Rev. 20:4, No Mention of Physical Earthly Reign

[ScottA]

1. Matthew 10:6-7 was in Jesus ministry under the law of Moses which we were never under and are not now. It was the kingdom message which had to do with Israel's earthly calling that they rejected at that time but will be when they obey in the future. It was also before the cross in which Christ died for the whole world. There is no where in that passage that says It is finished or even implies that. You are putting your own opinion in it.

That is not the proof text of the fate of Israel, but rather part of defining His earthly ministry. The fact that He commanded them to preach that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand, indicates that Israel's fate is upon them and soon to be finished.

2. Those dead in christ don't have resurrected bodies for 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 has not been fulfilled for we have not been caught up together with them in Christ who will bring them from heaven and they will be changed first; verse 15. They are not reigning over the nations and you have no scripture for that.

Your understanding of the timing of 1Thes. 4:16-17 is in error. Paul goes further in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and explains that the timing, is: "each one in his own order." But to understand this explanation, requires the renewing of your mind about the historic timeline. Scripture is not a story of our times, but of God's timeless effect on humanity. If you do not see it from His timeless perspective, you are blind to it.

3. Obviously, you don't know what the phrase, "I die daily" means because you won't answer to it.

I did answer to it, and I explained it. Apparently, you have your own interpretation: let me guess...it all on a timeline.

4. The more you post you are giving the perception that you just want to purposely be unfair to the scriptures and prove a man made doctrine and logic. Why don't you reconcile all the scriptures on the subject. God said his covenant with Israel was eternal and was conditioned by obedience. In Jesus day they rejected the message and they did not receive the kingdom. Paul records after that tells us that Israel had forsaken Christ but will be grafted back in and that they will come back into covenant with them. Romans 11 says this in a plain statement and context. Their gifts and callings are without repentance because they will come into obedience in the future and take their rightful place at the head of the nations. Verse 28 says; As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sake. They are elect which means they will come back to Christ as the nation which is different from the calling of the church today.

Reconciling scriptures you want? Here:

• God's covenant with Israel eternal conditioned by obedience = the law.
• Israel rejected Christ = God kept his promise anyway and they became the first fruits of the kingdom.
• Paul's claim that Israel would be grafted back in = The last will be first, and the first last Matthew 20:16 .
• Israel taking their rightful place at the head of the nations = Christ is King of Kings and they are with Him (the dead in Christ/the first fruits).
• As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sake. = Christ came for the house of Israel, died for their disobedience, and their election is sealed/finished.

  5. You can't answer to the whole of scripture on this subject and you have prove it for you won't answer to them and when you do to some like Matthew 10:6-7 you misuse the scripture that doesn't say what you say it says and you won't own up to it. When you start being fair to the scripture then maybe we can have a fair exchange but I highly doubt if you are going to try very hard.

  If I understand the scriptures as timeless, you find that objectionable. But God is timeless and therefore I speak the truth, while you join with the teachings of men and their interpretations as men.

 

[jerry kelso]

That is not the proof text of the fate of Israel, but rather part of defining His earthly ministry. The fact that He commanded them to preach that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand, indicates that Israel's fate is upon them and soon to be finished.
Your understanding of the timing of 1Thes. 4:16-17 is in error. Paul goes further in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and explains that the timing, is: "each one in his own order." But to understand this explanation, requires the renewing of your mind about the historic timeline. Scripture is not a story of our times, but of God's timeless effect on humanity. If you do not see it from His timeless perspective, you are blind to it.
I did answer to it, and I explained it. Apparently, you have your own interpretation: let me guess...it all on a timeline.
Reconciling scriptures you want? Here:

• God's covenant with Israel eternal conditioned by obedience = the law.
• Israel rejected Christ = God kept his promise anyway and they became the first fruits of the kingdom.
• Paul's claim that Israel would be grafted back in = The last will be first, and the first last Matthew 20:16 .
• Israel taking their rightful place at the head of the nations = Christ is King of Kings and they are with Him (the dead in Christ/the first fruits).
• As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sake. = Christ came for the house of Israel, died for their disobedience, and their election is sealed/finished.If I understand the scriptures as timeless, you find that objectionable. But God is timeless and therefore I speak the truth, while you join with the teachings of men and their interpretations as men.

