Millennial Considerations

[DavidPT]

In Matthew 28:18 we read "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

This was after his resurrection. What do you think that means?

It would likely mean He would be in a reigning position at that point, for one. But how did He initially get to that point? Didn't He first humble Himself, then endure until the end, the end being the cross in this case, and then He was rewarded after that? Why do Amils then think our reigning comes on a silver platter, and that we are already reigning before we have even endured to the end? The end being our death, or the 2nd coming of Christ, whichever one might come first.


Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, that would be my guess as to what this is connected with.

 

[BABerean2]

Why do Amils then think our reigning comes on a silver platter, and that we are already reigning before we have even endured to the end?

It does not sound like it comes on a silver platter in the verse below...


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.

.

 

[Davy]

Davy your now a bible translator in the Greek?

elements doesnt mean earthly matter?

Your spend a great deal of time in denial of the plain and simple scripture.

NT:4747
stoicheion (stoy-khi'-on); neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of NT:4748; something orderly in arrangement, i.e. (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively):

KJV - element, principle, rudiment.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that word is about an 'orderly arrangement', like a world age. It's does not point directly to the atomic weight table of earthly elements like most think.

 

[Davy]

Apparently the following in Isaiah 60 is referring to the same events as Revelation 3:9.

Isaiah 60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

And by comparing Isaiah 60 to Revelation 21-22, guess where it places this thousand years as taking place? Within the new heavens and new earth.

I have to disagree with you that is placed in the new heavens and new earth timing, just because it's in Isaiah 60...

Isa 60:12
12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.
KJV

That is Millennium timing, a similar idea to the end of Zech.14 about those nations which will not come up to worship The King from year to year, and as a result there will be no rain upon their lands.

 

[Davy]

Am I missing something here when it says the earth will be burned up?

Is there anything in the Greek that I am missing?

Have you ever put salt in water and "dissolved" it?

.

Yes, you're missing Peter's subject of God previously having destroyed man's works off this earth using a flood, destroying a world order. Look up the word "elements" in the Greek and you'll find that's what it's about, an "orderly arrangement" like a world age. It is NOT... pointing to earthly material matter like the atomic weight table elements, regardless that 2 Pet.3:10 still means a cleansing of the surface of this earth by fire. See the end of Hebrews 12 also.

 

[Davy]

I'll tell you why. It's because in order to inherit eternal life we need to experience both resurrections. First we need to reconcile to God, then we need immortal bodies.

Rev.20 mentions the "first resurrection" which is unto Eternal Life in Christ Jesus. So it's not a 2nd resurrection, which per your doctrine, it would have to be, since you appear to be arbitrarily assigning our first belief on Christ Jesus as a first resurrection (a spiritual one), and the Rev.20 "first resurrection" as a physical one. That kind of doctrine is not written, don't know first taught you that idea.

You're missing the part about "the restoration of all things". That's referring to, well, the restoration of all things. As in, new heaven and new earth.

Can't base a whole doctrine just on that one verse like you're trying to do. There are many more verses which reveal the time when Jesus will restore all things, and it will begin at His second coming, but won't be complete until after He has put all enemies under His feet, i.e., after the Rev.20 "thousand years" reign with His elect on earth.

 

[DavidPT]

It does not sound like it comes on a silver platter in the verse below...


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.

.

My point was this though. From what I understand of Amil teaching, you, for example, are currently reigning with Christ a thousand years, yet nothing in Revelation 20:4 at this point in time could possibly apply to you since you are still physically alive, and that these in Revelation 20:4 have been literally martyred. I'm sure a lot of Amils over the years, centuries even, have physically died. But how many of them were actually martyred? Maybe some perhaps, but certainly not all, since some could have died of natural causes, etc.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


Which of the following is correct?

even as I also overcame

Then----

and am set down with my Father in his throne.



Or?

and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Then----

even as I also overcame


I'm assuming you know which one is correct, therefore will choose the correct one. If that is the way Christ was set down with the Father in His throne, where He first overcame, then was seated in a throne, why would it be different in our case? Why would we get to sit down with Christ in His throne before we have even overcome first? Thus, this reigning is handed to us on a silver platter if this is the case, where in Christ's case, it was the exact opposite. He overcame first, then He reigned.

 

[Davy]

Didn't you see what I highlighted in 1 Corinthians 15? Paul says that at His coming, then the end will come and he will hand over the kingdom to God the Father.

So if Jesus hands over the kingdom that's the end of the thousand years, not the beginning. And that's at his coming. So Jesus returns at the end of the thousand years, not the beginning. It says so, right there in 1 Corinthians 15.

Yeah, and didn't you see what I showed from 1 Cor.15 where Paul said that Jesus MUST reign til He has put all enemies under His feet?

1 Cor 15:25
25 For He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
KJV

There's the "thousand years" your doctrine of men denies, right there, in one short verse. The reason being because without that "thousand years" reign, there is NO OTHER Biblical timing pointing to Jesus reigning over His enemies. He certainly is NOT reigning over His enemies during this present world, though some idiots like to make that lie up just to keep their doctrine tradition from men.

