The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth

[Alan Dale Gross]

divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned;

If you'd learned the Bible, you wouldn't be 100% off on this, too.

We do know that there seemed to be strong support for some kind of tribulation, antichrist/beast, and premill kingdom reign.

And, I'm sorry if you really think anything matters when it comes to any of that.

If you are interpreting Prophecy the way Jesus and the Apostles did, what anybody else ever believed or not doesn't matter, at all.

Once the church went heavy off a literal view of Revelation and prophecy to symbolic allegorical l views, then a mil swept in, as became dominants posiion due to Rome enforing that belief, as Augustine equated the Kingdom with Church of Rome

Whatever philosophy you want to erect as a bulwark against you coming to an assurance
that there is one Method of Interpreting the End Times and Revelation, not more than one, then whatever.

Saying there are several different methods to approach Prophecy with is totally unsupported by scripture
and sounds just exactly like someone falling into the hands of Satan and taking up his talking points.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

After quoting what the Bible actually says, I found one thing honest said, between MrW and JesusFan's posts.

It's in the last posting at the bottom.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

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. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I have mentioned this before. In fact, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times!

That takes the cake. I love it. I bet God does, too, what do you think?

Psalms 105:8. 'He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded for a thousand generations.'

And how long are we going to say a 'generation' is? 35 years? 40 years? 45 years?

Let's take 40 years, as being one generation.

Then 40 times 1000 generations equals 40,000 years.

So, from the time God wrote that in Psalm 105:8, God was saying that it would be at least 40,000 years before The End of Time.

Absolutely no way around it, for the "a thousand years" has to be "a thousand years" crowd.

So much for their 7000 years fantasia, as if they know Jesus is Coming Back after 6000 years.

These thrones that John saw are in Heaven where Jesus is and where His Throne is.

John saw the souls of them that had been beheaded in Heaven, also, who lived and reigned with Jesus a thousand years.

There is no reference in the Bible to a thousand years of Jesus reigning on Earth.

No mention is made in this passage about the O.P. title;

The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth.​

"The Earth" is not any part of the subject matter of Revelation 20:1-6.

There is no thousand year reign of Jesus on the Earth taught anywhere in the Bible.

...

All these posts below, including the O.P. title keep saying the same thing over and over,
but, honestly,
do you see any scripture(s) quoted in any of then?

Not one?

Christ reigns in Heaven now. He will reign on the Earth with a rod of iron to discipline the nations during the Millennial Reign.

Would see taht hwile in heaven right now primarily as our High Priest mediator, as still permits far much more than will on earth once His come to earth to now fulfill messianic Era Kingdom

The Messianic Era is upon the earth, and the earth afetr second coming shall have all nation worship Lord Jesus, and shall have Paradise restored for that literal Kingdom reign upon earth, and after that shall be the so called eternal state

Christ will rule 1000 years on the Earth, which completes the seventh day, and 7000 years of man’s history, thus fulfilling the week. Deny it all you wish, it will happen.

Actually, refers to a literal Kingdom state upon this earth when Messianic King is enthroned upon his throne

All nations shall up unto Jerusalem to worship the Messianic King, has not happened as of yet, and there has been no resurrection as of yet, and Satan has never been bound yet, as in Messianic age shall be cast into Hell and bound, no more false teachers, false religions etc shall be found at that time upon earth

Those 2 ;prophets saw a coming Messianic age upon earth

No he has not as of yet, as been in heaven as Mediator and High Priest, and will assume his Messianic King role at second coming when His kingdom comes then on earth as now in Heaven

That last verse refers to after His Millinual reign of the Kingdom upon This earth after second coming when paradise state was then restored

He said it six times in one chapter. The 7000 years corresponds to a week, a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day. Man, whose number is six, rules for 6000 years. There is therefore a rest remaining to the people of God and that rest is the Sabbath day rest that occurs on the seventh day and last for 1000 years. I am sorry you cannot understand that, but I do understand it and Christ and His church will rule this world for 1000 years.

He returns to Earth on a white horse with us and rules the nations with a rod of iron for 1000 years the sabbath rest for sll the Earth, prophesied by Isaiah and others, notably Psalm 67.