scotta,

1. The fate of Israel? The scripture don't say that and I never said that. Jesus offered the Physical KoH because it was there's to receive. They were backslidden in their covenant and had to obey to receive. He came to seek and save that which was lost. That which was lost was the KoH physical kingdom and the KoG the spiritual rule of their heart. This was lost in the garden of Eden and this is why Adam and Eve were kicked out. This rules out your thinking indicated Israel's fate. Israel's fate was prophesied and was the result for disobedience but preaching the KoH and the KoG message wasn't signaling their rejection and end for it was designed to save and not bring them to ruin. You cannot produce a scripture that says their covenant in the KoH was not eternal. I on the other hand have already produced scripture in the old and the new testament that it is eternal and that they will eventually believe.

2. The renewing of your mind has nothing to do with timelines of understanding history, unless you have the wrong history which you do. The renewing of your mind is more about spiritual metaphysics.

3. The scriptural view of 1 Thessalonians that I gave is spot on and 1 Corinthians 15, each in his own order harmonizes with it beautifully. Why? Because we who are alive and remain and those dead in Christ from the old and new testament until the rapture are those that are Christ's at his coming. This is not the second advent.

4. God's timeless effect on humanity is timeless in effect but that has nothing to do with God dealing with man in real specific ways and having a real kingdom on earth with Israel at the head of the nations. Your timeless jargon is in the clouds to go with your spiritual metaphysics.

5. God's covenant with Israel is eternal conditioned by obedience was not the law of Moses but will be the law of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31-31-32 and Hebrews 8:7-13).
In one breath you say it is eternal but yet it was finished. That is an oxymoron and a contradiction. You try to cover it up by saying it is eternal because the dead in christ of those jews were the first fruits. How ridiculous that is because it is not scriptural, it's just your human logic.

6. The nation of Israel was elect of God eternally before the cross. Just because Christ died for the transgressions of the first testament is not the full truth of their being elect to rule and reign literally as the head of the nations. This is why you spiritualize it so you can rob Israel of its covenant blessings and assess it to the church most likely.

7. Your timeless theory is timeless nonsense. Sealed and yet finished; eternal but only in a spiritual sense using physical dead saints from a different company.

8. You must be amillennialist and if so that is why you are confused. You are still not being fair in exegesis and to the context

9. As far as I Die Daily you will not answer it fully. Why can't you just read verses 1-32 and state the context. It shouldn't be that hard. Go ahead and try. Jerry kelso

 

[ewq1938]

Amillennialism Is a false doctrine.

Revelation 20:4 says,

"...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly Kingdom at Jerusalem. Those that teach this are duty-bound to prove their doctrine with scripture.

They reign with Christ upon the Earth:

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

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.

Did you know that the phrase "thousand year reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture? Neither does the term "millenium." Yet, the doctrine is prevalent among so many denominations.

You are using the argument from silence fallacy:

An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of an exact statement or exact term or exact word, rather than the presence of the concept, description, meaning or use of an alternative word. It is often found in the example of a question asking for something the asker already knows does not exist. Example, "Where is the word "Trinity" found in the bible?". The fallacy is the requirement for that exact word to be found somewhere rather than the concept of the Trinity being found. People unfamiliar with this fallacious tactic might consider the type of question valid when it is in fact invalid and fallacious in nature.

 

[Jan001]

Revelation 20:4 says,

"...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly Kingdom at Jerusalem. Those that teach this are duty-bound to prove their doctrine with scripture.

Did you know that the phrase "thousand year reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture? Neither does the term "millenium." Yet, the doctrine is prevalent among so many denominations.

Where does this passage mention Christ's second coming?

Where does it mention a reign on earth?

Where does it mention Christ on earth?

Those who believe in a future earthly reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years make the same mistake that the Jews who crucified Christ made -- they were not satisfied with a spiritual Kingdom; they had to have a literal, worldly, physical Kingdom.

