One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[chad kincham]

Whilst Barnabas was not a Chiliast you can easily see how his 6 day/6,000 years theory opened up the door to the conclusion that the 7th day will also be 1,000 years long. Even though most of the early writers considered the 7th day as eternal, the whole basis of the idea of a millennial week was fraught will many factual discrepancies, human speculations and theological contradictions. A study of the early fathers will see that this faulty concept inevitably led to some embracing Chiliasm.

His interpretation is baloney.

The sabbath millennium position is not that there will be six millennium reigns of Jesus followed by a seventh - it is clearly stating that there will be six thousand years between Adam and the return of Jesus, and the millennium reign of Jesus will be the seventh day, aka Gods rest for His people, a type of sabbath rest.

And that puts the return of Jesus somewhere in the 2030s.

 

[chad kincham]

There are so many sources proving the early church was premil that it’s irrefutable.

Brittanica encyclopedia is one of dozens:

eschatology - The early church

The early church
During the first 100 years of Christian history, the church taught some form of millenarianism, or chiliasm (from the Greek word for “1,000”), the belief that the Parousiawould bring about a 1,000-year kingdom of fellowship, justice, peace, and abundance here on earth. The coincidence of occasional episodes of millennial exultation and persecution (e.g., about AD 200) suggests the existence of a relationship between apocalyptic expectations and imperial persecutions. Certainly, Revelation viewed martyrdom and millennial promises as two aspects of the same eschatological resolution. But apocalyptic zeal waned because the End never came and the pressure of persecution was intermittent. Moreover, in the aftermath of apocalyptic outbreaks, more responsible and well-connected members of the church pursued a policy of accommodation, insisting that Christians were not hostile to Rome and downplaying both the apocalyptic and millennial dimensions of their tradition. Christian missionaries converted large numbers of Roman citizens, and worldly success and the failure of apocalyptic expectation reduced Christian antagonism toward the empire.

More scholarship, this is 1/5 of a copyright article:

http://web.oru.edu/current_students.../DrHebert/Dissertation/2.2 Church Fathers.pdf

The Early Church Fathers were almost exclusively premillennialists and taught an Eschatological Gospel of Both Comings of Jesus. Consider the following testimony from the Fathers. The Epistle of Barnabus, written late first century/early second century and regarded as equal to Scripture by Origen, denotes the Creation Week as a pattern for human history—one day equals one thousand years—six thousand years of history and the Sabbath rest on the seventh day equates to the Millennium (The Epistle of Barnabus 15:4-5). Papias, an early second century Bishop and disciple of John the Apostle, was recorded by Eusebius (the Early Church historian) to have believed that “there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth” (Fragments of Papias VI). Justin Martyr also stated that he was taught his premillennial beliefs from John the Apostle and cited Isaiah 65:17-25, Luke 20:35-36 and Revelation 20:4-6 as references for the Millennium and Psalm 90:4 to support the one day as one thousand years belief (Falls 1965:277).
Theophilus, a second century Bishop of Antioch, spoke of a millennial state which is “intermediate between earth and heaven” (Daley Hope 2003:24). Both Melito, a second century Bishop of Sardis, and Hegesippus maintained a chiliastic position (Remains of the Second and Third Centuries: Melito the Philosopher, Hegesippus, 1 ANF 8:755, 763). The Didache: Teaching of the 12 Apostles addresses the Apostasy, the Rapture of the Saints, the antichrist, the Tribulation, and the Second Advent, drawing on scriptures from Matthew 24; John 5:25; Acts 1:2; 1 Corinthians 15:23, 52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; and Revelation 1:7; 19:11 (The Fathers of the Church, The Didache: Teaching of the 12 Apostles:183-4). Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John the Apostle, was a definite premillennarian. Irenaeus was also the first to detail prophetic events after the writing of the New Testament and

 

[chad kincham]

I can assuredly tell you: copyright does not mean selling. It means using. You don't seem to have any understanding of the copyright laws. I have written 3 books since 1999. I know the laws. I have a website since 1999. You can only use full articles with permission.

I can assure you that article said it was one source and showed no copyright notice, so you can stop losing sleep over this.

 

[sovereigngrace]

His interpretation is baloney.

The sabbath millennium position is not that there will be six millennium reigns of Jesus followed by a seventh - it is clearly stating that there will be six thousand years between Adam and the return of Jesus, and the millennium reign of Jesus will be the seventh day, aka Gods rest for His people, a type of sabbath rest.

And that puts the return of Jesus somewhere in the 2030s.

Are you date-setting?

 

[sovereigngrace]

His interpretation is baloney.

The sabbath millennium position is not that there will be six millennium reigns of Jesus followed by a seventh - it is clearly stating that there will be six thousand years between Adam and the return of Jesus, and the millennium reign of Jesus will be the seventh day, aka Gods rest for His people, a type of sabbath rest.