Christ will rule Earth, from Jerusalem, 1000 literal years, and we’re getting close.

We do know that there seemed to be strong support for some kind of tribulation, antichrist/beast, and premill kingdom reign.

The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth.​

other views such as premil amil post mi; are just t interpretation of the scripture, and we shall not be 100 % sure until prophecy occur and is fulfilled

For the sake of honestly, JesusFan does state here that he is not sure of what he believes.

So be it.

 

[atpollard]

Are those beheaded symbolically beheaded, not actually?

Actually, I think they are. I cannot imagine that a martyr is disqualified because they were stoned or crucified or torn apart by animals or burned alive … only beheaded martyrs are honored by God.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth.

"God does not contradict Himself in Scripture, so when we have our interpretations come directly from Scripture, we can be sure that we are on the right track. Neglecting this Number One Rule, we are not even on a track at all and have no real exegetical direction.

"Simply put, there are no supportable remonstrances when God's Word is understood precisely the way it is written. And when we compare Scripture with Scripture, the Spiritual with Spiritual (1st Cor. 2;13) where it all harmonizes and fits cohesively with itself, then we know that we have come to the knowledge of the Truth.

"Likewise, when we hear someone teaching the Gospel and we want to find out if what he says is True, the only acceptable way to do that is to test his words by God's Word. God calls it "trying the Spirits" to see just who is giving a Biblical Exegesis, and who is teaching their own private interpretations. Or as 2nd Timothy 2:15 puts it, we must:

"Study to show yourself Approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, Rightly dividing the Word of Truth".

"Rightly dividing, or cutting (proportioning) the Word correctly to get a just division is the Spiritual Portrait that God is putting forth here. Not cutting it unfaithfully to justify what we may already believe, but making a just or "Righteous" division.

"Literally, to divide the Scriptures Honestly and Righteously.

"Scripture informs us that if we do this, we will have no reason to be ashamed. Because shame is not for those who are faithfully following God's Own Interpretation of things that are, have been, and that must be. The only proper way to come to Real Truth is to study Scripture with the purpose and mind to actually follow it wherever "GOD'S WORDS" lead.

"Sadly, many theologians often place themselves in the position of attempting to lead it.

"The question we have at hand here is,

"does the one thousand year Reign spoken of in Revelation chapter 20,
mean that Christ is going to Come and Reign on this Earth after the Tribulation?"

"This is a theory that is taught by a great many theologians, but the question is, can it be verified by the Scriptures themselves?
And the answer is, No. The whole idea is contradictory to God's Word when we consider all of the pertinent scriptures that are used to justify it.

"Nowhere is this Doctrine explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but some say it is implied. However, in reality, it is based solely on the misunderstanding or private interpretation of a few select verses.

"God does not say He will rapture the church before any tribulation. In fact, the Lord says just the opposite as He explicitly states that the church will not be taken off the earth until the end of the world. He says the Rapture or saints gathering together in the Air (1st Thessalonians 4:17) is at the Last Day and the Last Trumpet. These ideas of a pre-tribulation Rapture and an Earthly Reign of Christ are built upon an unsound foundation that will not stand the test of Holy Scripture.

"It's important in this introduction of Revelation 20 that this should be made perfectly clear up front exactly what GOD says (and does not say) about the return of the Lord. Understanding this, we can better grasp what has been the speculations, assumptions, and suppositions by men, and what are solid biblical facts."

From: An Exposition of Revelation Chapter Twenty

Actually, I think they are. I cannot imagine that a martyr is disqualified because they were stoned or crucified or torn apart by animals or burned alive … only beheaded martyrs are honored by God.

Here is the one specific group, in 20:4b,
"the souls of them that were beheaded for the Witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God",

and then, there are the remaining saints that have passed onto Glory,
in 20:4c; "and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image,
neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands;"

REVELATION 20:4;

20:4a; "And I saw Thrones, and they sat upon them, and Judgment was Given unto them:

20:4b; "and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the Witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God,"

20:4c; "and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image,
neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands;*

20:4d; "and they lived and Reigned with Christ a Thousand Years."