The truth of the matter is not that Christ will reign for a thousand years some time in the future, but that Christ is reigning now, and will continue to reign for eternity. We do not have to wait for His Kingdom to come sometime in the future before He starts reigning over our lives, for Christ's Kingdom is here now, and He desires that we reign with Him now, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

I agree. The "thousand years" depicts the church era on earth. It began with Jesus' death and resurrection. It will end when He comes again and takes everyone to the white throne to judge them. Some will be judged to be spiritually alive and some will be judged to be spiritually dead. The former will be crowned with eternal life and the latter will receive the second death which is eternal hell-fire.

 

[ewq1938]

I agree. The "thousand years" depicts the church era on earth. It began with Jesus' death and resurrection.

No, that isn't true. Rev 20 does not support that interpretation. In Rev 20 it is the period of time Christ reigns with his saints which resurrect in the same timeframe as his second coming which Paul also wrote about.

It will end when He comes again and takes everyone to the white throne to judge them. Some will be judged to be spiritually alive and some will be judged to be spiritually dead. The former will be crowned with eternal life and the latter will receive the second death which is eternal hell-fire.

Eternal life is granted to the saved before the thousand years ever starts. The unsaved will only go to hell fire after the thousand years is over.

 

[katallasso]

What do you all say about Isaiah 65? In verse 17 it speaks of a new heaven and a new earth. This sounds very physical to me.
Isaiah 65:17 “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth."

In verse 20 it speaks of infants no more dying and men being considered young if they die at 100 years of age.
Isaiah 65:20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child;

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,”

Verse 25 is remarkable and very physical, there has never been a time like this, infants not dying, young men dying at a hundred years of age, lions eating straw. This speaks of a time to come, a redemption of a fallen earth.

 

[jerry kelso]

What do you all say about Isaiah 65? In verse 17 it speaks of a new heaven and a new earth. This sounds very physical to me.
Isaiah 65:17 “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth."

In verse 20 it speaks of infants no more dying and men being considered young if they die at 100 years of age.
Isaiah 65:20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child;

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,”

Verse 25 is remarkable and very physical, there has never been a time like this, infants not dying, young men dying at a hundred years of age, lions eating straw. This speaks of a time to come, a redemption of a fallen earth.

katallassoo,

1. Isaiah 65:17 is about the new heaven and the new earth which is physical.

2. Isaiah 65:6-7 talks about the nation of Israel being a nation born in one day and Zion bringing forth her children.
This is talking about the 1000 year Messianic reign which is the real millennial physical Kingdom of Heaven rule. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, that Christ has to rule and reign to put down all rule and all authority and power till he puts all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
The scriptures in Isaiah 65 which I myself have used multiple times has not happened yet. Amillennialists believe that this is the 1000 year reign today spiritually and that Christ will come back at the second coming to set up the Kingdom of God of the New Heaven and the New Earth.

3. The 1st 1000 years will have people who will not serve God but they will obey the civil law and have offspring who will not be a christian. At the end of the 1000 years Satan will have a last rebellion in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea and God sends fire down from heaven to earth and destroys them and sends the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are. Revelation 20:8-10. Revelation 19:20 gives the time as when they deceived men to take the mark of the beast and were destroyed. This was the battle of Armageddon and is after the time that those in the first resurrection who didn't take the mark. These martyrs live and reign after the battle of Armageddon for 1000 years. This proves that the 1000 years is literal and not a metaphor of how God looks at time as far as taking the place of the 1000 literal years. The beast and the false prophet were killed in the battle of Armageddon 1000 years before because the devil is imprisoned in the bottomless pit. Revelation 20:1. So Amillennialist have no leg to stand on of scripture or logic when it comes to trying to prove that the 1000 year reign is right now. The scriptures you gave are part of this prove also for it is about the restitution of all things which includes the curse being lifted off creation.