And that puts the return of Jesus somewhere in the 2030s.

The early Chiliasts believed true Israel was the Church. They held that the redeemed alone would populate the new earth. Cerinthus and Marcion were the first to advocate most of the fundamental tenets that Premil teach today regarding the millennium. That is why they should be considered the architects of modern Premil.

· Firstly, an elementary study of the early Church fathers’ teachings over the first 100 years after the cross will reveal an overwhelming lack of Chiliast teaching. There is a notable silence from the early writers, apart from Papias.
· Secondly, if anyone would have found the slightest evidence of early Premillennialism, it surely would have been passionate Chilliast Ireneaus. He was both very vocal and very prejudiced in his beliefs. But when Ireneaus (180AD) started to look back in history for orthodox backing for his eschatological position, the only support he could find was Papias. He doesn’t cite any other early writer. This correlates with the findings of most objective commentators on this subject, including my own conclusions. That is because none of the rest taught anything about some additional age in between our age and the age to come. It is also notable that both Ireneaus and Eusebius had access to all the early writings of Papias, yet all that both of them refer to was one innocuous quote pertaining to the future new earth that makes no mention of 1000 years, the casting down of Satan and his consequence binding at the second coming, two future resurrection and judgement days separated by 1000 years, Israel’s restoration to a place of pre-eminence above the Gentiles nations and the return of the old covenant arrangement. Whilst Ireneaus attributes the quote to Christ, Scripture and history prove that he never got the idea from Holy Writ, but actually apostate Judaism.
· Thirdly, the early Amillenniallists that challenged Chiliasm only recognized, mentioned and targeted 3 Chiliasts teachings during the first 100 years after the cross – heretical Cerinthus (A.D. 100), heretical Marcion (Born: A.D. 85 and Died: A.D. 160) and orthodox Papias (A.D. 100).
· Fourthly, detailed scholarly works in recent years from both the Premillennial and Amillennial perspectives have arrived at the same conclusion, there is a severe lack of Chilliast advocates.

In 1976 Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a masters thesis (the eschatology of the post-apostolic fathers) whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early Church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church."

"...he (Papias) was the first orthodox chiliast" (pg. 52).

"First of all, as with the modern system, Papias believed in a literal millennial rule of Christ on earth. Secondly, however, there are no further similarities between the systems...it seems safe to assume that his chiliasm was of a markedly different character than the modern variety" (pg. 62).

"...although Papias and Justin Martyr did believe in a Millennial kingdom, the 1,000 years is the only basic similarity with the modern system" (pg. 89).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

For some of us, glory is meaningless.
Glory is about the last thing I could ever desire, it's like wealth. Something that other people might desire but I really don't care about it at all.
It's something I don't have but don't feel like I lack regardless.
In fact, that's part of my despair as a Christian, that the emphasis in heaven is on glory and symbols of wealth and authority.
All things that I have no desire for.
I have desires for peace, for justice, for love, and for knowledge.
those are the things that appeal to me,
not glory.

Where did I say anything about glory for you? I didn't. I was talking about Christ being on earth in all His glory. I don't think you read my post very carefully.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have discussed this with you several times already. Why are still misrepresenting that that is what I'm concluding when I already made it clear that this has zero to do with a 24 hour day? The day in question doesn't involve 24 hours, it involves 1000 years. There is no logic, not even to God, though He is outside of time, that 24 hours are meant by the day in question, that a 24 hour day somehow consists of 1000 years. Explain how it could. 24 hours means 24 hours, not only to us but also to God. A thousand years means a thousand years to us, well except to Amils I guess, and so does it mean that to God. A 24 hour day consists of an era of time involving 24 hours. A 1000 year day consists of an era of time as well, but not involving 24 hours, but involving a thousand years.

I have no idea what your point is here. So, if I misrepresented your view, it's only because you struggle to make your view clear.

In verses 7-10 that I submitted, the main subject is a day of judgment. In verse 9 we are informed as to why this judgment still hasn't take place yet though it is inevitable that it will take place eventually. Is one of the reasons it hasn't taken place yet, because the Lord is outside of time? I don't see it saying nor hinting that in verse 9.

How are you not seeing that? If He experienced time the way we do, He may very well have come already because it's been a long time in human terms. But, it hasn't been long to Him, which is what matters. So, how can you say that His being outside of time and not being affected by time has no bearing on how long it's taking Jesus to return?

