Featured Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom?

That is not what the Scripture states, it states...

Revelation 21:21-23King James Version (KJV)

21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Agree completely.

Actually, we are given explicit detail as to what we can expect in Revelation 21-22.

What is said is there is no need for sun nor moon.

That is not the same as saying "There is no sun nor moon in the new heavens and earth."

And again, it is a reference to the new heavens and earth, not to this current universe.

I can easily see a universe without sun nor moon, enlightened by God Himself, as we have that very picture in the Creation account.

All I am saying is that we do not want to impose into the text something that is not there, but to stay with what is actually there.


God bless.

 

This...

...does not say "...the Apostles were pre-millennial." It speaks of a singular Apostle and those who learned from him.

Your argument therefore is contrived, which then demands proof of pre-millennial teaching from all Apostles.

And the fact remains that John was pre-millennial in his writing, as Revelation is indeed pre-millennial.

You have not addressed either his post or mine honestly, but have allowed your bias to disrupt careful attention to the discussion at hand.

So you are going to say at this time that you receive Scripture's clear statement that there will be a thousand year reign of Christ?

Please respond to this question, because it will be a question I will persist asking until you do.

Nothing wrong with that. However, if you actually did that, you would be able to see Paul's writing addresses the events of Revelation, and...that Revelation corresponds to Paul's teaching, as well as that found in the Old Testament.

You need to balance all, not try to delete prophetic revelation from Revelation because you can't find it in the Old Testament or other Books of the New Testament.

Christ taught of the Supper of the Great God in Revelation 19 in Matthew 24 and Luke 17. You have been shown that before. So while I can say I correlate, which is unidirectional, your approach is not only limited, it intentionally removes Scripture's meaning if it doesn't fit your System of Theology.

Not at all. And I have shown you how Old Testament Prophecy and New Testament Writings correlate to the Prophecy of Revelation.

Zechariah 14 is one example. You have yet to respond to that issue.

They were, due to the revelation provided them through the Spirit, able to make an eternal application to the Prophecy. That doesn't mean they negated what was temporal.

The Old Testament Saints looked for an earthly, temporal Kingdom, and an earthly, temporal King. They had no clue that our King would save us from sin as we do.

Christ taught within the framework of Pre-Pentecost Revelation, the Apostles taught under New Covenant and Post-Pentecost Revelation.

When Christ sent out the disciples, the Kingdom in view was not the Kingdom of God in the eternal sphere of understanding, but within that Old Testament framework which Israel was familiar with:


Matthew 10:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Do you think that the Gentiles and Samaritans were restricted from the disciple's tour because the Lord did not want them to know about the Kingdom Heaven in the eternal sphere?

No, the restriction was imposed because the Kingdom of Heaven in view is the temporal Kingdom promised to Israel. Israel's restoration is just a basic Bible theme in the Old Testament, and it is that framework in which the Lord and the disciples worked under.

He makes this clear here as well...


Matthew 15:23-24

King James Version (KJV)

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


The woman again pleads mercy, and note His response:


25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.


The Lord is not saying "I have come only to save Israel from her sin," but, that His ministry at this time was exclusive to Israel and the Prophecy of Messiah which pertained to Israel. And the Kingdom in view would have been that earthly Kingdom.

No, Aaron, I am approaching all Scripture and seeking to place it in its proper context.

We interpret the Old with the New. We interpret the New with the Old.

Not a one way street, my friend.

The Pre-millennial view is a First Century Teaching of the Word of God. How all Scripture relevant to that Biblical view corresponds to each other is for us to determine.

The a-millennial view cannot do that and maintain the integrity of the Whole Counsel of God's Word.


God bless.

 

That I will agree with.

However the conversation centered on the Temple itself, not the Temple Complex:

My question should have shown the context. The blood of animals was taken into the Temple itself.

And no-one rode animals into the Temple, which is the central issue to the conversation, as we were discussing whether Christ could be viewed as riding the horse He is said to in Revelation 19. You criticize a view which has a literal horse in it, which is okay, if you want to see it as figurative language, I can understand that, I see the sword coming from His mouth as figurative, representing His Word.

But what does the figurative language speak of?


God bless.

 

All "portraits" have an intent. The sword coming out of Christ's mouth, while figurative, represents the enemies of God being destroyed by the Returning Christ with His Word.

While I can fully understand that some will see the horse as figurative as well, what I would ask for, and have already asked for...is the intent of the figurative language.

It is very serious theological point you sought to make, and I can understand that as well. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. We do not see Satan as a literal Dragon, for example, but we don't dismiss Satan as a literal entity seen throughout Scripture. He is that ancient serpent, and that is the intent of the figurative description.

Christ returning on a white horse has no reason as being seen as figurative, but, if you can give me an intent as we see in regards to the sword coming out of His mouth, then I'll be happy to consider it.

I'd be happy to, lol, can we return to the topic now?

You are the one that will make that determination. And I will abide by whatever decision you make.

I realize that, Aaron, and I can't blame you for having an issue with a view that is in opposition to your own.

But I suggest that is why we get together to discuss these things, to test our own views and those of others.

But once again you present a false argument, because no-one in this thread has suggested that the Law is put back into effect. This issue has to be separated on the basis of what we mean when we speak of the "Law," for we can be referring to the Word of God (the Pentateuch) or the Covenant (of Law).

The former has never lost it's application for Christians, the latter has. Israel engaging in their historical tradition is never rejected, whereas engaging in the Covenant itself is.