4. So the 1000 year Kingdom of Heaven Messianic reign is to put down all sin and rebellion and do away death so the Kingdom of God will be set up which will be the New Heaven and the New Earth. This will be the Kingdom of God where God will be all in all. This is because this earthly sphere that is now out of harmony with the universal KoG will be in perfect harmony with the Universal KoG. The KoH reign is forever Daniel 7:14; 27. and is located on the earth and the Holy City will come down from heaven and submerge with earth. Revelation 21:1-3. The holy city will bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. Revelation 21:26. This is the connection between the Heavenly Holy City and the planet earth.

5. Last the New Heaven and the New Earth will not be a result of annihilation. Being renovated by fire doesn't annihilate but purifies.
2 Peter 3:10 says the Day of the Lord which will be after the battle of Armageddon, the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. This falls in line with Matthew 24:35 and Hebrews 12:27-29. Hebrews shows that the passing away is the shaking when things will be removed, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken and remain; Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.

6. This shows the earth itself will remain and the meaning of the shaking is about those things that are spiritual will remain and sin and sickness, wars etc will be removed. So God as a consuming fire is not annihilate the physical earth. The curse will be lifted and the process will be by renovation by fire of purification. One has to understand Physical Purification by fire and not Physical destruction by fire. Jerry kelso

 

[iamlamad]

Revelation 20:4 says,

"...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly Kingdom at Jerusalem. Those that teach this are duty-bound to prove their doctrine with scripture.

Did you know that the phrase "thousand year reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture? Neither does the term "millenium." Yet, the doctrine is prevalent among so many denominations.

Where does this passage mention Christ's second coming?

Where does it mention a reign on earth?

Where does it mention Christ on earth?

Those who believe in a future earthly reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years make the same mistake that the Jews who crucified Christ made -- they were not satisfied with a spiritual Kingdom; they had to have a literal, worldly, physical Kingdom.

The truth of the matter is not that Christ will reign for a thousand years some time in the future, but that Christ is reigning now, and will continue to reign for eternity. We do not have to wait for His Kingdom to come sometime in the future before He starts reigning over our lives, for Christ's Kingdom is here now, and He desires that we reign with Him now, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

 

[iamlamad]

Thank you for your response!

Rev. 20:4 is the verse used by premillennialists to support their teaching of a future physical earthly and political reign of a militant Christ, hence that is the reason I used it.

I promise you that I have taken the entire Bible under consideration to draw my conclusion.

Neither Jesus or any of His apostles taught about a future physical, earthly, political reign with a militant Christ.

As a matter of fact, the kingdom Jesus spoke of was spiritual by nature, not physical.

One must rely on his own private interpretation of OT prophesy and John's Revelation in order to draw the conclusion of a future physical, earthly, political kingdom.

All one needs to do is recognize the number and variety of these interpretations so-called Bible teachers promote. Turn on any one of the religious channels, and you will hear a plethora of what these prophecies supposedly mean.

Yet, we know that God is not the author of confusion!

In the NT alone, the word kingdom appears 63 times. Not once do any of the 63 occurrences say there will be a physical, earthly political kingdom with a militant Jesus.

With all due respect, I suggest that you or anyone reading this post read, in context, all 63 occurences of "kingdom" in the NT. When you finish with that, do the same with the OT. If memory serves me correctly, there are two Hebrew words for kingdom in the OT. I believe one occurs 117 times. The other can be found 57 times. It's a very interesting study, especially if you go into it without preconceived ideas. It was a real eye opener for me.

Blessings,

Katie

So PLEASE, fill us in: WHERE will Jesus be when He rules with a rod of iron and we are WITH Him?

 

[ewq1938]

What do you all say about Isaiah 65? In verse 17 it speaks of a new heaven and a new earth. This sounds very physical to me.
Isaiah 65:17 “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth."

In verse 20 it speaks of infants no more dying and men being considered young if they die at 100 years of age.
Isaiah 65:20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child;

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,”

Verse 25 is remarkable and very physical, there has never been a time like this, infants not dying, young men dying at a hundred years of age, lions eating straw. This speaks of a time to come, a redemption of a fallen earth.