When Noah's flood happened, the Lord was outside of time during that event as well. It didn't prevent God from having the flood take place exactly when He planned for it to right on schedule

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

This same day and hour which no man knoweth, has to be meaning this same day of the Lord mentioned in 2 Peter 3, though some deny that, but I don't think you do though, so not including you here. If the Father is the only one that knows when this day and hour is, He already has a day and hour picked out when this will happen. The question is, when that day and hour happens, how much time will it involve? 24 hours or less? Or what 2 Peter 3:8 indicates?

What do you mean what Peter indicates? All he indicates is that one 24 hour day and one thousand years are no different to the Lord. He's not saying that the day of the Lord is a thousand years in duration. Not even close. And, yet, you somehow are seeing it that way. I think only doctrinal bias could lead someone to think that is what Peter was saying.

If it is 24 hours or less then we have to assume certain events are also only going to involve 24 hours or less, which seems rather ludicrous to me, but probably not to you, though I have to wonder why not---such as the following, for one example---That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel(Luke 22:30). It really makes great sense that they are only rewarded those things for a very brief time, 24 hours or less. This kind of thinking has to be rejected since it makes nonsense out of the text, that Luke 22:30 only involves 24 hours or less.

Read 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. That describes the day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night which results in "sudden destruction" by fire from which "they shall not escape". How does that describe a long period of time? You talk about ludicrous...

If Amil is the correct position why can't a passage like Luke 22:30 work with that position? We have at least 3 options concerning that verse since it obviously can't get fulfilled until the 2nd coming happens first. Either it's meaning forever, that forever it will be like that. In that case it can fit Amil. Or it's meaning that it will only be like this for 24 hours or less, which then makes nonsense out of the text, as in why even bother if that is all the length of time this reward involves. Or the last option is, it's not meaning forever nor 24 hours or less. What era of time could possibly fit that? None? How about the thousand years?

Again, read 1 Thess 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. How long do you think what is described in those verses will take? Do you think Jesus will take His sweet time while He delivers "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape"?

 

[Jamdoc]

Where did I say anything about glory for you? I didn't. I was talking about Christ being on earth in all His glory. I don't think you read my post very carefully.

I mean glory period has no appeal to me. Not just I don't want glory for myself
but glory is not an attribute of God that I find any appeal in.
Islam teaches a god that is glorious, holy, exalted, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, immortal, etc etc etc.
Guess what?
Even with all that power and being exalted and glory that he's supposed to have? I could never love Allah.
In fact I'd hate him.
Even if he was the one who created me, I'd hate him.
Nothing I'd hate more than an all powerful tyrant that just expects me to exalt him, creator or not.

Why is Jehovah different?
Because Jehovah humbled Himself to be born in flesh, experience all of our weaknesses first hand, live through all of our temptations, let Himself be murdered without even committing sin... for my sake.
All while exhibiting the best human qualities that I admire, courage, compassion, wisdom, meekness, selflessness.

What is holiness? Holiness is to be separated unto the Lord. So when you say that God is Holy.. that in essence is God is separated unto Himself.
Which outside of Jesus showing that God is NOT selfish but rather selfless, anyone wholly separated unto themselves.. is called self absorbed.
So when Islam teaches that Allah is holy, I view it as "Allah is self absorbed"
The difference is that Jesus showed selflessness.
So I can trust, and love Jesus, but without jesus? Impossible to love, no matter how "glorious" or powerful they are.

Exchange the wore glory or glorious for wealth or wealthy
Do you love God because He is wealthy, or that when Jesus returns it would be filling the world with all His wealth? Do you really care about how much gold and precious stones that Jesus would adorn Himself with?
That is how I feel about glory.
Other people may find appeal with it, but I do not.

 

[chad kincham]

The early Chiliasts believed true Israel was the Church. They held that the redeemed alone would populate the new earth. Cerinthus and Marcion were the first to advocate most of the fundamental tenets that Premil teach today regarding the millennium. That is why they should be considered the architects of modern Premil.

Wrong. Such replacement theology comes from the Catholic Church, not the early church.
Martin Luther promoted it due to his RC baggage.

In the first century there was no such error.

Paul in Romans 11 in fact destroys replacement theology.

 

[chad kincham]

Scripture speaks from the OT to the NT, of f the literal and physical reign of Jesus on the earth, in an unending kingdom - not just for a thousand years:

Christ’s literal earthly kingdom was prophesied in Jeremiah 23: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (vv. 5, 6).


If prophetic passages like these do not include Christ’s millennial (1,000-year) reign, they are meaningless.


The New Testament and Old Testament unequivocally teach an unending kingdom on the earth, with Jesus sitting and reigning on,and from, the throne of David in Jerusalem.



Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.


Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:


Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.



Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.


1Ki 2:45 And king Solomon shall beblessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever.


Jesus said at the last supper:


Luk 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.