*As we know, a "mark" is an identifying characteristic.

And, if you want to consider that which we do in our "forehead" area, which is "think"
and then what we do with our "hands",

then someone who "thinks" like the beast has the identifying "mark", which characterizes them as being one of his
and the one who uses their "hands" and does things for the beast are identifying themselves as his, also.

They would have "received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands."

There are people now and have been through the New Testament Era who
have, "received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands."

We hear and see them every day.

The saints who don't "think" nor do with their "hands" and make efforts toward those things for the beast, to worship him,
are those that have passed on into Heaven, in 20:4c, in addition to those "beheaded" martyrs, in 20:4b.


Some parallel passages, in Revelation;
2:13; "I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is:
and thou holdest fast My Name, and hast not denied My Faith,
even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth".

6:9; "And when He had Opened the Fifth Seal,
I saw under the Altar the souls of them that were slain for the Word of God, and for the Testimony which they held:"

17:6; "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus:
and when I saw her, I wondered with Great Admiration."

18:24; "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on Earth."

 

[JesusFan]

Isn’t that an appeal to authority fallacy?

No. more like an appeal to what many of those who were instructed by Apostles themselves held to for eschatology, or else were taught that by apostles direct disciples?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Once the church went heavy off a literal view of Revelation and prophecy to symbolic allegorical l views, then a mil swept in, as became dominants posiion due to Rome enforing that belief, as Augustine equated the Kingdom with Church of Rome

"By the time Constantine proclaimed Christianity the state religion in the fourth century, a non-chiliastic eschatology was surely the norm in most places, and in many it had been so ever since Christianity had arrived there. Many signs thus tell us that even without the aid of Augustine, chiliasm was probably in its death-throes by the time he wrote the last books of The City of God in a.d. 42026.

"So why did the Church reject chiliasm?

"The New Testament’s revelation of the Church as the true Israel and heir of all the promises of God in Christ was too well-established and too deeply ingrained in the early Christian consciousness for such a view to have been viable. Ancient Church chiliasts like Irenaeus did indeed argue that some of God’s promises to Israel had to be fulfilled literally in a kingdom on earth, but they recognized that the humble recipients of this kingdom would be spiritual Israel, all who confessed Jesus as God’s Messiah, regardless of their national or ethnic origin.5 Ancient chiliasm was not criticized because it “favored” the Jews as having a distinct, blessed future apart from Gentile Christians.

"What then did critics mean by calling chiliasm “Jewish”?

"Their use of the label meant “non-Christian Jewish,” or even, “anti-Christian Jewish.” These early critics believed that chiliasm represented an approach to biblical religion that was sub-Christian, essentially failing to reckon with the full redemptive implications of the coming of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. They saw it as an under-realized, a not-fully-Christian, eschatology. We can outline at least three aspects of this criticism.

"Its Sources Were Non-Christian Jewish Sources."

"First, critics of chiliasm point out that Christian chiliasts got their chiliasm not so much from the apostles
as from non-Christian Jewish sources.6Irenaeus cites a tradition
from a book written by Papias of Hierapolis about the millennial kingdom.7
The tradition purports to reproduce Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom
as related through the Apostle John to those who remembered the latter’s teaching.

"Some scholars note that the chiliasm of Justin, though it derives the number 1,000 from Revelation 20, springs more from a certain approach to Old Testament exegesis (particularly on Is. 65:17-25) than from the eschatology of Revelation.9 And this approach is in basic agreement with that of Trypho, his Jewish interlocutor. This is in keeping with the role chiliasm plays in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, where it functions as part of an apologetic which sought to claim everything Jewish for Christianity. The issue of the fulfillment of the prophets’ predictions of glory for Israel was very much a part of the atmosphere of the discussion between these representatives of Christianity and Judaism, for their encounter took place not long after the failed attempt by Bar Cochba to take Jerusalem back from the Romans (a.d. 13235).

"Chiliasm Was “Jewish” in its View of the Saints’ Afterlife."

"Second, we now know that early chiliast and non-chiliast Christian eschatologies
had to do with more than an expectation of a temporary, earthly kingdom, or lack thereof.
They encompassed other beliefs about eschatology.

