1,000 years is followed by a little season for satan. I just disagree with how you interpret that.

1.) I disagree it refers to souls going to heaven to reign in heaven as such is not supported by gospel or epistolic evidence.

2.) the "long period" of 1,000 years is not consistent with the belief of the apostles that Christ would come in their life time:

i.) The author of hebrews stated that Christ would come in a little while and not delay. The word for little in revelation 20:3 about satan's little season, is the same greek word for little in hebrews 10:37 about Christ's coming. This is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period prior to the coming of Christ.

ii.) James (James 5:8-9), stated Christ's parousia had drawn near. The verb is in the perfect indicative active, thus the drawing near was a completed action. This is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period of time prior to the coming of Christ

iii.) Paul stated the end of the ages had come up on them (1 corinthians 10:11). This is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period of time prior to the coming of Christ.

iv.) John stated it was the last hour (1 john 2:18-19). This is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period of time prior to the coming of Christ.

v.) Peter stated the end of the all things had drawn near (1 peter 4:7). the the verb had drawn near is a perfect indicative active, thus had drawn near was a completed action. this is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period of time prior to the coming of Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I absolutely agree that WITHIN the vision a long period of 1,000 years is followed by a little season for satan. I just disagree with how you interpret that.

1.) I disagree it refers to souls going to heaven to reign in heaven as such is not supported by gospel or epistolic evidence.

2.) the "long period" of 1,000 years is not consistent with the belief of the apostles that Christ would come in their life time:

i.) The author of hebrews stated that Christ would come in a little while and not delay. The word for little in revelation 20:3 about satan's little season, is the same greek word for little in hebrews 10:37 about Christ's coming. This is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period prior to the coming of Christ.

ii.) James (James 5:8-9), stated Christ's parousia had drawn near. The verb is in the perfect indicative active, thus the drawing near was a completed action. This is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period of time prior to the coming of Christ

iii.) Paul stated the end of the ages had come up on them (1 corinthians 10:11). This is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period of time prior to the coming of Christ.

iv.) John stated it was the last hour (1 john 2:18-19). This is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period of time prior to the coming of Christ.

v.) Peter stated the end of the all things had drawn near (1 peter 4:7). the the verb had drawn near is a perfect indicative active, thus had drawn near was a completed action. this is not consistent with the 1,000 years being a literal long period of time prior to the coming of Christ.

You are ducking around the issue again. Are you saying the thousand years represents between David and Christ and Satan's littler season is from Christ to His literal physical final return in the future? If not please explain your position without all the supposed supporting "evidence."

 

[claninja]

You are ducking around the issue again. Are you saying the thousand years represents between David and Christ and Satan's littler season is from Christ to His literal physical final return in the future? If not please explain your position without all the supposed supporting "evidence."

1.) I don’t believe the reign of the saints with Christ is limited to a literal 1,000 years nor a symbolic 2,000 + year time period. The saints reign with Christ forever.

2.) while I believe the saints who are raised from spiritual death are presently a royal priesthood to God while on earth , I also believe the saints, who will continue to be Gods royal priesthood forever, are rewarded with authority over nations and the right to sit on throne with Christ at the resurrection.

3.) I believe the vision of revelation 20:4-5 “blocks” these events (raised from spiritual death and bodily resurrection) together, not in chronology, but in purpose: rewarding of the overcoming saints. Another clue that these are blocked together is because the rewarding of the saints is no where mentioned at the end of revelation 20, when the sea, death, and hades give up their dead to be judged by the 2nd death.


4.) I believe John is seeing these blocked together events (raised from spiritual death and future resurrection) as one event through the lens of Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection. As the first resurrection takes place over 1,000 years WITHIN the vision, I would argue , the entirety of 1,000 years is intrinsically tied to Christ’s resurrection, which destroyed the works of the devil and fulfilled Gods oath to David. In other words, I interpret the entire 1,000 years as Christ’s resurrection.

5.) it is upon christs resurrection and ascension that Satan was cast out and making war against the saints. Thus the apostles make many mentions of Satan’s activities, but their hope was that Christ was coming quickly and Satan would be crushed quickly.

 

[Bob_1000]

I don't think this has been considered so I'm going to put it there so that maybe it will help someone.

The resurrection of the just and the unjust happen at the same time and it happens on the LAST DAY.