And in Acts 2 Jesus literally ascends bodily and visibly from Mount Olive, and the angel said this same Jesus will return in like manner as you have seen Him leave - meaning His literal return bodily and visibly back to Mount Olive.


In Zechariah 14:5 Jesus returns to Mount Olive with all the saints with Him - where He remains and the nations such as Egypt come into the gates of Jerusalem to worship Jesus, Zechariah14:16-19, who will be literally and bodily sitting on the throne of David, per many prophecies.


In Revelation 21, The New Jerusalem which is above, descends to earth to old Jerusalem, and God and the lamb dwell in it with men forever, and Jesus says this about that city in Revelation 3:12:


Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


It’s Irrefutable in scripture that there will be a unending literal and physical reign of Christ on the earth, and not just for a thousand years.


Jesus is currently sitting in heaven at the father’s right hand UNTIL the time is right to return to earth:


Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David.The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Psa 110:2 The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule IN THE MIDST of your enemies!


Note that Jesus will not rule His kingdom from heaven, but on the earth, in the midst of His enemies.


He will return and land on mount Olive with all His saints per Zechariah 14:5, given earlier, where He will rule and reign from Jerusalem on the throne of David, which is established forever:


1Ki 2:45 And king Solomon shall beblessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever.


And we shall reign and rule with Jesus in His kingdom, on the earth:


Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.


The millennium period isn’t a temporary reign of Jesus - it’s the period where Satan is bound for a thousand years, so all of creation, including the angels, gets to see the contrast between the world being ran by Satan as it’s god and ruler for 4,000 years, compared with Jesus ruling the nations righteously, with a rod of Iron for a thousand years - then Satan is loosed for short time, and then thrown into the lake of fire.

Jesus’ literal kingdom and reign on earth is forever - not limited to just a thousand years

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


Isaiah 65:20-25 describes the millennial reign of Jesus on the earth and in Jerusalem and how radically different it will be, with peace on earth, long life, no weeping or crying, and with no wars, no death - even carnivores become herbivores and don’t eat other animals.


There is no reason whatsoever to deny that the thousand year reign of Jesus on the earth in Revelation 20 is literal - from the OT to the NT, it is literal fact.


And it’s also a fact that the early church was solidly premil.

 

[chad kincham]

The early Chiliasts believed true Israel was the Church. They held that the redeemed alone would populate the new earth. Cerinthus and Marcion were the first to advocate most of the fundamental tenets that Premil teach today regarding the millennium. That is why they should be considered the architects of modern Premil.

· Firstly, an elementary study of the early Church fathers’ teachings over the first 100 years after the cross will reveal an overwhelming lack of Chiliast teaching. There is a notable silence from the early writers, apart from Papias.
· Secondly, if anyone would have found the slightest evidence of early Premillennialism, it surely would have been passionate Chilliast Ireneaus. He was both very vocal and very prejudiced in his beliefs. But when Ireneaus (180AD) started to look back in history for orthodox backing for his eschatological position, the only support he could find was Papias. He doesn’t cite any other early writer. This correlates with the findings of most objective commentators on this subject, including my own conclusions. That is because none of the rest taught anything about some additional age in between our age and the age to come. It is also notable that both Ireneaus and Eusebius had access to all the early writings of Papias, yet all that both of them refer to was one innocuous quote pertaining to the future new earth that makes no mention of 1000 years, the casting down of Satan and his consequence binding at the second coming, two future resurrection and judgement days separated by 1000 years, Israel’s restoration to a place of pre-eminence above the Gentiles nations and the return of the old covenant arrangement. Whilst Ireneaus attributes the quote to Christ, Scripture and history prove that he never got the idea from Holy Writ, but actually apostate Judaism.
· Thirdly, the early Amillenniallists that challenged Chiliasm only recognized, mentioned and targeted 3 Chiliasts teachings during the first 100 years after the cross – heretical Cerinthus (A.D. 100), heretical Marcion (Born: A.D. 85 and Died: A.D. 160) and orthodox Papias (A.D. 100).
· Fourthly, detailed scholarly works in recent years from both the Premillennial and Amillennial perspectives have arrived at the same conclusion, there is a severe lack of Chilliast advocates.

In 1976 Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a masters thesis (the eschatology of the post-apostolic fathers) whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early Church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church."

"...he (Papias) was the first orthodox chiliast" (pg. 52).

"First of all, as with the modern system, Papias believed in a literal millennial rule of Christ on earth. Secondly, however, there are no further similarities between the systems...it seems safe to assume that his chiliasm was of a markedly different character than the modern variety" (pg. 62).

"...although Papias and Justin Martyr did believe in a Millennial kingdom, the 1,000 years is the only basic
similarity with the modern system" (pg. 89).

That’s absolutely wrong and absolutely not true, to the point of the author of it deliberately lying.

