20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[sovereigngrace]

They have this witness. However, since it is historical prophetic fullfillment, which is anathema to a futurist, most will probably just dismiss it.

Sozomen (ca. A.D.375-447)
"Ecclesiastical History"
Book V, Chapter XXII

Though the emperor [Julian the Apostate] hated and opressed the Christians, he manifested benevolence and humanity towards the Jews. He wrote to the Jewish patriarchs and leaders, as well as to the people, requesting them to pray for him, and for the prosperity of the empire. In taking this step he was not actuated, I am convinced, by any respect for their religion; for he was aware that it is, so to speak, the mother of the Christian religion, and he knew that both religions rest upon the authority of the patriarchs and the prophets; but he thought to grieve the Christians by favoring the Jews, who are their most inveterate enemies. But perhaps he also calculated upon persuading the Jews to embrace paganism and sacrifices; for they were only acquainted with the mere letter of Scripture, and could not, like the Christians and a few of the wisest among the Hebrews, discern the hidden meaning.

Events proved that this was his real motive; for he sent for some of the chiefs of the race and exhorted them to return to the observance of the laws of Moses and the customs of their fathers. On their replying that because the temple in Jerusalem was overturned, it was neither lawful nor ancestral to do this in another place than the metropolis out of which they had been cast, he gave them public money, commanded them to rebuild the temple, and to practice the cult similar to that of their ancestors, by sacrificing after the ancient way. The Jews entered upon the undertaking, without reflecting that, according to the prediction of the holy prophets, it could not be accomplished. They sought for the most skillful artisans, collected materials, cleared the ground, and entered so earnestly upon the task, that even the women carried heaps of earth, and brought their necklaces and other female ornaments towards defraying the expense. The emperor, the other pagans, and all the Jews, regarded every other undertaking as secondary in importance to this. Although the pagans were not well-disposed towards the Jews, yet they assisted them in this enterprise, because they reckoned upon its ultimate success, and hoped by this means to falsify the prophecies of Christ. Besides this motive, the Jews themselves were impelled by the consideration that the time had arrived for rebuilding their temple. When they had removed the ruins of the former building, they dug up the ground and cleared away its foundation; it is said that on the following day when they were about to lay the first foundation, a great earthquake occurred, and by the violent agitation of the earth, stones were thrown up from the depths, by which those of the Jews who were engaged in the work were wounded, as likewise those who were merely looking on. The houses and public porticos, near the site of the temple, in which they had diverted themselves, were suddenly thrown down; many were caught thereby, some perished immediately, others were found half dead and mutilated of hands or legs, others were injured in other parts of the body. When God caused the earthquake to cease, the workmen who survived again returned to their task, partly because such was the edict of the emperor, and partly because they were themselves interested in the undertaking. Men often, in endeavoring to gratify their own passions, seek what is injurious to them, reject what would be truly advantageous, and are deluded-by the idea that nothing is really useful except what is agreeable to them. When once led astray by this error, they are no longer able to act in a manner conducive to their own interests, or to take warning by the calamities which are visited upon them.

The Jews, I believe, were just in this state; for, instead of regarding this unexpected earthquake as a manifest indication that God was opposed to the re-erection of their temple, they proceeded to recommence the work. But all parties relate, that they had scarcely returned to the undertaking, when fire burst suddenly from the foundations of the temple, and consumed several of the workmen.

This fact is fearlessly stated, and believed by all; the only discrepancy in the narrative is that some maintain that flame burst from the interior of the temple, as the workmen were striving to force an entrance, while others say that the fire proceeded directly from the earth. In whichever way the phenomenon might have occurred, it is equally wonderful. A more tangible and still more extraordinary prodigy ensued; suddenly the sign of the cross appeared spontaneously on the garments of the persons engaged in the undertaking. These crosses were disposed like stars, and appeared the work of art. Many were hence led to confess that Christ is God, and that the rebuilding of the temple was not pleasing to Him; others presented themselves in the church, were initiated, and besought Christ, with hymns and supplications, to pardon their transgression. If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive. Let him inquire, also, of the Jews and pagans who left the work in an incomplete state, or who, to speak more accurately, were able to commence it.

It is a sad indictment that the biggest promoters of this Jewish error today are supposed Bible-believing Christians.

 

[jgr]

But why do you say that? And what do you mean it "calls for". That Christians are wanting Jews to do animal sacrificing? That would be like saying because God merely revealed that children would be slaughtered at Bethlehem when Christ was born Jeremiah 31:15 that must mean followers of God would be like encouraging Herod to do such a thing. You know that wouldn't be true. So why do you say some Christians would want to see animal sacrifices. I mean if you can show me proof that Christians are encouraging this to happen I'll agree with you. Such would most certainly be wrong. So where's your proof this is happening?

Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom? | GotQuestions.org

This is official dispensational dogma on the issue.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom? | GotQuestions.org

This is official dispensational dogma on the issue.

This is official Premil theology bro. Even Reformed or Historic Premils advocate this nonsense. I used to hold such. I have also debated with them for years. They constantly want to pull us back into OT theology.

 

[jgr]

This is official Premil theology bro. Even Reformed or Historic Premils advocate this nonsense. I used to hold such. I have also debated with them for years. They constantly want to pull us back into OT theology.

I don't disagree. But is it found in the ECF-era premils?

 

[Yesha]

Since abandoning Premil I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premil doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.

(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine.

(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.

(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.

(4) Premil's interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scripture.

(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation. The interpretation placed on the Old Testament by Christ and the New Testament writers override all other opinions and interpretations of man. As Augustine wrote: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”

(6) Premil spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point.

(7) Premil lacks corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs on Revelation 20. Whether you look at the binding of Satan, the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming, the restoration of animal sacrifices in an alleged future millennium, a thousand years of peace, perfection and prosperity, two different judgment days, two different resurrection days, the rebellion of the wicked at the end of the millennium, these enjoy no other support in Scripture. I struggle with this, because the only way to authenticate and understand any doctrine is interpret it with other Scripture.

(8) Because these thousand years cannot be found anywhere else in Scripture, apart from the highly symbolic Revelation 20, Premil is forced to insert a thousand years in text after text where it doesn't exist. Objective Bible students should struggle with building their eschatology on the 3rd last chapter of the Bible, in a highly figurative setting, especially when we are supposedly talking about the 2nd greatest age ever. The scriptural silence elsewhere speaks loud to most of us!

(9) Premil is constantly exalting the power and influence of Satan and diluting the sovereign power and influence of Christ. That is nowhere more evident than in their constant rubbishing of Christ’s current kingship over His enemies at the right hand of majesty on high. Whether they mean to or not, Premils are always highlighting what Satan is doing in our day instead of what Christ is doing. Premil portrays a BIG devil and a small god; Scripture presents a small devil and a BIG God. In Premil, Satan seems sovereign in this age and God is curtailed. Premils are always lauding the ability of Satan since the cross. In Scripture, Christ is sovereign and Satan is curtailed. Scripture is always lauding the ability of Christ since the cross. As a consequence, Premil portrays an impotent beat-down New Testament Church, whereas Scripture sees a victorious potent New Testament Church invading the nations with the good news of Christ and subjugating the powers of darkness as they do so. In Scripture Christ reigns over all creation as God and His new creation as Saviour.

(10) Another major error that Premil makes is that it constantly presents the Old Testament as if the new covenant has never arrived. It is as if Jesus Christ has not come and fulfilled the old imperfect typical arrangement and introduced the new perfect eternal arrangement. It is as if the Old Testament promises have not been interpreted by the New Testament writers. What Premils insist is literal, physical, visible and earthly, the New Testament writers interpret as figurative, spiritual, invisible and heavenly. What Premils locate in their supposed future millennium, the New Testament writers locate in our current intra-Advent period.

(11) Because Premil lacks any corroboration in Scripture for a future 1,000 years’ age after the second coming, it invents 2 “last days” periods to allow Premil to fit. Mark 1 now, and Mark 2 after the second coming. Premils also invent 2 new heavens and new earths. Mark 1 they relate to their alleged future millennium and is sin-cursed and corrupt. Mark 2 is perfect and incorrupt and they equate it to 1,000 years+ after this.

(12) Premillennialists cannot even agree on the timing of the arrival of the new heavens and the new earth. They are split on whether Revelation 21 comes chronologically after Revelation 20 and therefore after the millennium kingdom and Satan’s little season in time or whether it is synonymous to that much-debated chapter and that the new heavens and new earth appears at the start of the millennium. This exposes another major weakness in the Premillennial camp: if they cannot even agree on something so simple and elementary as this in their main proof text, how can we trust their chronological approach to Revelation 19 and Revelation 20?

(13) Premil invents a 3rd group of humans that Scripture knows nothing of, that are too wicked to be raptured at the second coming and too righteous to be destroyed. It is these mortals, they argue, who populate their alleged future millennial earth. The reality is there are only two peoples in this world – the righteous and the unrighteous; those "in Adam" (the 1st birth) and those "in Christ" (2nd birth).

