Short post: The blissful ignorance of Amillennialism's lack of End-Times-Tables

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,683
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,689.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I could say the same of you
The text of Revelation 20:4-6 does not say that Jesus is the First Resurrection, as defined by the text in verse 4.

You would be correct to say that Jesus was the first to be resurrected into the Kingdom of God.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The traditional Amil would argue that in Ephesians, Paul uses the past tense verb to show that we have already been seated in heaven with Christ in a figurative sense, during this earthly life:

ephesians 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated (aorist) us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

So do we not also already have all the blessings listed in Chapter 1? What makes you split off the blessings listed in Chapter 2 from 1 as somehow in the future?

However, the traditional Amil also argues that in a literal sense the believer is seated with Christ when their soul goes to heaven upon physical death, prior to the final resurrection of the dead
Some do - some are 'soul sleep' or 'you go straight to the Last Day'. It's not really important to the Amil position either way.

Revelation 20:4 And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years
It's a picture of our safety in Christ. But as you have already noted, there are different ways John pictures the martyrs in heaven in different chapters. One emphasises that their blood cries out for justice - one emphasises that they in a sense reign with Christ - where Christ is (not he does NOT return to earth in chapter 20) - during this time of trouble. Either way, they're safe with Christ and these are just different images of them in heaven.

They're not contradicting each other - just on different subjects. Revelation is not a timeline but a waltz, not a timetable but a sermon of encouragement to keep going. So it makes sense that John would describe some subjects from different angles. We have nature in chaos, tyrants persecuting the church, Satan inspiring governments to attack the church, Satan being limited from deceiving the nations and stopping the gospel going forth (Rev 20) - all overlapping and describing the same 'gazillion years' between Jesus Resurrection and his Return.

PS: It would be easier to read your posts if you didn't make the whole lot bold. Save the bold for emphasis. Emphasising the whole lot at once loses emphasis.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It's a timetable in the fact that the Lord's day has not transpired yet, Christ hasn't returned. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, the day he returns and was told to write what he has seen, what is, and what will be from that time frame -the Lord's day. No prediction here other than knowing that this is a future timeframe.
Assertion is not evidence.
There is only the sudden climactic Day of Judgement separating us in this existence from the next. It all happens together - there is no long series of seals and bowls and trumpets - as they are inside each other like Matryoshka dolls. Revelation is parallel, not sequential, a waltz around and around, not a forward march.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It all depends on how one looks at it. This would certainly be true of any resurrection after Christ's if it involves a resurrection unto damnation. But if the first resurrection is a type of resurrection, a resurrection involving waking to eternal life rather than waking to damnation, there could be a million resurrection events all happening at different times, like that, after Christ's resurrection, and it would still be the first resurrection. I'm not literally suggesting millions of resurrection events all happening at different times, I'm just using that as an example in order to try and make a point.


No matter how you look at it, none of the lost are ever raised before all the saved are first. It also makes it the first resurrection when looking at it like that as well.
The only resurrection that is described as the first resurrection elsewhere in scripture besides Revelation 20 is Christ's resurrection. That's something that I think needs to be taken into serious consideration when determining what the first resurrection actually is and what having part in the first resurrection means.

The phrase "first resurrection" in Revelation 20 is translated from the Greek words prōtos (Strong's G4413) and anastasis (Strong's G386). The only other verse in scripture where those 2 Greek words are found together like that is in this verse:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (prōtos) that should rise (anastasis) from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Other verses refer to Christ as being the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18, Rev 1:5) and as being "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Cor 15:20), so those verses also speak of Jesus's resurrection as being the first resurrection. The sense in which His resurrection was the first should be obvious. It was the first resurrection unto bodily immortality. Next in order to be resurrected unto bodily immortality, according to 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, will be those who belong to Christ at His second coming. So, that future resurrection of the dead in Christ at His second coming cannot be the first resurrection since scripture teaches that Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eclipsenow
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The only resurrection that is described as the first resurrection elsewhere in scripture besides Revelation 20 is Christ's resurrection. That's something that I think needs to be taken into serious consideration when determining what the first resurrection actually is and what having part in the first resurrection means.