The new heaven and new Earth takes place to begin the eternity so those verses aren't the Millennium, nor are they literal things like people dying at 100 as there is no death at that time. It's language used to depict a time of health and prosperity that the Israelites could understand in terms that made sense to them. Lions won't be eating straw nor will serpents eat dust. It's merely poetic language

 

[Jan001]

No, that isn't true. Rev 20 does not support that interpretation. In Rev 20 it is the period of time Christ reigns with his saints which resurrect in the same timeframe as his second coming which Paul also wrote about.

Revelation 20:4-6
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. nkjv
​

When did the very first resurrection occur? It happened when Jesus Christ died on the cross. These same saints which rose from the dead at that time are ruling in heaven with Jesus Christ right now and they have been ruling with Him in heaven for almost 2000 years already. There cannot possibly be another first resurrection in the future.

Matthew 27:50-53
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. nkjv​

Every person who dies and is approved to enter into heaven will reign there with Jesus until it is time for His second appearing/coming. His second coming will signal that it is time for the sheep and goats judgment.

2 Timothy 2:12
If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. nkjv​

Eternal life is granted to the saved before the thousand years ever starts. The unsaved will only go to hell fire after the thousand years is over.

Eternal life is not formally granted to the righteous until after the sheep and goats judgment. Matthew 25:31-46

 

[ewq1938]

When did the very first resurrection occur? It happened when Jesus Christ died on the cross.

No it didn't, nor is that when he resurrected, nor was it the fuirst resurrection ever, and lastly and most importantly the first ressurrection of Rev 20 much be contextual to what Rev 20 describes. It says a groups of formerly dead people are resurrected to reign with Christ.

These same saints which rose from the dead at that time are ruling in heaven with Jesus Christ right now and they have been ruling with Him in heaven for almost 2000 years already. There cannot possibly be another first resurrection in the future.

There is only one first mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Rev 20. Any other kind of resurrection is out of context. Its called a contextual fallacy.

Every person who dies and is approved to enter into heaven will reign there with Jesus until it is time for His second appearing/coming.

No, the saints have an Earthly reign not a heavenly reign, Rev 5:10.

 

[Jan001]

No it didn't, nor is that when he resurrected, nor was it the fuirst resurrection ever, and lastly and most importantly the first ressurrection of Rev 20 much be contextual to what Rev 20 describes. It says a groups of formerly dead people are resurrected to reign with Christ.

So, all these saints who rose from their graves when Jesus died on the cross don't count? How can it be that they were not actually the first people resurrected in the first resurrection? Any mass resurrections occurring after Jesus' and these saints' resurrections cannot be called the first resurrection. A first resurrection can only happen once.

There is only one first mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Rev 20. Any other kind of resurrection is out of context. Its called a contextual fallacy.

The only mass bodily resurrection will be at the time of Jesus' second coming and this is immediately before the judgment of the sheep and goats.

2 Timothy 4:1
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: nkjv​

No, the saints have an Earthly reign not a heavenly reign, Rev 5:10.

I do not see this to be an earthly reign.

Acts 7:49
‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest? nkjv
​

I can't picture Jesus reigning from the earth which is merely the footstool of God.

 

[ewq1938]

So, all these saints who rose from their graves when Jesus died on the cross don't count?

First, congrats on understanding they resurrected the day he died not 3 days later as most people believe. Second, they count but that's not the first time someone was resurrected from the dead nor does it have any connection to the context and timing of the first of two resurrections in Rev 20.

To stay in context, who is being resurrection in the first part of Rev 20 and who is being resurrected a thousand years later?

How can it be that they were not actually the first people resurrected in the first resurrection?

They weren't the first to be resurrected nor is that event being discussed in Rev 20.

Any mass resurrections occurring after Jesus' and these saints' resurrections cannot be called the first resurrection. A first resurrection can only happen once.

That's wrong. The first Res. Of Rev 20 is the first mass bodily resurrection after the return of Christ. It is the first of two that happen in that chapter. The resurrection of the cross is not contextual to Rev 20. It is like saying Lazarus being resurrected in the gospels is what Rev 20 is talking about when clearly it is not.