(14) Premil has an unhealthy obsessive focus on natural Israel, wrongly believing her to be God’s chosen people today under the new covenant. As a result, they have a mistaken fixation with natural Jerusalem in the Middle East, as if it is the epicentre of God’s workings with mankind on this earth and the place of His unconditional favour. This is wrong! They ignore much Scripture that shows that the fig tree has been cut down, the kingdom of God has been removed from Israel. Ancient Jerusalem and the temple therein was merely an Old Testament imperfect shadow of the heavenly reality that was revealed at the first advent. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that we have become one with spiritual believing Israel in the OT. It makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one new man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time!

(15) General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the living and the dead,” “every man,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men every where,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. This shows that the Premil’s boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.

(16) Premil takes common linguistic terms that are easily understood by the unindoctrinated observer in any language to mean the opposite to what they actually say. For example, Premil does not believe that "first" means first and "last" means last. The English words “first” and “last” are taken from the Greek words protos and eschatos and are widely accepted by all unbiased theologians to denote exactly what they say. The word protos means first, as in the foremost in time, place, order or importance. The word eschatos on the other hand means end, last, farthest and final. It is explicitly clear from their usage, meaning and context in the New Testament that these words are the exact antithesis of each other.

(17) Premil does not believe that “the end” refers to the end. The New Testament word from which we get our phrase “the end” is the Greek word telos which refers to the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. the conclusion of an act or state. It is the termination point of a thing. When Scripture simply talks about “the beginning” without any other additional words or contextual reason to identify it with a specific event, then most sane theologians agree it is talking about “the beginning” of creation. Whilst all sound theologians agree on this many are inconsistent when it comes to “the end.” The reason I believe is because it cuts across a lot of their end-time theology they have been taught. But I believe we should treat both sayings similarly. Unless Scripture specifically identifies “the end” with a particular event or matter like “the end of barley harvest” (Ruth 2:23) “the end of the sabbath” (Matt 28:1), “the end of the year” (2 Chron 24:23), “the end of the rod” (1 Sam 14:27), or “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim 1:5), etc, etc, then we should understand it as the end of the world (which is the end of the age).

Great post! I struggled with eschatology for most of my life because of the dominance of premillennial dispensationalism in American Christianity. One thing that made my begin questioning its Biblical grounding, among all that you have mentioned, was 1 Corinthians 15. The text seems to plainly state that the end of the old order will occur at the second coming, including the death of death. If so, then there can be no room for an earthly, physical millennial reign in which sin and death continue to exist, even if greatly attenuated.

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. - 1 Corinthians 15:22-27 (ESV)

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” - 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 (ESV)​

Eschatology is complex and difficult to address in short, largely because it requires a comprehensive view of redemptive history through all of Scripture. Two resources that have been instrumental in guiding me to the amillennial perspective are Sam Storm's book, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, and Dean Davis' book, The High King of Heaven. The latter is particularly rewarding because it, unlike any other resource I have come across, addresses the hermeneutical method necessary for making sense of Biblical eschatology.

 

[Christian Gedge]

it is a sad indictment that the biggest promoters of this Jewish error today are supposed Bible-believing Christians.

A few years back some Texas farmers were trying to breed a red heifer for the temple. Do you remember that?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I don't disagree. But is it found in the ECF-era premils?

Interestingly, not among the early orthodox Chiliasts. But it originated with, and was taught by, Cerinthus the heretic.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Great post! I struggled with eschatology for most of my life because of the dominance of premillennial dispensationalism in American Christianity. One thing that made my begin questioning its Biblical grounding, among all that you have mentioned, was 1 Corinthians 15. The text seems to plainly state that the end of the old order will occur at the second coming, including the death of death. If so, then there can be no room for an earthly, physical millennial reign in which sin and death continue to exist, even if greatly attenuated.

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. - 1 Corinthians 15:22-27 (ESV)

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” - 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 (ESV)​

Eschatology is complex and difficult to address in short, largely because it requires a comprehensive view of redemptive history through all of Scripture. Two resources that have been instrumental in guiding me to the amillennial perspective are Sam Storm's book, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, and Dean Davis' book, The High King of Heaven. The latter is particularly rewarding because it, unlike any other resource I have come across, addresses the hermeneutical method necessary for making sense of Biblical eschatology.

Every poster should read this post. It is very powerful and very true.

 

[Bobber]

This is official Premil theology bro. Even Reformed or Historic Premils advocate this nonsense. I used to hold such. I have also debated with them for years. They constantly want to pull us back into OT theology.