Both verse 4 and verse 5 are the FIRST Resurrection aka the resurrection of the just. The resurrection of the unjust happens that exact same day - the LAST DAY but the resurrection of the unjust isn't discussed in either verse.... both verses are about the resurrection of the just.

Rev 20:4 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.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

[sovereigngrace]

1.) I don’t believe the reign of the saints with Christ is limited to a literal 1,000 years nor a symbolic 2,000 + year time period. The saints reign with Christ forever.

2.) while I believe the saints who are raised from spiritual death are presently a royal priesthood to God while on earth , I also believe the saints, who will continue to be Gods royal priesthood forever, are rewarded with authority over nations and the right to sit on throne with Christ at the resurrection.

3.) I believe the vision of revelation 20:4-5 “blocks” these events (raised from spiritual death and bodily resurrection) together, not in chronology, but in purpose: rewarding of the overcoming saints. Another clue that these are blocked together is because the rewarding of the saints is no where mentioned at the end of revelation 20, when the sea, death, and hades give up their dead to be judged by the 2nd death.


4.) I believe John is seeing these blocked together events (raised from spiritual death and future resurrection) as one event through the lens of Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection. As the first resurrection takes place over 1,000 years WITHIN the vision, I would argue , the entirety of 1,000 years is intrinsically tied to Christ’s resurrection, which destroyed the works of the devil and fulfilled Gods oath to David. In other words, I interpret the entire 1,000 years as Christ’s resurrection.

5.) it is upon christs resurrection and ascension that Satan was cast out and making war against the saints. Thus the apostles make many mentions of Satan’s activities, but their hope was that Christ was coming quickly and Satan would be crushed quickly.

This is as clear as mud. You are totally fudging the issue. This is what Hahnism produces. It is a man-made doctrine that doesn't make any logical or biblical sense.

So, you render the thousand years a delusion or an illusion? You then attribute them to a thousand years before the first resurrection (between David and Christ) when the text applies it to a time after. You then recognize the reigning of the saints but then cannot apply it to the thousand years, which you have just rendered an illusion. You make the thousand years a brief event and Satan's little season a protracted period of thousands of years.

 

[claninja]

It is a man-made doctrine that doesn't make any logical or biblical sense.

hate to break it to you, but as no interpretation is given for the revelation 20, all “systematic theologies” like Amil, post, or premil are man made doctrines in attempt to understand it.

So, you render the thousand years a delusion or an illusion?

symbolic for the realized promises to the saints as seen through Christ’s resurrection. The saints reign forever with Christ, but called the 1,000 years pointing to the fulfillment of the Davidic oath in which David’s fallen tent has been restored.

You make the thousand years a brief event and Satan's little season a protracted period of thousands of years.

I don’t believe Satan’s little season is thousands of year. I just said it would be more consistent for futurist to believe that.

again, Hebrews 10:37 uses the same Greek word for “little” that revelation 20:3 uses. One for Christ’s coming which should occur in a little while without delay and one for Satan’s little season.

so, this multi thousand year millennium (Amil) followed by Satan’s little season is clearly absent in the gospels and epistles, as they believed Christ would come literally soon and Satan was to be crushed soon.

 

[DavidPT]

I don’t believe Satan’s little season is thousands of year.

If you don't believe that to be the case, yet believe his little season began with Christ's ascension, there already appears to be a conflict with what is recorded in Revelation 20. Revelation 20 records that those in verse 8, at the end of of satan's little season they are devoured by fire from God out of heaven, which is then followed by satan getting cast into the LOF, followed by the great white throne judgment of humans. In your mind you already found a solution for verse 10, though I fully disagree with your proposed solution, but what about verses 11-15 then?

Plus, if the wicked are devoured by fire from God out of heaven at the end of satan's little season, and if you don't believe his little season is thousands of years, where did all of the wicked come from again after they were already devoured in verse 9? And why would there be a gap of thousands of years after verse 9 until that of verses 11-15? As to those verses, in order to fulfill them it requires that there has to be a bodily resurrection from the dead first.

Though you might not agree with other Amils here nor Premils, between what you are proposing, what other Amils are proposing, and what Premils are proposing, what you are proposing has zero chance of being correct. I don't even know why you interpret things in the manner you do when it obviously conflicts with the bigger picture? You seem to be interpreting a lot of these things in a vacuum, as if the first century is the only century that matters, the only century that counts. As if everything needing to be fulfilled, every single thing was fulfilled in the first century.