The only mass bodily resurrection will be at the time of Jesus' second coming and this is immediately before the judgment of the sheep and goats.

Yes, so why are you taking the context of people rising at the cross and forcing it into Rev 20? It's different people being spoken of, particularly those that were beheaded for refusing the mark of the beast...the same beast Christ destroys in Rev 19. That beast exists when Christ returns and it only has 42 months to reign according to Rev 13 so the beast rises to power 42 months before the Rev 19 second coming which means the beheaded ones in Rev 20 refused the mark and were killed in that same 42 month period.

2 Timothy 4:1

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: nkjv

I do not see this to be an earthly reign.

You just said this was after the second coming. You do realize Christ returns to the Earth and stays here right?

Acts 7:49

‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool

. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest? nkjv

I can't picture Jesus reigning from the earth which is merely the footstool of God.

Heaven is temporary place for the Father and Son and angles. They all comes to the Earth to spend eternity so reigning on the earth is where the reign will be. Have you not read this verse about those who reign and live with Christ?

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

This is sung in heaven, yet they do not say we are reigning in heaven, but shall (future tense) reign on Earth. Rev 2 even states they will reign over the nations and guess where they are? The Earth.

 

[jerry kelso]

The new heaven and new Earth takes place to begin the eternity so those verses aren't the Millennium, nor are they literal things like people dying at 100 as there is no death at that time. It's language used to depict a time of health and prosperity that the Israelites could understand in terms that made sense to them. Lions won't be eating straw nor will serpents eat dust. It's merely poetic language

ewq1938,

1. One could say we are in eternity now because life will always go on.

2. To your point of the restitution of all things actually happen in the Day of the Lord which the millennial government is set up. Jesus preached about this kingdom on earth which he called the Kingdom of Heaven.
3. This phrase is the greek Baselia; Kingdom from the heavens which is the spiritual aspect from heaven where God lives and it is his rule spiritually that will rule the earth in the future. The Kingdom of God in its physical sense is the universal kingdom where Heaven is the capitol. The kingdom under the whole heaven Daniel 7:27 which is the location of this earthly sphere. The millennial kingdom is a literal 1000 years and is not poetic alone and those who use the passage in Peter to prove that point. Time is nothing to Christ but this doesn't mean that our time on earth is not an actual 1000 years. If one uses this point of view they could use it for many other passages and take scripture out of context. The sinners resurrection called the second death is a literal 1000 years too and so is Satan being the bottomless pit.

4. The 1000 years is to set up the millennial kingdom and put down all sin and rebellion (1 Corinthians 15). People in that day will have to live according to the civil law but not all will be christians and they will be the ones who are deceived in the last rebellion on earth that will be put down and destroyed by fire out of Heaven. This is when satan will be thrown in the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet have been a 1000 years before in the battle of Armageddon. The the Great White Throne Judgement will take place at the second resurrection. After this will be one more renovation of heaven and earth. Revelation 21.
Lions will be eating grass like the oxen is not far fetched because oxen really do eat grass and the lion will not be carnivores in that age for they will not destroy in God's holy mountain etc. Jerry kelso

 

[ewq1938]

ewq1938,

1. One could say we are in eternity now because life will always go on.

Nope, the eternity doesn't start until the new heaven and new Earth after judgment day, Rev 21.

2. To your point of the restitution of all things actually happen in the Day of the Lord which the millennial government is set up.

I never said that.

Jesus preached about this kingdom on earth which he called the Kingdom of Heaven.
3. This phrase is the greek Baselia; Kingdom from the heavens which is the spiritual aspect from heaven where God lives and it is his rule spiritually that will rule the earth in the future.

No, the future reign will be literal and physically located on the Earth with resurrected saints helping Christ reign the nations.

The sinners resurrection called the second death is a literal 1000 years too and so is Satan being the bottomless pit.

No, that's also wrong. The thousand years happens after the first group of dead are resurrected, and is completed before any of the unsaved dead are resurrected according to Rev 20.