And whether the horse described in Revelation 19 is literal or no, that doesn't change the intent of the passage which is to illustrate the Return of Christ, and place it in the Prophetic Timeline of events. He returns, the enemies of God (gathered by God Himself as was prophesied in the Old Testament Prophecy) are destroyed, Satan is bound, the Tribulation Martyrs are resurrected, the Kingdom of God is established for one thousand years, Satan is loosed for a short time (I believe 75 days), the enemies of God are destroyed, Satan is cast into Hell (the Lake of Fire), the current universe passes away, the dead which are not resurrected with the Tribulation Martyrs are raised and judged, the new heavens and earth are created, and the Saints enter into that Eternal (State) Kingdom described in Revelation 21-22.

We see First Century Christians engaging in Temple services here (and I know this is a lot of Scripture, but read it to see the point...it will take all of about thirty seconds to a minute to do so)...


Acts 21:17-26

King James Version (KJV)

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.


In view is the Word of God, not the Covenant.

Here...

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.


...we see it is specifically stated by James and the elders (who are Jews) that they are not saying there is salvific inference being made, but that this is specific to Jews. In other words, they are saying "We have already made it clear that Gentiles are not saved through the observation or performing of the ceremonies of the Law. But in view is the perception of the Jews that Paul was teaching them to forsake that which came before...


21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.


They are not re-establishing the Covenant of Law, but simply referring to the customs which were specific to Israel. The Jews thought Paul was teaching that it was necessary to separate one's self from those customs altogether, which would be an exaggerated response to Judaism (and the Judaizers) itself.

Paul was not doing that. He was not commanding Jews to forsake their heritage, and we see here that he is willing to partake of a ceremony that involves an offering.

It is like some who despise Mary because of the erroneous teachings of some which deify her. Both positions are erroneous.

That is the case with taking the exaggerated view that Jews must not, or cannot live according to their customs.

And that is precisely what will happen in the Millennial Kingdom. It will not be a reinstatement of the Covenant of Law, but simply a return to the customs which were demanded of God which they never fulfilled in regards to the spiritual prior to Christ's coming. Christ Himself fulfilled the Law.

The offering above was not offered for remission of sins and viewed to be efficacious from an eternal perspective, but simply carried out in accordance with their custom. In view is Paul reassuring Jews that he was teaching that Jews must not live according to tradition and custom, but that Paul was simply teaching Gentiles they did not have to adopt the tradition and custom of the Jew, as was being taught by the Judaizers.


God bless.

 

We don't see reference to the Rapture in Matthew either...does this deny the teaching of the Rapture in later revelation?

You are trying to negate a teaching of Scripture, Aaron. You reasoning is illogical.

And if you will not "read tomes," and respond to the address of your posts, then you need to leave the conversation.

You do not dictate how anyone on this Forum posts, and if you admit that you are not going to be involved in the discussion, leave the thread.

Do you want to understand why your antagonists disagree with your view? Or simply ignore why your view is seen as erroneous? The only one you are hurting is yourself.


God bless.

 

Fair enough.

I will focus on this:

Ephesians 2:6-7

King James Version (KJV)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.


While it might be argued that this is not speaking of the Millennial Kingdom, neither does it negate the many prophecies given in the Old Testament. It shows there is going to be another Age which has not come. And I don't see that the Eternal State would be considered "an Age." That would represent the end of the Ages.


God bless.

 

Not trifles, but relevant issues you dismiss and then draw conclusion apart from. The thousand years is not a trifle, but discussing horse manure is, lol.


God bless.

 

And I have to disagree with your understanding.

There is a difference between the Age/s to come and the here and now. And Paul was writing in the same Age we are part of, yet still predicting a future Age.

Ephesians 2:6-7

King James Version (KJV)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.


And we see that this aspect of our having been translated into the Kingdom of His dear Son, which is what you have in view according to your position is already noted in the phrase " and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

Two different things in view: first, that we are saved, and secondly, that the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us might be shown in the Age/s to come.

Aaron, the events of Revelation do not speak of anyone being born again. The Tribulation Martyrs, for example, are physically resurrected at Christ's return. They were already born again, so we see two separate issues in view.

The "first" death occurred when Adam sinned, and that held lasting consequence for all men. All men are born dead today. When we are saved we are already dead in trespasses and sins, and our salvation involves us being made alive, which is the result of the indwelling of God.

The First Resurrection is the first of two resurrections taught by Scripture, both Old and New Testaments: the resurrection unto life, and the resurrection unto damnation.

"First" in "First Resurrection" is the word protos, which is also used to indicate rank (i.e., greater or lesser), not just sequence (i.e., first, second, third, and so on).

It is the same word used here:


Hebrews 9:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


We know the Covenant of Law was not the first in the manner of sequence, we could point out several which preceded it, just like we can point out several resurrections which precede the resurrection in Revelation 20 which precede it, starting first with the true First Resurrection in regards to glorification which is Christ's resurrection.

In reality the first resurrection we experience as believers is the resurrection we undergo when we are imparted life. That life is the result of God, the Source of eternal life, indwelling us.

You are seated at your desk, or wherever it is you have your computer, Aaron. lol

Your being seated with Christ is positional now, it is the declaration of God. But one day you will be literally seated with Him, just as men will be seated with these fellows in the Kingdom...

Matthew 8:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.


Does "east and west" have a meaning in Heaven? Or in that Kingdom promised Israel by God?

And the Millennial Kingdom is the temporal reality taught in the Old Testament and reiterated in Revelation.

And I will have to pick this up tome-orrow, lol.


God bless.

 

And now for the short version:

Now apply this reasoning to the actual Prophecy of Revelation.

Explain how the First Resurrection is simply figurative, and why this resurrection is said to be a separate event separated by one thousand years. Explain how it is the First Resurrection for the Church when the first resurrection occurs at salvation itself.


God bless.