The phrase "first resurrection" in Revelation 20 is translated from the Greek words prōtos (Strong's G4413) and anastasis (Strong's G386). The only other verse in scripture where those 2 Greek words are found together like that is in this verse:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (prōtos) that should rise (anastasis) from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Other verses refer to Christ as being the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18, Rev 1:5) and as being "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Cor 15:20), so those verses also speak of Jesus's resurrection as being the first resurrection. The sense in which His resurrection was the first should be obvious. It was the first resurrection unto bodily immortality. Next in order to be resurrected unto bodily immortality, according to 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, will be those who belong to Christ at His second coming. So, that future resurrection of the dead in Christ at His second coming cannot be the first resurrection since scripture teaches that Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection.
Exactly.
It all happens together!
 
Upvote 0

JulieB67

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2020
1,572
726
56
Ohio US
✟147,750.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
John indicates 4 times in Chapter 1 of Revelation that 'these things' he's discussing will start soon - and that the whole book is probably about the Roman persecution of the church.

Assertion is not evidence.
There is only the sudden climactic Day of Judgement separating us in this existence from the next.

So the next event that you think will happen is Christ returning at the end?

What is your interpretation of this verse?

Revelation 22:7 "Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Do you believe that Christ has already returned going by your beliefs?
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I kind of agree with you here? That word on its own can be like that - you've found the instance near the end of Revelation. It's one of those "Repent for today is the day of salvation" kind of soons - a bit ambiguous - Lord's timetable, unknowable stuff.

But Revelation is like 1 Corinthians or other epistles. It's written to a specific group of Christians at a specific time about their specific suffering - but it's written in apocalyptic symbolism. This is like the comic-book writing of the bible era - popular 200BC to 200AD - so no wonder modern westerners just reading their bibles have no idea what to do with it.

John indicates 4 times in Chapter 1 of Revelation that 'these things' he's discussing will start soon - and that the whole book is probably about the Roman persecution of the church.
1. "to show his servants what must soon take place"
2. " blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it" - how could the early church obey something that was addressed to Christians 2000 years later?
3. "because the time is near."
4. he SHARES in their tribulation! - John was already in jail because of Rome.
Basically, if Revelation is some sort of timetable that only the last generation will understand:-

  • what good has it been for the church for the last 2000 years?
  • Why can't anyone agree on this end-times timetable? ;-) Why is it so vague when Jesus and his death and resurrection and the epistles about him are mostly fairly clear?
  • Compare that to Amillennials that see it as a book that neatly describes the Roman persecution of the church, Roman temptation to Christians of money wealth and empire, and Roman appeal to trusting in State security rather than God's eternal security. In this case, Revelation has been a relevant warning and encouragement to all Christians in all societies for the last 2000 years. In fact, Christians I know of who have been persecuted in Muslim countries read it this way and laugh at the idea John is talking about a future suffering. They think it silly that John would write to his suffering generation and basically say "You think you've got it bad - wait till you see what happens in 2000 years!"
  • The return of Christ at the end isn't a timetable of events but gospel vision and encouragement - it's a sermon reminding us to keep going no matter what happens. It even describes the return of Jesus in judgement from 3 different points of view - repeating the same one magnificent event from 3 camera-views - none of which work in chronological order.
  • Phd in Ancient History, theologian and retired Sydney Anglican Bishop Dr Paul Barnett explains further in "Apocalypse Now and Then". https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-now-then-reading-Revelation/dp/0949108421
  • I recommend learning Amil theology as it will free modern Christians from the endless fretting over which credit card or computer chip might be the 'mark of the beast' and being diverted by endless speculation over geopolitical matters and how they fit into a 'Revelation timetable'. Amil will help rather focus them on living for Christ each day and being more compassionate in their local affairs and realistic in their politics.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So do we not also already have all the blessings listed in Chapter 1? What makes you split off the blessings listed in Chapter 2 from 1 as somehow in the future?

chapter 1 of what? Not sure what your talking about. I simply asked when the rewards of chapter 2 and 3 of revelation are actually rewarded

Some do - some are 'soul sleep' or 'you go straight to the Last Day'. It's not really important to the Amil position either way.

Sure, but such is the minority view of Traditional Amil.

The timing of the doling out of rewards, such as reigning over nations and sitting in Christ’s throne, to the overcoming saints is absolutely important to the interpretation of revelation 20:4.

They're not contradicting each other -

being under the alter and resting/crying out for vengeance is completely different than sitting on the throne and reigning.



PS: It would be easier to read your posts if you didn't make the whole lot bold. Save the bold for emphasis. Emphasising the whole lot at once loses emphasis.