I have over a dozen scholarly sources saying exactly the opposite, including secular sources such as the encyclopedia Brittanica with no theological reason to be biased.

 

[DavidPT]

As to this discussion involving what ECFs believed at the time, I'm thinking about putting the brakes on it for awhile or maybe even for good, though I don't know at this point if I will actually end up doing the latter, but it is something I'm considering. The more I think about it the more I realize their theology was all over the place at the time, and that they often used non inspired writings, such as Enoch, to form some of their conclusions. At this point in time I'm getting to where I don't care any more what camp they may have allegedly fit in. A lot of their theology can't be relied on as fact to begin with. And I'm meaning all of them back then, not just some of them.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I mean glory period has no appeal to me. Not just I don't want glory for myself
but glory is not an attribute of God that I find any appeal in.
Islam teaches a god that is glorious, holy, exalted, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, immortal, etc etc etc.
Guess what?
Even with all that power and being exalted and glory that he's supposed to have? I could never love Allah.
In fact I'd hate him.
Even if he was the one who created me, I'd hate him.
Nothing I'd hate more than an all powerful tyrant that just expects me to exalt him, creator or not.

Why is Jehovah different?
Because Jehovah humbled Himself to be born in flesh, experience all of our weaknesses first hand, live through all of our temptations, let Himself be murdered without even committing sin... for my sake.
All while exhibiting the best human qualities that I admire, courage, compassion, wisdom, meekness, selflessness.

What is holiness? Holiness is to be separated unto the Lord. So when you say that God is Holy.. that in essence is God is separated unto Himself.
Which outside of Jesus showing that God is NOT selfish but rather selfless, anyone wholly separated unto themselves.. is called self absorbed.
So when Islam teaches that Allah is holy, I view it as "Allah is self absorbed"
The difference is that Jesus showed selflessness.
So I can trust, and love Jesus, but without jesus? Impossible to love, no matter how "glorious" or powerful they are.

Exchange the wore glory or glorious for wealth or wealthy
Do you love God because He is wealthy, or that when Jesus returns it would be filling the world with all His wealth? Do you really care about how much gold and precious stones that Jesus would adorn Himself with?
That is how I feel about glory.
Other people may find appeal with it, but I do not.

I don't think many people would share your perspective of seeing Jesus in all His glory. Why do you think it is that scripture says every knee will bow and acknowledge Him one day? That includes unbelievers. I would say it's because seeing Him in all His glory will make it sink in to them as to who He really is and they will realize that they can no longer deny that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Isaiah 65:17-25 describes the millennial reign of Jesus on the earth and in Jerusalem and how radically different it will be, with peace on earth, long life, no weeping or crying, and with no wars, no death - even carnivores become herbivores and don’t eat other animals.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Did you somehow miss that Isaiah 65:17-25 is about the new heavens and new earth? The new heavens and new earth are ushered in after the thousand years, as Revelation 21 indicates. You have it being ushered in 1000+ years before that. At that point when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in John said "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (Revelation 21:4). Does your understanding of the new heavens and new earth agree with that? Apparently not because you have Revelation 20:9 occurring after the new heavens and new earth are ushered in.

According to Peter, the new heavens and new earth will appear after the current heavens and earth are burned up when Christ returns (2 Peter 3:10-13). Does your understanding of the new heavens and new earth agree with that? Apparently not because you have mortal people still living on the earth when He returns.

 

[Jamdoc]

I don't think many people would share your perspective of seeing Jesus in all His glory. Why do you think it is that scripture says every knee will bow and acknowledge Him one day? That includes unbelievers. I would say it's because seeing Him in all His glory will make it sink in to them as to who He really is and they will realize that they can no longer deny that.

Doesn't matter
you can acknowledge that someone is creator and is all powerful, and still not trust or love them.
You might fear them, and obey them, but you may in the back of your mind think "surely there's something better"

 

[DavidPT]

Doesn't matter
you can acknowledge that someone is creator and is all powerful, and still not trust or love them.
You might fear them, and obey them, but you may in the back of your mind think "surely there's something better"

Now apply that to the millennium after the 2nd coming, followed by the uprising during satan's little season. It at least makes sense out of why there might be a period of time like this after the 2nd coming when in the end it turns into a rebellion by many.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Wrong. Such replacement theology comes from the Catholic Church, not the early church.
Martin Luther promoted it due to his RC baggage.

In the first century there was no such error.

Paul in Romans 11 in fact destroys replacement theology.

Everything so far that you have said about the early Church fathers has been wrong. You obviously have not studied them. I don't know why you are trying to push this until you have done the proper due diligence.

