The Sovereign Dispensations of God

[Piper]

Perhaps if someone could point out to me where in Revelation that Christ sets foot on terra firma I would consider it.

It's an inference from God's promise to David that he would have a king sit on his throne who would rule the entire land, which has never happened. You're right, there is not a verse. I studied dispensationalism for years, and overall found that the Millenial reign of Christ on earth, on David's throne, is supportable. Although Acts 15:13-18 almost say that the Kingdom has started, which some say means that the Kingdom is entirely spiritual. I say that the promises in 1 Kings 11:36 and 2 Kings 8:19 guarantee a physical king.

36 Yet to his son I will give one tribe, that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name.

19 Yet the Lord was not willing to destroy Judah, for the sake of David his servant, since he promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever.

 

[kyredneck]

Although Acts 15:13-18 almost say that the Kingdom has started

Are you one of those that say when something is 'at hand', it actually means 'thousands of years and still waiting'? Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 10:7 (if so, there's a whoooole bunch of 'at hand's in the Bible I'd like for you to show that it really means 'thousands of years and still waiting')

 

[kyredneck]

which some say means that the Kingdom is entirely spiritual

Well, yea, it's not of this world, it can't be seen with the eye, it can't be touched with the hand, but it can be made abundantly available to us now. 2 Peter 1:2-11; Romans 14:17

 

[kyredneck]

It's an inference from God's promise to David that he would have a king sit on his throne who would rule the entire land, which has never happened.

"God hath made him both Lord and Christ". Acts of the Apostles 2:25-36; Matthew 28:18

 

[Piper]

Are you one of those that say when something is 'at hand', it actually means 'thousands of years and still waiting'? Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 10:7 (if so, there's a whoooole bunch of 'at hand's in the Bible I'd like for you to show that it really means 'thousands of years and still waiting')

No. I believe that there are close references and far references to some prophecies. The things in Matthew 24 could not all have happened in AD70. The language is the same as Paul in 2 Thess 1,2, and in 2 Thess, the "Man of Sin" must appear before these things take place. He has not appeared.

 

[Piper]

Well, yea, it's not of this world, it can't be seen with the eye, it can't be touched with the hand, but it can be made abundantly available to us now. 2 Peter 1:2-11; Romans 14:17

I believe that Jesus inaugurated the kingdom when he came, but will bring it in it's fullness when he returns.

 

[kyredneck]

No. I believe that there are close references and far references to some prophecies.

So you cherry pick 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand' to be a 'far' reference (which I don't really understand what that means). What's your criteria for something to be a 'close' and a 'far' reference?

The things in Matthew 24 could not all have happened in AD70.

So, Jesus was mistaken. Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32

The language is the same as Paul in 2 Thess 1,2, and in 2 Thess, the "Man of Sin" must appear before these things take place. He has not appeared.

Lol, I've read some very convincing arguments that the 'man of sin' is long come and gone.

I believe that Jesus inaugurated the kingdom when he came, but will bring it in it's fullness when he returns.

...meaning that if you can't touch it with your hand, or see it with your eye, it ain't there. It could also mean you've never experienced it.

 

[37818]

Lol, I've read some very convincing arguments that the 'man of sin' is long come and gone.

Historically, who was he?

 

[37818]

Lol, I've read some very convincing arguments that the 'man of sin' is long come and gone.

Historically, who was he?

 

[kyredneck]

Historically, who was he?

I've read that he was John of Gischala (expand the quote(s) and scroll). I've read that Titus fills the bill for a 'man of sin'. I've wondered why the 'man of sin' couldn't be a multiplicity, a body of men (as in Ephesians 2:15) like the murderous Zealots who caused so much grief to 'that generation' and eventually occupied the temple and inflicted carnage on those inside the walls during the siege.

 

[kyredneck]

Historically, who was he?

The Man Of Sin

Another compelling case.

 

[Alan Gross]

Yes, and we are currently in the 1000 years symbolized in Revelation 20:2-3.

Satan has been bound since the cross and Christ's resurrection and ascension to the right hand of His Father.

Yes. The 1000 years is currently taking place and Christ is reigning at the right hand of His Father.

My favorite commentary on the book of Revelation is More Than Conquerors by William Hendriksen. I think that it matches up well when taking the Bible as a whole.

Free pdf for the commentary if anyone is interested: Hendricksen-W-More_Than_Conquerors_-1940.pdf (tn-biblecollege.edu)

"...Hendricksen's approach is what he called "progressive parallelism". What he meant by this is that each section or chapter of the book should be understood to be synchronous with later chapters in the book, hence the parallelism. The things revealed in later chapters are just deeper illuminations of earlier chapters, a progressive revelation. It should not be read like a novel, where the events in one chapter chronologically precede the events in a following chapter. For example, Hendricksen believes that Revelation 20 more thoroughly describes events that are synchronous with events initially described in chapter 12...."
More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation: Hendriksen, William: 9780801018404: Amazon.com: Books

Very interesting. I may did buy it. Thanks.

Very good job done here on the 1,000 years:
The 1,000 Years of Revelation 20 – CPRC

excerpt:
"Revelation 20 is a battleground. It is a battleground for two different reasons.

"First, it describes the largest and the most important battle in the history of the world.
You could call it the battle of all battles or the war to end all wars, for with its conclusion the world, with all its fighting, ends.

"Second, Revelation 20 is a battleground between the various views of the last days.

"All the different schools of thought on eschatology have their own distinctive interpretations of Revelation 20.

"In fact, the four main views derive their names from Revelation 20: amillennialism, premillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennial dispensationalism.

"Revelation 20 is the only passage in the Bible that speaks of a “thousand years,” and it is from the Latin word for a thousand (mille) that we derive our English word “millennium,” a key component in the names of the four main eschatological schools."

The tree picture was an operator error...

 

[David Kent]

I've read that he was John of Gischala (expand the quote(s) and scroll). I've read that Titus fills the bill for a 'man of sin'. I've wondered why the 'man of sin' couldn't be a multiplicity, a body of men (as in Ephesians 2:15) like the murderous Zealots who caused so much grief to 'that generation' and eventually occupied the temple and inflicted carnage on those inside the walls during the siege.

Sorry, bro. The man of sin, will sit in the temple of God claiming to be God. The early church writers say correctly that refers to the Church. John said antichrists came out from us, i.e. they were apostate Christians. The Reformers got it correct, the Papacy is Antichrist.