"It may seem curious to us today, but the ancient Christian chiliasts defended a view of the afterlife in which the souls of the righteous did not go immediately to God’s presence in heaven at the time of death, but went instead to a subterranean Hades. Here souls, in refreshment and joyful contemplation, waited for the resurrection and the earthly kingdom before they could enter the presence of God.10 The only ones exempted from Hades were men like Enoch and Elijah who, it was thought, had not experienced death but had been translated alive to paradise.

"This view of the afterlife on the part of the chiliasts Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Victorinus, and Lactantius was connected directly to their chiliasm. We know this both from the coexistence of these beliefs in Jewish sources (2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Ps. Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, and some rabbinic traditions) and from the internal connection between the doctrines drawn by Irenaeus.11

"Yet most of the Church (and at times even the chiliasts themselves in spite of themselves) knew and treasured the New Testament hope of an immediate enjoyment of the presence of God in heaven with Christ at death (Luke 23:42-43; John 14:2-4; 17:24; Phil. 1:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-8; Heb. 12:22-24; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 6:9-11; 14:1-5; 15:2; 18:20; 19:14). But this aspect of the Christian eschatology, this “hope of heaven” made possible only by the completed work of Jesus the Messiah and his own ascension to heaven, shattered the mold of Jewish chiliastic eschatology.

"Such a vision belonged to a non-chiliast (what we would today call amillennial) understanding of the return of Christ. This vision essentially saw the millennium of Revelation 20 as pertaining to the present age, wherein the righteous dead are alive in Christ and are now participating with their King and High Priest in the priestly kingdom in heaven (Rev. 20:4-6).12 In the new light of this fully Christian expectation, a return to an earthly existence, where sin and bodily desires still persisted and a final war (as in Rev. 20:8-10) still loomed, could only be a retrogression in redemptive history.13

"We can observe then two competing patterns of Christian eschatology from the second century on: one chiliastic, which expects an intermediate kingdom on earth before the last judgment and says that the souls of the saints after death await that earthly kingdom in the refreshing underworldly vaults of Hades; the other which teaches instead that departed Christians have a blessed abode with Christ in heaven, in the presence of God, as they await the return of Christ to earth, the resurrection and judgment of all, and the new heaven and new earth.

"Why did the chiliastic view of the afterlife appeal to some of the most prominent defenders of Christianity?

"As noted, for Justin, it functioned as a way of claiming all the Jewish inheritance for Christians. Did the prophets promise a kingdom of peace, bounty, and righteousness as the Jews insisted it did? Then these prophecies could be claimed for Christianity, for Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. But by the time of Irenaeus (later in the second century) there was another motivation. Orthodox believers were battling Marcionism, Valentinianism, and various other gnosticisms, which were devastating portions of the Church.

"All these heterodoxies rejected any notion of the salvation of the physical body through resurrection and any notion of a restored creation, since they all claimed that the material creation was inherently evil (or at least destined for annihilation), because it was not the creation of the highest God. They also claimed that their adherents would mount up to the highest heaven (beyond the orthodox) at death.14Both aspects of eschatology were designed to “do the orthodox one better.”

"Chiliasm provided an ideal response for Irenaeus, for it emphasized the goodness of the material creation as the good product of a benevolent God. It also refuted the inflated afterlife boasts of the heretics about direct ascension to the highest God as soon as they died. The true believer instead would follow the course of the Lord and remain in Hades until his soul was reunited with his body at the resurrection.15

Chiliasm’s Old Testament Hermeneutic Led to the Crucifixion."

"Finally, the chiliastic alternative on the intermediate state of the Christian soul between death and the resurrection
was a problem which in itself could have led to chiliasm’s demise.

"But there was another problem which, when clearly exposed, had the potential of being downright scandalous. It was recognized by Origen and has been seen by non-chiliasts down to the present day.20 It is the realization that the “literal,” nationalistic interpretation of the prophets was the standard that Jesus, in the eyes of his opponents, did not live up to, and therefore was the basis of their rejection of his messiahship.