The ECFs believed that the Church is true Israel, spiritual Jews, the children of promise, Abraham's seed. The old covenant national theocratic Israel is long-finished through the introduction of the new covenant – which is focused on all nations equally. Race is no longer a benefit, simply grace. All nations can encounter Christ today and be spiritually circumcised. This is all classic Amillennial theology.

Here are a few early quotes re the Church being true Israel. This is only one brief study, a numerous we can look at. That is why I have concluded a long time ago that ancient Chiliasm is closer to modern-day Amil. These relate to the 2nd 100 years after the cross.

Ignatius
Bishop of Antioch, Syria
(A.D. 98-117)

Epistle to the Magnesians
Chapter X – Beware of Judaizing

Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.

Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter VI – Do not accept Judaism.

If any one preaches the one God of the law and the prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil, and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of mere carnal circumcision …

Clement
Bishop of Rome, Italy
(Died around 99 A.D.)

1 Clement 29:1-3 –30:1

His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance. And in another place [the Scripture] saith, “Behold, the Lord taketh unto Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man takes the first-fruits of his threshing-floor; and from that nation shall come forth the Most Holy.” Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness.

Barnabas
Alexandria, Egypt
(A.D. 70-120)

Chapter 6 – The sufferings of Christ, and the new covenant, were announced by the prophets

Moses also says to them, “Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord swore [to give] to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey.” What, then, says Knowledge? Learn: “Trust,” she says, “in Him who is to be manifested to you in the flesh—that is, Jesus.” For man is earth in a suffering state, for the formation of Adam was from the face of the earth. What, then, meaneth this: “into the good land, a land flowing with milk and honey?” Blessed be our Lord, who has placed in us wisdom and understanding of secret things. For the prophet says, “Who shall understand the parable of the Lord, except him who is wise and prudent, and who loves his Lord?” Since, therefore, having renewed us by the remission of our sins, He hath made us after another pattern, [it is His purpose] that we should possess the soul of children, inasmuch as He has created us anew by His Spirit. For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, “Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea.” And the Lord said, on beholding the fair creature man, “Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” These things [were spoken] to the Son. Again, I will show thee how, in respect to us, He has accomplished a second fashioning in these last days. The Lord says, “Behold, I will make the last like the first.” In reference to this, then, the prophet proclaimed, “Enter ye into the land flowing with milk and honey, and have dominion over it.” Behold, therefore, we have been refashioned, as again He says in another prophet, “Behold, saith the Lord, I will take away from these, that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, their stony hearts, and I will put hearts of flesh within them,” because He was to be manifested in flesh, and to sojourn among us. For, my brethren, the habitation of our heart is a holy temple to the Lord. For again saith the Lord, “And wherewith shall I appear before the Lord my God, and be glorified?” He says, “I will confess to thee in the Church in the midst of my brethren; and I will praise thee in the midst of the assembly of the saints.” We, then, are they whom He has led into the good land. What, then, mean milk and honey? This, that as the infant is kept alive first by honey, and then by milk, so also we, being quickened and kept alive by the faith of the promise and by the word, shall live ruling over the earth. But He said above, “Let them increase, and rule over the fishes.” Who then is able to govern the beasts, or the fishes, or the fowls of heaven? For we ought to perceive that to govern implies authority, so that one should command and rule. If, therefore, this does not exist at present, yet still He has promised it to us. When? When we ourselves also have been made perfect [so as] to become heirs of the covenant of the Lord.

Barnabas spiritualises the Old Testament land promises in a manner that would cause modern premillennialists to go cross-eyed. This is a classic Amillennial approach to the fulfilment of Old Testament prophesies in a New Testament context. He also applies the promises made to natural Israel in the Old Testament to the New Testament church today.

J. Lebreton aptly remarks, “not indeed to the deep thought of the Church, but, at least, to the danger which Judaism constituted for it, and the Church’s reaction to the danger.”

Chapter XIII – Christians, and not Jews, the heirs of the covenant

But let us see if this people is the heir, or the former, and if the covenant belongs to us or to them … And Jacob said, “I know it, my son, I know it; but the elder shall serve the younger: yet he also shall be blessed.” Ye see on whom he laid [his hands], that this people should be first, and heir of the covenant. If then, still further, the same thing was intimated through Abraham, we reach the perfection of our knowledge.

Chapter XVI – The spiritual temple of God.

Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple ... For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man, but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.

Justin
Asia Minor (now Turkey)
(AD 100-166)

Letter to Diognetus

Chapter 4

As far as their meticulous attention to food, their superstition in regard to the Sabbaths, their boasting about circumcision, and their whims about fasting and the new moons—which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of attention—I don't think you need to learn anything from me.

To glory in the circumcision of the flesh as a proof of election—as though because of it they are especially loved by God—how can this not be a subject of ridicule?

Dialogue with Trypho, 11

And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt’. If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.