4. The 1000 years is to set up the millennial kingdom and put down all sin and rebellion (1 Corinthians 15). People in that day will have to live according to the civil law but not all will be christians and they will be the ones who are deceived in the last rebellion on earth that will be put down and destroyed by fire out of Heaven. This is when satan will be thrown in the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet have been a 1000 years before in the battle of Armageddon. The the Great White Throne Judgement will take place at the second resurrection. After this will be one more renovation of heaven and earth. Revelation 21.

Correct.

Lions will be eating grass like the oxen is not far fetched because oxen really do eat grass and the lion will not be carnivores in that age for they will not destroy in God's holy mountain etc. Jerry kelso

This is figurative speech which includes snakes eating dust.

 

[jerry kelso]

So, all these saints who rose from their graves when Jesus died on the cross don't count? How can it be that they were not actually the first people resurrected in the first resurrection? Any mass resurrections occurring after Jesus' and these saints' resurrections cannot be called the first resurrection. A first resurrection can only happen once.



The only mass bodily resurrection will be at the time of Jesus' second coming and this is immediately before the judgment of the sheep and goats.

2 Timothy 4:1
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: nkjv​

I do not see this to be an earthly reign.

Acts 7:49
‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest? nkjv
​

I can't picture Jesus reigning from the earth which is merely the footstool of God.

jan001,

1. Jesus resurrection had the first fruits. In Revelation 20:4-6 the first resurrection in context is to the tribulation saints who were beheaded by the beast kingdom. So, you saying the first resurrection is when Christ was resurrected was the first resurrection in being the same as Revelation 20:4-6 is incorrect to the context and is just an opinion disregarding context.

2. The appearing and the kingdom are two different things. At the appearing and his kingdom should be concerning the appearing and his kingdom they should preach the word etc. Now you may think I am changing this wording but I am reconciling the scriptures together which show the appearing of the dead and the living in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 which takes place meeting in the air and the kingdom we come out of heaven to do battle. At the kingdom Christ will judge the nations in that day which are the sheep and the goat nations (Matthew 25).
It is an earthly reign because we are being trained to rule and reign on earth. Revelation 5:10 and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall "REIGN ON THE EARTH".

3. Earth is God's footstool because he is creator from Heaven and this is just the earthly sphere that is a part of the universal KoG. This physical kingdom is out of harmony with the universal kingdom and has to be brought back into harmony with it. Daniel 7:14 shows that Christ will be given authority and dominion on earth. Well how could this be if the Lord already has complete authority in heaven and in earth. So your logic is not specific to the context and is the same logic as I have just explained that you are saying and makes no sense. One must understand the context otherwise it is at risk of being an opinion. Do you understand this? Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

Nope, the eternity doesn't start until the new heaven and new Earth after judgment day, Rev 21.





I never said that.




No, the future reign will be literal and physically located on the Earth with resurrected saints helping Christ reign the nations.



No, that's also wrong. The thousand years happens after the first group of dead are resurrected, and is completed before any of the unsaved dead are resurrected according to Rev 20.





Correct.




This is figurative speech which includes snakes eating dust.

eqw1938,

1. Eternity beginning depends on your definition and context.
2. The millennial kingdom is an everlasting and eternal kingdom on earth. Daniel 7:27. This first 1000 years is to rid of sin and rebellion. 1 Corinthians 15:24-25. It is where Christ will rule with a rod of iron Isaiah 2:9 with his saints and Israel at the head of the nations for out of Zion the law will go forth Isaiah 2:2-4, Revelation 2:26-27.
3. When the 1000 years is up and the devil is loosed from the bottomless pit he goes out to deceive the nations and the last great rebellion God sends fire from heaven and destroys all of them and the devil is thrown into the lake of fire.
The Great White Throne Judgement for sinners only will be judged and then comes the New Heaven and the New Earth with the Holy City to come down from Heaven.
4. I wasn't saying that you believed the restitution of all things was in the millennial kingdom because you believe that it is in the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth. Right?
5. I was saying that the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus preached will be the same message as in the time of Jacob's trouble which deals with Israel and it was supposed to happen in those days but the jews wouldn't accept the Messiah and forgiveness of sins. The KoH actually started in the garden and Adam and Eve ruled it until they sinned and were kicked out because they didn't keep the KoG or the spiritual rule in their hearts. God will not rule with man unless he has a holy heart.
6. The sinners resurrection is literally 1000 years after the first resurrection is what I meant to say. The sinner's resurrection is not a 1000 years long. Sorry, I must got in a hurry. Satan is in the bottomless pit for a literal 1000 years.
7. The lion eating straw or grass what is it figurative of? If they are not going to destroy anymore it is a good chance that it is literal. Whether it is physical or figurative it would still mean they won't hurt or destroy. They definitely won't be eating other animals if they are not going to hurt or destroy. What do you suggest they will be eating. Jerry Kelso