 

[Truth7t7]

NT:4747
stoicheion (stoy-khi'-on); neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of NT:4748; something orderly in arrangement, i.e. (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively):

KJV - element, principle, rudiment.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that word is about an 'orderly arrangement', like a world age. It's does not point directly to the atomic weight table of earthly elements like most think.

Orderly arrangement, like atomic structure?

 

[DavidPT]

I have to disagree with you that is placed in the new heavens and new earth timing, just because it's in Isaiah 60...

Isa 60:12
12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.
KJV

That is Millennium timing, a similar idea to the end of Zech.14 about those nations which will not come up to worship The King from year to year, and as a result there will be no rain upon their lands.

Of course it's Millennium timing. Yet you apparently are not comparing some of Isaiah 60 to Revelation 21 and 22 though, because if you were, it would be puzzling as to why you would not be seing these are referring to the same period of time.

For example.

Isaiah 60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.


You might argue, Isaiah 60 mentions both day and night, thus day and night there, while Revelation 21 says there shall be no night there. That's explainable though. It is only inside the city where there is no night there. The text never says there is no night outside of the city as well. It is pointless to have open gates into the city if there is no one living outside of the city.

 

[Davy]

Orderly arrangement, like atomic structure?

The Greek word for "elements" means an 'orderly arrangement' like a world time, a world age.

Hebrews 12 has another way of explaining it, since a great shaking is going to be accompanied with it:

Heb 12:27-29
27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.
KJV

 

[Davy]

Of course it's Millennium timing. Yet you apparently are not comparing some of Isaiah 60 to Revelation 21 and 22 though, because if you were, it would be puzzling as to why you would not be seing these are referring to the same period of time.

For example.

Isaiah 60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.


You might argue, Isaiah 60 mentions both day and night, thus day and night there, while Revelation 21 says there shall be no night there. That's explainable though. It is only inside the city where there is no night there. The text never says there is no night outside of the city as well. It is pointless to have open gates into the city if there is no one living outside of the city.

Yes I agree that the holy city will not have night, but outside there still will be.

But I don't assign everything in Rev.21-22 as being the new heavens and new earth timing. For example, Rev.22:14-15 is Millennium timing, even though God's River and the Tree of Life are manifest on earth again, the wicked are still existing just outside the gates of the holy city.

 

[Davy]

Huh? Why would I say that Jesus' second coming has already happened? Have I ever suggested that Jesus comes at the beginning of the thousand years?

No, you haven't, not that I recall, which is why my sentence was in a form of a question. But you'd be surprised at the number of Full Preterists out there which do say Jesus' 2nd coming happened in the day of His Apostles.

On the contrary, I'm mentioning Acts 3:21 because it clearly says that Jesus won't return until the time of the new earth, which is at the end of the thousand years. In other words, Jesus returns at the end of the thousand years.

But that Acts 3:21 verse isn't proclaiming the new heavens and new earth. You are adding that idea to it because of the doctrine of men you've accepted.

And let me guess; you're claiming that the restoration will take 1000 years to complete so that you can maintain that Jesus returns at the beginning of the thousand years. Unless you have a scriptural basis for God requiring 1000 years to renew all things, that seems like eisegesis to me.

I believe what God's Word says as written, so that means to weigh both OT and NT Scripture instead of just picking and choosing the one's I want. So when Rev.20 declares a "thousand years" by Jesus and His elect, and there's parallels to that time also written in the OT prophets, then that picture is painted for me by The Holy Spirit as I heed what is actually written.

But you accuse me of doing the error you're actually doing (or those you follow), and that is to have a certain doctrine in the mind first, and then going looking for a specific verse that will support it, taking that verse out of the context of the rest of Bible Scripture. That sir, I definitely am not guilty of.

 

[LastSeven]

Rev.20 mentions the "first resurrection" which is unto Eternal Life in Christ Jesus. So it's not a 2nd resurrection, which per your doctrine, it would have to be, since you appear to be arbitrarily assigning our first belief on Christ Jesus as a first resurrection (a spiritual one), and the Rev.20 "first resurrection" as a physical one. That kind of doctrine is not written, don't know first taught you that idea.

When did I ever say the first resurrection was a physical one? I've said all along that the first resurrection is spiritual, the second is physical.

Can't base a whole doctrine just on that one verse like you're trying to do. There are many more verses which reveal the time when Jesus will restore all things, and it will begin at His second coming, but won't be complete until after He has put all enemies under His feet, i.e., after the Rev.20 "thousand years" reign with His elect on earth.

First of all, I'm not basing an entire doctrine on one verse. Haven't you noticed all the other verses I've posted?

Secondly, when a verse is as clear as Acts 3:21 we would be wise to use it as a foundation for understanding, which by no means would contradict any of the other verses you mention if you put the puzzle pieces together correctly.

 

[LastSeven]

But that Acts 3:21 verse isn't proclaiming the new heavens and new earth. You are adding that idea to it because of the doctrine of men you've accepted.

If "the restoration of all things" does not refer to the new heaven and new earth then what could it possibly be referring to?

But you accuse me of doing the error you're actually doing (or those you follow), and that is to have a certain doctrine in the mind first, and then going looking for a specific verse that will support it, taking that verse out of the context of the rest of Bible Scripture.