Justin explains that those in Christ are spiritual Israel and the true offspring of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah. The new covenant is an ongoing arrangement from the cross and man’s only hope of salvation.

Chapter 24.

Justin: Now, sirs, it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites. But lest I appear now to diverge to other subjects, understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. Jesus Christ circumcises all who will—as was declared above—with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace. Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem. Come, let us go to the light of the Lord; for He has liberated His people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations; let us gather ourselves together at Jerusalem, no longer plagued by war for the sins of her people. 'For I was manifest to them that sought Me not; I was found of them that asked not for Me;' He exclaims by Isaiah: 'I said, Behold Me, unto nations which were not called by My name. I have spread out My hands all the day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people, which walked in a way that was not good, but after their own sins. It is a people that provokes Me to my face.'

Jerusalem is here spiritualized and is the abode of the elect of God throughout the nations.

Chapter 125

Justin: I wish, sirs, to learn from you what is the force of the name Israel…

The name Israel signifies this, A man who overcomes power; for Isra is a man overcoming, and El is power. And that Christ would act so when He became man was foretold by the mystery of Jacob's wrestling with Him who appeared to him, in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten of all creatures. For when He became man, as I previously remarked, the devil came to Him—i.e., that power which is called the serpent and Satan—tempting Him, and striving to effect His downfall by asking Him to worship him. But He destroyed and overthrew the devil, having proved him to be wicked, in that he asked to be worshipped as God, contrary to the Scripture; who is an apostate from the will of God. For He answers him, 'It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.' Then, overcome and convicted, the devil departed at that time. But since our Christ was to be numbed, i.e., by pain and experience of suffering, He made a previous intimation of this by touching Jacob's thigh, and causing it to shrink. But Israel was His name from the beginning, to which He altered the name of the blessed Jacob when He blessed him with His own name, proclaiming thereby that all who through Him have fled for refuge to the Father, constitute the blessed Israel. But you, having understood none of this, and not being prepared to understand, since you are the children of Jacob after the fleshly seed, expect that you shall be assuredly saved. But that you deceive yourselves in such matters, I have proved by many words.

Chapter CXXXIV

Jacob was called Israel; and Israel has been demonstrated to be the Christ, who is, and is called, Jesus.

Chapter CXXXV

As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race. … understand, therefore, that the seed of Jacob now referred to is something else, and not, as may be supposed, spoken of your people (the Jewish people) … it is necessary for us here to observe that there are two seeds of Judah, and two races, as there are two houses of Jacob: the one begotten by blood and flesh, the other by faith and the Spirit.

Chapter 6 – Refutation of the Jews

(40) … The Jews are afflicted like some demented person who sees the earth lit up by the sun, but denies the sun that lights it up! What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the God denyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them; yet the whole earth is filled - with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. Surely, then, it must be plain even to the most shameless that the Christ has come, and that He has enlightened all men everywhere, and given them the true and divine teaching about His Father. Thus the Jews may be refuted by these and other arguments from the Divine teaching.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Wrong. Such replacement theology comes from the Catholic Church, not the early church.
Martin Luther promoted it due to his RC baggage.

In the first century there was no such error.

Paul in Romans 11 in fact destroys replacement theology.

Hippolytus
Rome, Italy
(AD 170 – 236)

On the End of the World

3. Isaiah as our first witness, inasmuch as he instructs us in the times of the consummation. What, then, does he say? Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence: the daughter of Zion shall be left as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. You see, beloved, the prophet's illumination, whereby he announced that time so many generations before. For it is not of the Jews that he spoke this word of old, nor of the city of Zion, but of the Church. For all the prophets have declared Sion to be the bride brought from the nations.

Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons,
Gaul, (now France)
(AD 150)

Against Heresies Book III, Chapter XXIII: 1.

Perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God.

Against Heresies Book V, Chapter XXXIV

1. And again the same speaks thus: “These things saith the Lord, I will gather Israel from all nations whither they have been driven, and I shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the sons of the nations: and they shall dwell in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. And they shall dwell in it in peace; and they shall build houses, and plant vineyards, and dwell in hope, when I shall cause judgment to fall among all who have dishonoured them, among those who encircle them round about; and they shall know that I am the Lord their God, and the God of their fathers.” Now I have shown a short time ago that the church is the seed of Abraham; and for this reason, that we may know that He who in the New Testament “raises up from the stones children unto Abraham,” is He who will gather, according to the Old Testament, those that shall be saved from all the nations, Jeremiah says: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, who led the children of Israel from the north, and from every region whither they had been driven; He will restore them to their own land which He gave to their fathers.”