Cool…This has nothing to do with my argument though.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It all depends on how one looks at it. This would certainly be true of any resurrection after Christ's if it involves a resurrection unto damnation. But if the first resurrection is a type of resurrection, a resurrection involving waking to eternal life rather than waking to damnation, there could be a million resurrection events all happening at different times, like that, after Christ's resurrection, and it would still be the first resurrection. I'm not literally suggesting millions of resurrection events all happening at different times, I'm just using that as an example in order to try and make a point.


No matter how you look at it, none of the lost are ever raised before all the saved are first. It also makes it the first resurrection when looking at it like that as well.

In a sense, I’m looking at revelation 20:4-6 as a parenthetical prophetic perfect idiom.

Christ is clearly not only the first resurrection, but himself IS the resurrection, as such, those in Christ have been raised up, made a kingdom of priests, seated in heaven with Him to reign and never be hurt by the 2nd death.

In other words, John, in a symbolic vision, is witnessing the fulfilled and realized promises to the saints by means of Christ’s resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The only resurrection that is described as the first resurrection elsewhere in scripture besides Revelation 20 is Christ's resurrection. That's something that I think needs to be taken into serious consideration when determining what the first resurrection actually is and what having part in the first resurrection means.


I'm not seeing where anything I said would make that untrue. Christ rose first, and He obviously rose in the same type of resurrection the following do---they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life(John 5:29)---and not a resurrection like this instead---they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation(John 5:29). No one could possibly think those are the same type of resurrection. By 'type' I'm meaning what the event pertains to. One event in John 5:29 pertains to waking to life, while the other one pertains to waking to damnation.

1 Thessalonians 4 alone already proves the dead in Christ rise first. Why would this not be the first resurrection? It couldn't possibly be meaning when the rest of the dead live again after the thousand years, the 2nd resurrection, the final resurrection. Because if it does it means that the dead in Christ never had part in the first resurrection since they can't have part in the first resurrection and also have part in the 2nd resurrection involving the rest of the dead after the thousand years.

For the life of me I can't figure out why Amils would think the most important resurrection of all, besides Christ's, meaning the bodily resurrection of the saints, that John would neglect to even mention this resurrection in Revelation 20? Per Amil the first resurrection isn't meaning that resurrection. John only wrote about two resurrections in ch 20 though, not 3. If the first resurrection in ch 20 isn't the bodily resurrection of the saved, then where in ch 20 is that resurrection mentioned?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
chapter 1 of what? Not sure what your talking about.
We were talking about Ephesians 2 being 'seated with Christ' in a present, continuing sense and I was just pointing out that this is entirely consistent with Ephesians 1.

The timing of the doling out of rewards, such as reigning over nations and sitting in Christ’s throne, to the overcoming saints is absolutely important to the interpretation of revelation 20:4.
Is it? Why? They are before the heavenly thrones we saw earlier in Revelation. They are in heaven - not the earth - reigning with Christ - not over the nations on the earth. "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years" is all it says. It gives a martyr's eye view of heaven while the battle for the earth rages below.
being under the alter and resting/crying out for vengeance is completely different than sitting on the throne and reigning.
Exactly! Except they're not sitting on the thrones as these are the same heavenly thrones that are mentioned earlier in Revelation. Note - we see the thrones before we see the souls of the martyrs 'come to life' in heaven. This is like "Meanwhile, back in heaven...."
Rev 4: "Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads."
Rev 20 "Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads."
This is heaven. Not earth, heaven. And because this is "Meanwhile, in heaven during this period..." Jesus has not returned to earth yet. Jesus is in heaven with the heavenly thrones. That's how we get to Satan doing his thing on the earth later in the passage and then the end of the world AGAIN in Revelation 20.

The world ends in Revelation 6, Revelation 19, and Revelation 20.
As I keep saying, Revelation is a sermon - a waltz around various subjects - not a forward march or timeline.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We were talking about Ephesians 2 being 'seated with Christ' in a present, continuing sense and I was just pointing out that this is entirely consistent with Ephesians 1.

thank you for clarifying.

Now, can you clarify what you mean by chapter 1, because it says we haven’t yet received our inheritance, but only the Spirit as a guarantee. How does this relate to us being seated with Christ in a continuous present as you suggest? Unless sitting in heaven with Christ is not part of our reward?

Ephesians 2:13-14
13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,14who is the guaranteed of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,e to the praise of his glory.

how does this relate to revelation 3:21 which suggests our reward for sitting in heaven with Christ is future?