On the contrary. I started with the premil doctrine in mind when I discovered verses such as Acts 3:21. My parents and my church raised me to believe everything that Hal Lindsey had taught them. Lucky for me I studied with a mind open to other ideas.

 

[LastSeven]

Why do Amils then think our reigning comes on a silver platter, and that we are already reigning before we have even endured to the end?

I'm not sure that a silver platter is the phrase I would use, but isn't the whole point of the gospel a free gift from God by his grace and love?

Ephesians 2:4-6
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

I'm not making this stuff up. It really says it in the Bible. God has raised us up and seated us with him in the heavenly realms. You can question the gift all you want, but it's still there.

 

[Davy]

When did I ever say the first resurrection was a physical one? I've said all along that the first resurrection is spiritual, the second is physical.

Well, in the resurrection, there is no such thing as a 'physical resurrection' if by that you mean a resurrection of a flesh body. Apostle Paul in 1 Cor.15 taught only one type of resurrection, one to a "spiritual body":

1 Cor 15:46-49
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
KJV

First of all, I'm not basing an entire doctrine on one verse. Haven't you noticed all the other verses I've posted?

You're simply doing what those on the Pre-trib Rapture doctrine often do, assuming something says an idea when it does not. The Acts 3:21 verse does NOT define the 'when' of the restitution of all things. You are adding... a time to that verse that is not defined there!

And what is making you do that is the doctrinal tradition you follow that wrongly teaches to omit the "thousand years" Millennium written in Rev.20 that's to occur right after Jesus' return.

 

[Davy]

If "the restoration of all things" does not refer to the new heaven and new earth then what could it possibly be referring to?

That we can only know by looking at what all God gave through His OT prophets about that future time, in conjunction with NT testimony about from our Lord Jesus and His Apostles. And simple verses like Revelation 22:14-15 shows the continued existence of the unjust outside the gates of the holy city with God's River and the Tree of Life manifested, and Christ's elect having right to go inside the city. Similar idea is shown in Ezekiel 44 & 47. Zechariah 14 shows even some of the armies that come upon Jerusalem on the last day of this world when Jesus comes will still exist after His return, and be required to come up to Jerusalem to worship The King from year to year.

On the contrary. I started with the premil doctrine in mind when I discovered verses such as Acts 3:21. My parents and my church raised me to believe everything that Hal Lindsey had taught them. Lucky for me I studied with a mind open to other ideas.

But you are guilty of it, because Acts 3:21 does not define the 'when' of the restitution of all things will occur. You added a doctrinal tradition by assuming that has to mean everything is done immediately after His return, and thus refusing to include the time of Rev.20 which is clearly and plainly shown will occur right after His return, but before the new heavens and a new earth.

Even this simple verse could easily be misunderstood if it is taken out of the context of the rest of Scripture:

Rev 10:7
7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as He hath declared to His servants the prophets.
KJV

That's about the 7th Trumpet sounding of Rev.11. That is the time when our Lord Jesus will return, but it is not the time of the new heavens and a new earth, simply because the Rev.20 Chapter about a "thousand years" by Christ and His elect exists.

But that "mystery of God" He declared through the OT prophets, that certainly will be finished for the day of Christ's return, simply because it's about prophecy for THIS present world time only. How... do we know that? Simply because there is prophecy for events that occur after the 7th Trumpet of this present world written too, like in Zechariah 14 and Revelation 20, 21, and 22, and their parallels in the OT.

 

[BABerean2]

My point was this though. From what I understand of Amil teaching, you, for example, are currently reigning with Christ a thousand years, yet nothing in Revelation 20:4 at this point in time could possibly apply to you since you are still physically alive, and that these in Revelation 20:4 have been literally martyred. I'm sure a lot of Amils over the years, centuries even, have physically died. But how many of them were actually martyred? Maybe some perhaps, but certainly not all, since some could have died of natural causes, etc.

All of the Apostles, except John.

Thousands in the Roman coliseum.

Thousands burned at the stake or tortured in other manners during the Reformation.

Our Brothers and Sisters in the Middle East and elsewhere now being murdered for our faith.

John saw "souls" in heaven reigning with Christ.

Their "first resurrection" is found in John 5:24.

All of these souls have won the victory and now reign with Christ in heaven.

...............................................................

Do you believe that the one who defeated sin and death at Calvary will be performing funeral services for dead mortals during your millennium?

Where will their souls go, since Christ will be on earth?

.

 

[Truth7t7]

I

Yes I agree that the holy city will not have night, but outside there still will be.

But I don't assign everything in Rev.21-22 as being the new heavens and new earth timing. For example, Rev.22:14-15 is Millennium timing, even though God's River and the Tree of Life are manifest on earth again, the wicked are still existing just outside the gates of the holy city.

You have the unrighteous wicked, walking around living outside the gates in Revelation 22:15 "Wrong"!

I clearly showed you the wicked will be outside the gate "In The Lake Of Fire Burning"! As Isaiah 66:24 clearly teaches.

You have been clearly shown "Twice" will you continue your teaching in error?