As for me I think I agree. It doesn't seem to sound right the idea the Lord would encourage the return of killing animals. But this would mean that some theologians are misinterpreting scriptures in Ezekiel but would such mean the 1000 reign of Christ (a physical kingdom) still wouldn't be true?

 

[sovereigngrace]

As for me I think I agree. It doesn't seem to sound right the idea the Lord would encourage the return of killing animals. But this would mean that some theologians are misinterpreting scriptures in Ezekiel but would such mean the 1000 reign of Christ (a physical kingdom) still wouldn't be true?

It is the Premil expectation of the future earth that is badly wrong. They see the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement, including the rebuilding of the long redundant building, the mass slaughter of innocent animals and the restart of the failed Levitical priests. They also force sin, death, corruption, and the wicked unto their future earth despite the Bible showing their end when Jesus comes. When man is glorified so too is all creation.

The Amil and Postmil new earth is pristine, perfect and glorious, just as the Bible says. Corruption cannot inherit Incorruption, according to Scripture.

 

[keras]

1 Corinthians 15. The text seems to plainly state that the end of the old order will occur at the second coming, including the death of death.

I am glad you said 'seems'.
Because you are quite wrong and Death is not done away with until AFTER the Millennium.
Revelation 20:1-7 makes this clear and Isaiah 65:20 plainly states that people will die during the Millennium. Satan's army is killed at the end of it. Revelation 20:7-9

It is the Premil expectation of the future earth that is badly wrong. They see the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement, including the rebuilding of the long redundant building, the mass slaughter of innocent animals and the restart of the failed Levitical priests.

This shows a serious lack of actual reading of the Prophetic Word and the usual parroting of the dipsy line.

Ezekiel 40 to 48 has not yet been fulfilled, but it will be and God who does not change, will accept our offerings; Isaiah 56:6-7, Ezekiel 20:40-41,

 

[sovereigngrace]

I am glad you said 'seems'.
Because you are quite wrong and Death is not done away with until AFTER the Millennium.
Revelation 20:1-7 makes this clear and Isaiah 65:20 plainly states that people will die during the Millennium. Satan's army is killed at the end of it. Revelation 20:7-9

This shows a serious lack of actual reading of the Prophetic Word and the usual parroting of the dipsy line.

Ezekiel 40 to 48 has not yet been fulfilled, but it will be and God who does not change, will accept our offerings; Isaiah 56:6-7, Ezekiel 20:40-41,

So what is the purpose for slaughtering countless innocent animals after the second coming?

 

[keras]

So what is the purpose for slaughtering countless innocent animals after the second coming?

Ask God.
He wanted sacrifices of thanks and offerings before and He makes it clear He will again; in a new Temple.
I do not see this as abrogating the one and only sacrifice that Jesus made to atone for our sins.

Did you bother to read Isaiah 56:6-7 and Ezekiel 20:40-41 ?
Also Zechariah 14:16-19 is plainly for the Millennium period and Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, show that the sacrifices and offerings must be happening BEFORE the Millennium.

Your opposition to these Bible truths, show how locked into and intransigent you are to the many false teachings prevalent today.

 

[agapelove]

Question for Amils: I think I understand correctly that most Amils view the beginning of the millennium at either Pentecost or the Ascension? Therefore the mark of the beast, the tribulation, and the destruction of the temple in 70AD are events that took place about 30 years into the millennium? And Amils also do not believe in a rapture?

I admit the timeline is much simpler but is it downplaying some of the events leading up to 70AD? And how could some of these things, such as the Beast and the Antichrist, have taken place if Satan was bound up?

Genuinely trying to understand.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Question for Amils: I think I understand correctly that most Amils view the beginning of the millennium at either Pentecost or the Ascension? Therefore the mark of the beast, the tribulation, and the destruction of the temple in 70AD are events that took place about 30 years into the millennium? And Amils also do not believe in a rapture?

I admit the timeline is much simpler but is it downplaying some of the events leading up to 70AD? And how could some of these things, such as the Beast and the Antichrist, have taken place if Satan was bound up?

Genuinely trying to understand.

A few misunderstandings here sister. Some Amils may not use the term "rapture," but all Amils say there will resurrection of the dead, together with a "catching away" of those believers who are alive at that time. Personally, I dont mind calling it a "rapture."

As for Satan being bound, he is bound from deceiving the nations. The gospel would not have been able to go forth with such power if Satan had not been bound. This is true of every century since the cross. However, at the end of the age there will be a releasing of Satan. It is during then that the man of sin will have his season.