"One of the prophecies that Irenaeus had insisted will be literally fulfilled in the kingdom on earth was Is. 11:6-7, which speaks of the wolf dwelling with the lamb and the leopard with the kid, etc. Origen specifically mentions this passage as among those which the Jews misinterpret: “and having seen none of these events literally happening during the advent of him whom we believe to be Christ they did not accept our Lord Jesus, but crucified him on the ground that he had wrongly called himself Christ.”21

"This “Jewish” approach to the Old Testament prophecies and its role in the Jewish rejection of Jesus was recognized even by Tertullian and was no doubt one of his motivations for taking a more “spiritualized” approach to those prophecies than Irenaeus had done.22"

Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism

Reformed Christian Biblical article regarding eschatology and Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism. by Charles E. Hill

www.mountainretreatorg.net

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

No. more like an appeal to what many of those who were instructed by Apostles themselves held to for eschatology, or else were taught that by apostles direct disciples?

WHO ARE "ISRAEL"?

In the light of the foregoing Scriptures it is plainly to be seen that the God of Jacob,
in providing His great salvation at infinite cost, in placing it in Zion, and in calling "all Israel" (Acts 2: 36)
to come "to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22),
has grandly fulfilled, and in a manner and measure far beyond anything the mind of man could have conceived,
all His gracious promises concerning Israel.

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel" (Rom. 10:16).
They have not all responded to God's call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. True enough.

"And that is precisely what was foretold by Isaiah, whose words to that effect are quoted by Paul in Romans 9: 27;
namely, that only a small remnant of the natural descendants of Jacob would obtain the salvation of God.

"Hence the apostle says, "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for;
but the remnant hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded" (Rom. 11:7).

"Here is a plain declaration that what had been promised to Israel had been obtained in Paul's day by the remnant,
that is, the believing part of the people; whereas the mass of the nation had missed it because of the blindness of their hearts.

"Moreover, the context makes it clear beyond a doubt that what the apostle is speaking of is gospel salvation (10:1-3, 9-13).
Therefore, what God had specially promised to Israel and what believing Jews (Paul among them)
were receiving in those days was gospel salvation.

"But lest there should seem to be a discrepancy between the promise and the fulfilment,
in that a small part only of the nation was being saved, Paul is at pains to explain
that not all the natural descendants of Jacob were embraced in the "Israel" of prophecy;
for that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9: 6).

"As he had already declared in an earlier chapter:
"He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly...but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (2:28,29).

"And furthermore, as stated in Chapter 4:11-16, the children of Abraham, as God reckons them,
are those who have the faith of Abraham, whether by their natural birth they were Jews or Gentiles.

"And this truth is unfolded in detail in Galatians, Chapters 3 and 4; where, addressing Gentile believers,
the apostle says: "And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29)
that is, heirs of salvation in its comprehensive sense."

 

[JesusFan]

WHO ARE "ISRAEL"?

In the light of the foregoing Scriptures it is plainly to be seen that the God of Jacob,
in providing His great salvation at infinite cost, in placing it in Zion, and in calling "all Israel" (Acts 2: 36)
to come "to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22),
has grandly fulfilled, and in a manner and measure far beyond anything the mind of man could have conceived,
all His gracious promises concerning Israel.

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel" (Rom. 10:16).
They have not all responded to God's call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. True enough.

"And that is precisely what was foretold by Isaiah, whose words to that effect are quoted by Paul in Romans 9: 27;
namely, that only a small remnant of the natural descendants of Jacob would obtain the salvation of God.

"Hence the apostle says, "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for;
but the remnant hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded" (Rom. 11:7).

"Here is a plain declaration that what had been promised to Israel had been obtained in Paul's day by the remnant,
that is, the believing part of the people; whereas the mass of the nation had missed it because of the blindness of their hearts.

"Moreover, the context makes it clear beyond a doubt that what the apostle is speaking of is gospel salvation (10:1-3, 9-13).
Therefore, what God had specially promised to Israel and what believing Jews (Paul among them)
were receiving in those days was gospel salvation.