If the end of this present earth age would have ended in the first century, thus no 2nd century after that, no 3rd century, no 4th century, etc, maybe then some of what you are proposing might work. But then we wouldn't be having this debate in the 21st century if the entire earth age ended in the first century.

 

[sovereigngrace]

If you don't believe that to be the case, yet believe his little season began with Christ's ascension, there already appears to be a conflict with what is recorded in Revelation 20. Revelation 20 records that those in verse 8, at the end of of satan's little season they are devoured by fire from God out of heaven, which is then followed by satan getting cast into the LOF, followed by the great white throne judgment of humans. In your mind you already found a solution for verse 10, though I fully disagree with your proposed solution, but what about verses 11-15 then?

Plus, if the wicked are devoured by fire from God out of heaven at the end of satan's little season, and if you don't believe his little season is thousands of years, where did all of the wicked come from again after they were already devoured in verse 9? And why would there be a gap of thousands of years after verse 9 until that of verses 11-15? As to those verses, in order to fulfill them it requires that there has to be a bodily resurrection from the dead first.

Though you might not agree with other Amils here nor Premils, between what you are proposing, what other Amils are proposing, and what Premils are proposing, what you are proposing has zero chance of being correct. I don't even know why you interpret things in the manner you do when it obviously conflicts with the bigger picture? You seem to be interpreting a lot of these things in a vacuum, as if the first century is the only century that matters, the only century that counts. As if everything needing to be fulfilled, every single thing was fulfilled in the first century.

If the end of this present earth age would have ended in the first century, thus no 2nd century after that, no 3rd century, no 4th century, etc, maybe then some of what you are proposing might work. Of course though, we wouldn't be having this debate in the 21st century if the entire earth age ended in the first century.

He is obsessed with AD70 and the coming of Titus. Bible-believing Amils, Premils and Postmils are obsessed with Jesus Christ, His life, death, resurrection and His glorious return.

 

[sovereigngrace]

symbolic for the realized promises to the saints as seen through Christ’s resurrection. The saints reign forever with Christ, but called the 1,000 years pointing to the fulfillment of the Davidic oath in which David’s fallen tent has been restored.




I don’t believe Satan’s little season is thousands of year. I just said it would be more consistent for futurist to believe that.

again, Hebrews 10:37 uses the same Greek word for “little” that revelation 20:3 uses. One for Christ’s coming which should occur in a little while without delay and one for Satan’s little season.

so, this multi thousand year millennium (Amil) followed by Satan’s little season is clearly absent in the gospels and epistles, as they believed Christ would come literally soon and Satan was to be crushed soon.

It is hard to know where to start with your theology. It is so way off base and nonsensical that it does not remotely add up. You render the detail, facts and events in Revelation 20 worthless and irrelevant. You now turn the thousand years and Satan's little season into an apparition. It is not real time and what occurs within it is simply a delusion. Hahnism should be rejected for what it is - flagrant false teaching.

You totally miss the fact that the binding of Satan for a thousand years and the ruling and reigning of the saints for the same is a result (and consequence) of the victory of the first resurrection.

This teaching is so irrational. Please tell us:

1. When did the thousand years commence?
2. What triggered it?
3. What in reality results from it?
4. When does it end?
5. How does it end?
6. When does Satan’s little season commence?
7. What in reality results from it?
8. When does it end?
9. How does it end?

You make Premil compelling.

 

[sovereigngrace]

hate to break it to you, but as no interpretation is given for the revelation 20, all “systematic theologies” like Amil, post, or premil are man made doctrines in attempt to understand it.




symbolic for the realized promises to the saints as seen through Christ’s resurrection. The saints reign forever with Christ, but called the 1,000 years pointing to the fulfillment of the Davidic oath in which David’s fallen tent has been restored.




I don’t believe Satan’s little season is thousands of year. I just said it would be more consistent for futurist to believe that.

again, Hebrews 10:37 uses the same Greek word for “little” that revelation 20:3 uses. One for Christ’s coming which should occur in a little while without delay and one for Satan’s little season.

so, this multi thousand year millennium (Amil) followed by Satan’s little season is clearly absent in the gospels and epistles, as they believed Christ would come literally soon and Satan was to be crushed soon.

Where does the gospels and epistles teach that the thousand years and Satan’s little season are a delusion or an illusion?

 

[DavidPT]

Where does the gospels and epistles teach that the thousand years and Satan’s little season are a delusion or an illusion?