Then the resurrection / rapture / judgement / new heavens and earth.

View attachment amillennial.svg

 

[agapelove]

A few misunderstandings here sister. Some Amils may not use the term "rapture," but all Amils say there will resurrection of the dead, together with a "catching away" of those believers who are alive at that time. Personally, I dont mind calling it a "rapture."

As for Satan being bound, he is bound from deceiving the nations. The gospel would not have been able to go forth with such power if Satan had not been bound. This is true of every century since the cross. However, at the end of the age there will be a releasing of Satan. It is during then that the man of sin will have his season.

Then the resurrection / rapture / judgement / new heavens and earth.

View attachment 277279

Thank you for clarifying.

In my understanding most partial-preterists/Amils believe the Great Trib/Mark of the Beast/Anti-Christ already occurred in the 1st century and the prophecies yet to be fulfilled are the release of Satan, the 'rapture', the 2nd coming of Christ, the GWTJ, and the establishment of the New Heavens and New Earth.

I notice on your chart there is a last-day tribulation/apostasy which I take to mean the release of Satan. Is this "Last-day Tribulation" different from the "Great Tribulation" early Christians faced under the Roman Empire/Emperor Nero?

 

[Christian Gedge]

You need to distinguish between Part-Prets and Amils. Both groups treat the ‘thousand years’ as a long period from Christ’s 1st coming up until his 2nd coming. However, PP’s stuff as much prophecy as they can - things like Great Trib/Mark of the Beast/Anti-Christ etc - as fulfilled in AD 70.

Regular Amils see the long era between his comings as having antichrists and tribulations throughout, but culminating in a great final one at the end. So, in our scenario, the “release of Satan” and “Last-day Tribulation” is actually the same thing. I hope that helps.

 

[Yesha]

I am glad you said 'seems'.
Because you are quite wrong and Death is not done away with until AFTER the Millennium.
Revelation 20:1-7 makes this clear and Isaiah 65:20 plainly states that people will die during the Millennium. Satan's army is killed at the end of it. Revelation 20:7-9

I am convinced that at the root of our disagreement is a difference in hermeneutics. We both read the same texts but interpret them differently.

Let explain a little more fully to help my reasoning become clearer.

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. - 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 (ESV)​

Paul directly states that all who belong to Christ will be made alive "at his coming". I think this rather plainly refers to the glorification of the saints at the return of Christ. Immediately sequential to this event is "the end", when Christ delivers his kingdom to the Father. If the kingdom is a physical, earthly, still future millennial reign of Christ, then it would seem to require a parenthetical period between the end of verse 23 and the beginning of verse 24; that is, between the resurrection and the end. I see no warrant in context to infer this. The most straightforward interpretation to my eyes is that Christ's millennial reign is present, corresponding with the interadvental age, and that with his return, all of his enemies will be vanquished once-and-for-all.

Later Paul states:

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. - 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 (ESV)​

I believe that the resurrection and transformation of the saints into immortal, sinless bodies foretells our glorification. When will this occur? At the return of the King, heralded by "the last trumpet". Will this period be marked by an earthly kingdom, which, while immeasurably better than the present age, will still be marred by the presence of sin and death?

When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” - 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 (ESV)​

I cannot see how. If "death is swallowed up in victory" following our glorification at the return of Christ, what room is there for that interpretation? I humbly suggest that it is explicitly denied.

 

[Yesha]

Every poster should read this post. It is very powerful and very true.

Thank you brother! The amillennial perspective has helped me to be able to read the Revelation of Jesus Christ with great hope and comfort in his victory. Its Christ-centered framework are far more edifying than that which seems to elevate the modern state of Israel and even the United States, Russia, and China to the forefront of prophecy. What hope would there be for saints past if nearly the whole of the Revelation was for 21st century Christians? I declare that it would be of little value.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Ask God.
He wanted sacrifices of thanks and offerings before and He makes it clear He will again; in a new Temple.
I do not see this as abrogating the one and only sacrifice that Jesus made to atone for our sins.

Did you bother to read Isaiah 56:6-7 and Ezekiel 20:40-41 ?
Also Zechariah 14:16-19 is plainly for the Millennium period and Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, show that the sacrifices and offerings must be happening BEFORE the Millennium.

Your opposition to these Bible truths, show how locked into and intransigent you are to the many false teachings prevalent today.

You have swallowed a Jewish fable.

You need to read the New Testament and see where Christ abolished the animal sacrifices on the cross. You need to You need to have a good read of the book of Hebrews, which shows they are abolished forever.