Is it? Why? They are before the heavenly thrones we saw earlier in Revelation. They are in heaven - not the earth - reigning with Christ - not over the nations on the earth. "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years" is all it says. It gives a martyr's eye view of heaven while the battle for the earth rages below.

Revelation 20 states the saints “live and reign” in association with the first resurrection.

these rewards of reigning with Christ (authority over nations/sitting on Christ’s throne revelation 2-3) are a big part of revelation 20:4.

As Christ rewards at his coming (revelation 22:12) , the premil will then say the first resurrection occurs at the 2nd coming.

the Amil must then counter by saying these rewards do not occur at the 2nd coming, but the first, as Christ is the first resurrection.

**Im not premil.


Exactly! Except they're not sitting on the thrones as these are the same heavenly thrones that are mentioned earlier in Revelation.

great, so then we agree that the post death souls being under the alter/resting/crying out to be avenged in revelation 6, is not the same event as the post death souls living and reigning with Christ in revelation 20?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
thank you for clarifying.

Now, can you clarify what you mean by chapter 1, because it says we haven’t yet received our inheritance, but only the Spirit as a guarantee. How does this relate to us being seated with Christ in a continuous present as you suggest? Unless sitting in heaven with Christ is not part of our reward?

Ephesians 2:13-14
13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,14who is the guaranteed of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,e to the praise of his glory.

how does this relate to revelation 3:21 which suggests our reward for sitting in heaven with Christ is future?

It's all getting a bit off topic but it illustrates the 'eschatological tension' of the age we live in. Now, but not yet. Reigning with Christ - but not physically reigning yet.




Revelation 20 states the saints “live and reign” in association with the first resurrection.

In heaven - where the thrones of authority are (Revelation 4)


these rewards of reigning with Christ (authority over nations/sitting on Christ’s throne revelation 2-3) are a big part of revelation 20:4.
Quote where it says they are reigning over the nations please? Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's all getting a bit off topic but it illustrates the 'eschatological tension' of the age we live in. Now, but not yet. Reigning with Christ - but not physically reigning yet.

So when do the saints physically live and reign with him?


In heaven - where the thrones of authority are (Revelation 4)

Does revelation 20 specifically state they are in heaven? It doesn’t but We assume that because Christ is reigning in heaven, correct?

Quote where it says they are reigning over the nations please? Thanks.

It doesn’t, but neither does it say they are reigning in heaven so your point is moot.

You assume Christ is reigning “in heaven” in rev 20. Therefore if the saints, in rev 20, reign with him they are in heaven.

I’m assuming Christ is reigning “over the nations” in rev 20 because revelation 1:5 and revelation 2:25-26 state he is presently reigning over the kings and nations. Therefore, the saints, In rev 20, that reign WITH HIM are also reigning over the kings and nations.



 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So when do the saints physically live and reign with him?
PHYSICALLY? WHY - THAT WOULD BE IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH.




Does revelation 20 specifically state they are in heaven? It doesn’t but We assume that because Christ is reigning in heaven, correct?

SOMETHING LIKE THAT - BUT ALSO NOTE THE THRONES WHICH WE FIRST SEE IN REV 4



It doesn’t, but neither does it say they are reigning in heaven so your point is moot.

ONLY IF YOU CHOP CHAPTER 4 OUT OF YOUR COPY OF REVELATION!

CHAPTER 4
At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne. 4 Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders.


You assume Christ is reigning “in heaven” in rev 20. Therefore if the saints, in rev 20, reign with him they are in heaven.
EXACTLY!

I’m assuming Christ is reigning “over the nations” in rev 20 because revelation 1:5 and revelation 2:25-26 state he is presently reigning over the kings and nations. Therefore, the saints, In rev 20, that reign WITH HIM are also reigning over the kings and nations.
MAYBE - BUT THIS IS ALL PICTURE LANGUAGE FOR THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN AND NOT A LITERAL MILLENNIUM REIGN ON THE EARTH
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ;)

PHYSICALLY? WHY - THAT WOULD BE IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH.

Agreed

SOMETHING LIKE THAT - BUT ALSO NOTE THE THRONES WHICH WE FIRST SEE IN REV 4

also note, Christ has authority over the nations as stated in revelation 2


ONLY IF YOU CHOP CHAPTER 4 OUT OF YOUR COPY OF REVELATION!

revelation 20 doesn’t mention the saints as being in heaven. It’s an assumption, as even you agreed when you said “EXACTLY”.