"But lest there should seem to be a discrepancy between the promise and the fulfilment,
in that a small part only of the nation was being saved, Paul is at pains to explain
that not all the natural descendants of Jacob were embraced in the "Israel" of prophecy;
for that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9: 6).

"As he had already declared in an earlier chapter:
"He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly...but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (2:28,29).

"And furthermore, as stated in Chapter 4:11-16, the children of Abraham, as God reckons them,
are those who have the faith of Abraham, whether by their natural birth they were Jews or Gentiles.

"And this truth is unfolded in detail in Galatians, Chapters 3 and 4; where, addressing Gentile believers,
the apostle says: "And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29)
that is, heirs of salvation in its comprehensive sense."

Spiritual Israel is now the Church bride and Body of Christ, saved out Jews and Gentiles, but God also will turn back to dealing with national israel in last days to prepare them to meet Jesus at second coming as their promised messiah

 

[JesusFan]

"By the time Constantine proclaimed Christianity the state religion in the fourth century, a non-chiliastic eschatology was surely the norm in most places, and in many it had been so ever since Christianity had arrived there. Many signs thus tell us that even without the aid of Augustine, chiliasm was probably in its death-throes by the time he wrote the last books of The City of God in a.d. 42026.

"So why did the Church reject chiliasm?

"The New Testament’s revelation of the Church as the true Israel and heir of all the promises of God in Christ was too well-established and too deeply ingrained in the early Christian consciousness for such a view to have been viable. Ancient Church chiliasts like Irenaeus did indeed argue that some of God’s promises to Israel had to be fulfilled literally in a kingdom on earth, but they recognized that the humble recipients of this kingdom would be spiritual Israel, all who confessed Jesus as God’s Messiah, regardless of their national or ethnic origin.5 Ancient chiliasm was not criticized because it “favored” the Jews as having a distinct, blessed future apart from Gentile Christians.

"What then did critics mean by calling chiliasm “Jewish”?

"Their use of the label meant “non-Christian Jewish,” or even, “anti-Christian Jewish.” These early critics believed that chiliasm represented an approach to biblical religion that was sub-Christian, essentially failing to reckon with the full redemptive implications of the coming of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. They saw it as an under-realized, a not-fully-Christian, eschatology. We can outline at least three aspects of this criticism.

"Its Sources Were Non-Christian Jewish Sources."

"First, critics of chiliasm point out that Christian chiliasts got their chiliasm not so much from the apostles
as from non-Christian Jewish sources.6Irenaeus cites a tradition
from a book written by Papias of Hierapolis about the millennial kingdom.7
The tradition purports to reproduce Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom
as related through the Apostle John to those who remembered the latter’s teaching.

"Some scholars note that the chiliasm of Justin, though it derives the number 1,000 from Revelation 20, springs more from a certain approach to Old Testament exegesis (particularly on Is. 65:17-25) than from the eschatology of Revelation.9 And this approach is in basic agreement with that of Trypho, his Jewish interlocutor. This is in keeping with the role chiliasm plays in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, where it functions as part of an apologetic which sought to claim everything Jewish for Christianity. The issue of the fulfillment of the prophets’ predictions of glory for Israel was very much a part of the atmosphere of the discussion between these representatives of Christianity and Judaism, for their encounter took place not long after the failed attempt by Bar Cochba to take Jerusalem back from the Romans (a.d. 13235).

"Chiliasm Was “Jewish” in its View of the Saints’ Afterlife."

"Second, we now know that early chiliast and non-chiliast Christian eschatologies
had to do with more than an expectation of a temporary, earthly kingdom, or lack thereof.
They encompassed other beliefs about eschatology.

"It may seem curious to us today, but the ancient Christian chiliasts defended a view of the afterlife in which the souls of the righteous did not go immediately to God’s presence in heaven at the time of death, but went instead to a subterranean Hades. Here souls, in refreshment and joyful contemplation, waited for the resurrection and the earthly kingdom before they could enter the presence of God.10 The only ones exempted from Hades were men like Enoch and Elijah who, it was thought, had not experienced death but had been translated alive to paradise.