Clement
Alexandria, Egypt
(c.150 - c. 215)

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
Book VI, Chapter 13&14

And the chosen of the chosen are those who by reason of perfect knowledge are called [as the best] from the Church itself, and honoured with the most august glory— the judges and rulers— four-and-twenty (the grace being doubled) equally from Jews and Greeks… Such, according to David, rest in the holy hill of God, in the Church far on high, in which are gathered the philosophers of God, who are Israelites indeed, who are pure in heart, in whom there is no guile.

Athenagoras
Athens, Greece
(wrote A.D. 177)

Chapter 6 – Refutation of the Jews

(40) … the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow?

The Jews are afflicted like some demented person who sees the earth lit up by the sun, but denies the sun that lights it up!

Melito
Bishop of Sardis, Asia Minor (now Turkey)
(d. c. 180)

On the Passover (Peri Pascha)

37. So whenever the thing arises for which the model was made, then that which carried the image of that future thing is destroyed as no longer of use, since it has transmitted its resemblance to that which is by nature true. Therefore, that which once was valuable, is now without value because that which is truly valuable has appeared…
40. The people, therefore, became the model for the church, and the law a parabolic sketch. But the gospel became the explanation of the law and its fulfillment, while the church became the storehouse of truth.
41. Therefore, the type had value prior to its realization, and the parable was wonderful prior to its interpretation. This is to say that the people had value before the church came on the scene, and the law was wonderful before the gospel was brought to light.
42. But when the church came on the scene, and the gospel was set forth, the type lost its value by surrendering its significance to the truth, and the law was fulfilled by surrendering its significance to the gospel. Just as the type lost its significance by surrendering its image to that which is true by nature, and as the parable lost its significance by being illumined through the interpretation …
45. The Jerusalem here below once had value, but now it is without value because of the Jerusalem from above. The meager inheritance once had value; now it is without value because of the abundant grace. For not in one place alone, nor yet in narrow confines, has the glory of God been established, but his grace has been poured out upon the uttermost parts of the inhabited world, and there the almighty God has taken up his dwelling place through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen.

Tertullian
Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia)
(160 – 220 AD)

On the Resurrection of the Flesh
Chapter XXVI

The Jews lose heavenly blessings, by confining their hopes to earthly ones, being ignorant of the promise of heavenly bread, and of the oil of God’s unction, and the wine of the Spirit, and of that water of life which has its vigour from the vine of Christ. On exactly the same principle, they consider the special soil of Judæa to be that very holy land, which ought rather to be interpreted of the Lord’s flesh, which, in all those who put on Christ, is thenceforward the holy land; holy indeed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, truly flowing with milk and honey by the sweetness of His assurance, truly Judæan by reason of the friendship of God. For “he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly.” In the same way it is that both God’s temple and Jerusalem (must be understood) when it is said by Isaiah: “Awake, awake, O Jerusalem! put on the strength of thine arm; awake, as in thine earliest time,” that is to say, in that innocence which preceded the fall into sin. For how can words of this kind of exhortation and invitation be suitable for that Jerusalem which killed the prophets, and stoned those that were sent to them, and at last crucified its very Lord? Neither indeed is salvation promised to any one land at all, which must needs pass away with the fashion of the whole world.

Chapter XXIV

God’s kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession. Besides, your Christ promises to the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country; and after this life’s course is over, repose in Hades in Abraham’s bosom. Oh, most excellent God, when He restores in amnesty what He took away in wrath! Oh, what a God is yours, who both wounds and heals, creates evil and makes peace! Oh, what a God, that is merciful even down to Hades! I shall have something to say about Abraham’s bosom in the proper place. As for the restoration of Judæa, however, which even the Jews themselves, induced by the names of places and countries, hope for just as it is described, it would be tedious to state at length how the figurative interpretation is spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof;

Clement
Alexandria, Egypt
(c.150 - c. 215)

The Instructor
Chapter VIII – On the Use of Ointments and Crowns

They crowned Jesus raised aloft, testifying to their own ignorance. For being hard of heart, they understood not that this very thing, which they called the disgrace of the Lord, was a prophecy wisely uttered: “The Lord was not known by the people” which erred, which was not circumcised in understanding, whose darkness was not enlightened, which knew not God, denied the Lord, forfeited the place of the true Israel, persecuted God, hoped to reduce the Word to disgrace; and Him whom they crucified as a malefactor they crowned as a king.

 

[Jamdoc]

Now apply that to the millennium after the 2nd coming, followed by the uprising during satan's little season. It at least makes sense out of why there might be a period of time like this after the 2nd coming when in the end it turns into a rebellion by many.

That's my thought process on it.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Doesn't matter
you can acknowledge that someone is creator and is all powerful, and still not trust or love them.
You might fear them, and obey them, but you may in the back of your mind think "surely there's something better"

And where do you get this in the Bible?