Speaking of the gospels, since the Discourse records the 2nd coming, and that per Amil satan's little season precedes the 2nd coming, where do Amils propose satan's little season is recorded in the Discourse? And still speaking of the Discourse since it obviously involves the past 2000 years, which portions do Amils propose involve the thousand years?


So, IOW, in the Discourse which portions involve the thousand years and which portions involve satan's little season? As to which portions involve the 2nd coming, a lot of us are already in agreement about which portions involve that. No need to have to include that as well.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

1.) I don’t believe the reign of the saints with Christ is limited to a literal 1,000 years nor a symbolic 2,000 + year time period. The saints reign with Christ forever.

2.) while I believe the saints who are raised from spiritual death are presently a royal priesthood to God while on earth , I also believe the saints, who will continue to be Gods royal priesthood forever, are rewarded with authority over nations and the right to sit on throne with Christ at the resurrection.

What do you believe the dead in Christ are doing right now?

3.) I believe the vision of revelation 20:4-5 “blocks” these events (raised from spiritual death and bodily resurrection) together, not in chronology, but in purpose: rewarding of the overcoming saints. Another clue that these are blocked together is because the rewarding of the saints is no where mentioned at the end of revelation 20, when the sea, death, and hades give up their dead to be judged by the 2nd death.

The rewarding of the saints is mentioned in Revelation 21:1-4 which obviously immediately follows the end of Revelation 20. We will inherit the eternal new heavens and new earth at the conclusion of the judgment. Matthew 25:31-46 makes it clear that both believers and unbelievers will be present at the judgment.

4.) I believe John is seeing these blocked together events (raised from spiritual death and future resurrection) as one event through the lens of Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection. As the first resurrection takes place over 1,000 years WITHIN the vision, I would argue , the entirety of 1,000 years is intrinsically tied to Christ’s resurrection, which destroyed the works of the devil and fulfilled Gods oath to David. In other words, I interpret the entire 1,000 years as Christ’s resurrection.

I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense and can't be taken seriously. The thousand years clearly has a beginning and and end and is clearly connected with Christ's reign and with the binding of Satan. Your explanation of the thousand years seems to ignore all of that.

5.) it is upon christs resurrection and ascension that Satan was cast out and making war against the saints. Thus the apostles make many mentions of Satan’s activities, but their hope was that Christ was coming quickly and Satan would be crushed quickly.

Are you saying that you think Satan was loosed upon Christ's resurrection and ascension? If so, you have it all mixed up. That is when he was bound. If you think he was loosed upon Christ's resurrection and ascension, then when was he bound?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don’t believe Satan’s little season is thousands of year. I just said it would be more consistent for futurist to believe that.

No, you gave the impression that YOU believed that. You are almost impossible to follow. Please tell me when you believe Satan's little season began and when it ended.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Speaking of the gospels, since the Discourse records the 2nd coming, and that per Amil satan's little season precedes the 2nd coming, where do Amils propose satan's little season is recorded in the Discourse? And still speaking of the Discourse since it obviously involves the past 2000 years, which portions do Amils propose involve the thousand years?


So, IOW, in the Discourse which portions involve the thousand years and which portions involve satan's little season? As to which portions involve the 2nd coming, a lot of us are already in agreement about which portions involve that. No need to have to include that as well.

What do you mean by "the Discourse"?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don't think this has been considered so I'm going to put it there so that maybe it will help someone.

The resurrection of the just and the unjust happen at the same time and it happens on the LAST DAY.

Both verse 4 and verse 5 are the FIRST Resurrection aka the resurrection of the just. The resurrection of the unjust happens that exact same day - the LAST DAY but the resurrection of the unjust isn't discussed in either verse.... both verses are about the resurrection of the just.

Rev 20:4 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.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Those who have had part in the first resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5), live and reign with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead are the rest who do not live and reign with Christ and they do not have part in the first resurrection since they are not resurrected until AFTER the thousand years is over. The rest of the dead are the unjust. They get resurrected after the thousand years and after Satan's little season and then face judgment, as recorded in Revelation 20:11-15.

You apparently are not recognizing that when it says in verse 5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", it is a parenthetical statement and has nothing to do with the first resurrection. The statement "This is the first resurrection" refers back to verse 4. So, it is the ones described in verse 4 who have part in the first resurrection, not "the rest of the dead".