MAYBE - BUT THIS IS ALL PICTURE LANGUAGE FOR THE MARTYRS IN HEAVEN AND NOT A LITERAL MILLENNIUM REIGN ON THE EARTH

just a reminder I’m not a premil. (I’m actually a partial preterist)

i believe revelation 20:4 is simply a symbolic vision of the fulfilled promises to the saints as realized through Christ’s resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
also note, Christ has authority over the nations as stated in revelation 2

Exactly. He rules now in eschatological tension.

revelation 20 doesn’t mention the saints as being in heaven. It’s an assumption, as even you agreed when you said “EXACTLY”.
It's the most accurate interpretation of the symbols being used in John's writing that I've seen.


i believe revelation 20:4 is simply a symbolic vision of the fulfilled promises to the saints as realized through Christ’s resurrection.
But where are the Saints? Where are the martyrs? What is the 1000 years about?
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Great, so when does Christ award the overcoming saint of reigning over the nations?

revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

It's the most accurate interpretation of the symbols being used in John's writing that I've seen.

Right, and I agree, but it's still an assumption all the same based on Christ being in heaven and having authority over the nations.

But where are the Saints? Where are the martyrs?

If Christ is in heaven, sitting on the throne and reigning, then if the saints a reigning with him, it stands that they should also be in heaven.

What is the 1000 years about?

Scripture doesn't tell us, but it seems to me that it could refer to the fulfillment of the Davidic monarchy through Christ's resurrection, as david lived exactly 1,000 years prior to Christ.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Great, so when does Christ award the overcoming saint of reigning over the nations?

revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:


Let's start with the Scripture you presented here. Next let's add some of the following from a parable in Luke 19.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


It's usually agreed by pretty much everyone except maybe extreme Preterists, that A certain nobleman is meaning Christ. Went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, this is involving His ascension back into heaven where He is currently still in heaven. And that this--and to return--is meaning His bodily return to earth in the end of this age.

If we look at verse 15 we see that He has returned. If we look at verse 17 we see that one of these servants is rewarded with having authority over 10 cities. What is that all about and why would this be something one is rewarded with after He has returned? Per Amil there is no one left after He has returned other than saved saints that have put on bodily immortality. Whatever it means to have authority over ten cities, how could this possibly be relevant unless these cities still consist of mortals?

This parable tends to fit Premil and certainly not Amil. Could having authority over cities be the same as having power over the nations? I don't know for certain since I'm not entirety sure what is meant by having authority over ten cities, or five cities, etc.

What I am certain about is, that He has to bodily return first in order to even give anyone authority over cities. What I'm also certain about, this makes zero sense if everyone are in immortal bodies and no one but the saved are on the earth at the time. That's not the picture Zechariah 14:16-19 paints, though. The ones who might not come up, thus can be punished for not complying, couldn't possibly be meaning the saved who have put on bodily immortality at the 2nd coming. That seems to fit ruling them with a rod of iron, where the passage you brought up that I started with in this post, that too involves ruling them with a rod of iron, and that this power is also being given to overcomers.

How does any of this add up to Amil? That I will never figure out since most of it comes off as nonsensical if it's supposed to support Amil somehow, even if literal cities are not meant, though I don't see how they couldn't be since nations do involve cities. Why would immortals need to have authority over cities where other immortals are living? Why would immortals even be living in other cities to begin with? Why wouldn't they be living in the city that comes down from God out of heaven instead? Even Revelation 21-22 shows that there are still nations outside of the new Jerusalem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Great, so when does Christ award the overcoming saint of reigning over the nations?
revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Welleth, if you couldeth not be as boldeth in your fonteth, maybeth you caneth quoteth a moderner translationeth that mighteth casteth more lighteth?

Right, and I agree, but it's still an assumption all the same based on Christ being in heaven and having authority over the nations.
Which is what this age and eschatological tension are all about.

If Christ is in heaven, sitting on the throne and reigning, then if the saints a reigning with him, it stands that they should also be in heaven.

That's the picture we have in Rev 20

Scripture doesn't tell us, but it seems to me that it could refer to the fulfillment of the Davidic monarchy through Christ's resurrection, as david lived exactly 1,000 years prior to Christ.
Nah - it's Hebrew number symbolism for a gazillion years which is the period between Jesus Resurrection and Return. Those martyrs are with those who reign now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0