 

[ewq1938]

eqw1938,

1. Eternity beginning depends on your definition and context.

Perhaps but it is found in Rev 21-22.

2. The millennial kingdom is an everlasting and eternal kingdom on earth.

No, it's Millennial for a reason, limited to 1000 years only. That is also the length of the reign of the rod of iron.

This first 1000 years is to rid of sin and rebellion.

Well then it fails because after the thousand years there is sin and rebellion...so, you are also wrong on this.

3. When the 1000 years is up and the devil is loosed from the bottomless pit he goes out to deceive the nations and the last great rebellion God sends fire from heaven and destroys all of them and the devil is thrown into the lake of fire.
The Great White Throne Judgement for sinners only will be judged and then comes the New Heaven and the New Earth with the Holy City to come down from Heaven.

Yes.

4. I wasn't saying that you believed the restitution of all things was in the millennial kingdom because you believe that it is in the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth. Right?

No, the NHNE clearly begins in Rev 21, not before it.

6. The sinners resurrection is literally 1000 years after the first resurrection is what I meant to say. The sinner's resurrection is not a 1000 years long. Sorry, I must got in a hurry. Satan is in the bottomless pit for a literal 1000 years.

Ok, agreed.

7. The lion eating straw or grass what is it figurative of? If they are not going to destroy anymore it is a good chance that it is literal. Whether it is physical or figurative it would still mean they won't hurt or destroy. They definitely won't be eating other animals if they are not going to hurt or destroy. What do you suggest they will be eating.

It's symbolic of absolute peace in terms that would amaze people in the past, and to some degree now but it's not literal. Snakes won't eat dust. I don't even believe animals will exist at that time.

Ezekiel 32:13 I will destroy also all the beasts thereof from beside the great waters; neither shall the foot of man trouble them any more, nor the hoofs of beasts trouble them.

Hos 4:3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.

 

[BukiRob]

Revelation 20:4 says,

"...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly Kingdom at Jerusalem. Those that teach this are duty-bound to prove their doctrine with scripture.

Did you know that the phrase "thousand year reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture? Neither does the term "millenium." Yet, the doctrine is prevalent among so many denominations.

Where does this passage mention Christ's second coming?

Where does it mention a reign on earth?

Where does it mention Christ on earth?

Those who believe in a future earthly reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years make the same mistake that the Jews who crucified Christ made -- they were not satisfied with a spiritual Kingdom; they had to have a literal, worldly, physical Kingdom.

The truth of the matter is not that Christ will reign for a thousand years some time in the future, but that Christ is reigning now, and will continue to reign for eternity. We do not have to wait for His Kingdom to come sometime in the future before He starts reigning over our lives, for Christ's Kingdom is here now, and He desires that we reign with Him now, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

We can start with the last 9 chapters of Ezekiel. It is crystal clear that those prophecies have not yet been fulfilled.

No, that isn't true. Rev 20 does not support that interpretation. In Rev 20 it is the period of time Christ reigns with his saints which resurrect in the same timeframe as his second coming which Paul also wrote about.




Eternal life is granted to the saved before the thousand years ever starts. The unsaved will only go to hell fire after the thousand years is over.

This all has its root in replacement theology which is a false doctrine.

Israel is NOT replaced by the "church" Believers who are gentiles are grafted in we do not replace...