"This view of the afterlife on the part of the chiliasts Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Victorinus, and Lactantius was connected directly to their chiliasm. We know this both from the coexistence of these beliefs in Jewish sources (2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Ps. Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, and some rabbinic traditions) and from the internal connection between the doctrines drawn by Irenaeus.11

"Yet most of the Church (and at times even the chiliasts themselves in spite of themselves) knew and treasured the New Testament hope of an immediate enjoyment of the presence of God in heaven with Christ at death (Luke 23:42-43; John 14:2-4; 17:24; Phil. 1:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-8; Heb. 12:22-24; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 6:9-11; 14:1-5; 15:2; 18:20; 19:14). But this aspect of the Christian eschatology, this “hope of heaven” made possible only by the completed work of Jesus the Messiah and his own ascension to heaven, shattered the mold of Jewish chiliastic eschatology.

"Such a vision belonged to a non-chiliast (what we would today call amillennial) understanding of the return of Christ. This vision essentially saw the millennium of Revelation 20 as pertaining to the present age, wherein the righteous dead are alive in Christ and are now participating with their King and High Priest in the priestly kingdom in heaven (Rev. 20:4-6).12 In the new light of this fully Christian expectation, a return to an earthly existence, where sin and bodily desires still persisted and a final war (as in Rev. 20:8-10) still loomed, could only be a retrogression in redemptive history.13

"We can observe then two competing patterns of Christian eschatology from the second century on: one chiliastic, which expects an intermediate kingdom on earth before the last judgment and says that the souls of the saints after death await that earthly kingdom in the refreshing underworldly vaults of Hades; the other which teaches instead that departed Christians have a blessed abode with Christ in heaven, in the presence of God, as they await the return of Christ to earth, the resurrection and judgment of all, and the new heaven and new earth.

"Why did the chiliastic view of the afterlife appeal to some of the most prominent defenders of Christianity?

"As noted, for Justin, it functioned as a way of claiming all the Jewish inheritance for Christians. Did the prophets promise a kingdom of peace, bounty, and righteousness as the Jews insisted it did? Then these prophecies could be claimed for Christianity, for Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. But by the time of Irenaeus (later in the second century) there was another motivation. Orthodox believers were battling Marcionism, Valentinianism, and various other gnosticisms, which were devastating portions of the Church.

"All these heterodoxies rejected any notion of the salvation of the physical body through resurrection and any notion of a restored creation, since they all claimed that the material creation was inherently evil (or at least destined for annihilation), because it was not the creation of the highest God. They also claimed that their adherents would mount up to the highest heaven (beyond the orthodox) at death.14Both aspects of eschatology were designed to “do the orthodox one better.”

"Chiliasm provided an ideal response for Irenaeus, for it emphasized the goodness of the material creation as the good product of a benevolent God. It also refuted the inflated afterlife boasts of the heretics about direct ascension to the highest God as soon as they died. The true believer instead would follow the course of the Lord and remain in Hades until his soul was reunited with his body at the resurrection.15

Chiliasm’s Old Testament Hermeneutic Led to the Crucifixion."

"Finally, the chiliastic alternative on the intermediate state of the Christian soul between death and the resurrection
was a problem which in itself could have led to chiliasm’s demise.

"But there was another problem which, when clearly exposed, had the potential of being downright scandalous. It was recognized by Origen and has been seen by non-chiliasts down to the present day.20 It is the realization that the “literal,” nationalistic interpretation of the prophets was the standard that Jesus, in the eyes of his opponents, did not live up to, and therefore was the basis of their rejection of his messiahship.

"One of the prophecies that Irenaeus had insisted will be literally fulfilled in the kingdom on earth was Is. 11:6-7, which speaks of the wolf dwelling with the lamb and the leopard with the kid, etc. Origen specifically mentions this passage as among those which the Jews misinterpret: “and having seen none of these events literally happening during the advent of him whom we believe to be Christ they did not accept our Lord Jesus, but crucified him on the ground that he had wrongly called himself Christ.”21

"This “Jewish” approach to the Old Testament prophecies and its role in the Jewish rejection of Jesus was recognized even by Tertullian and was no doubt one of his motivations for taking a more “spiritualized” approach to those prophecies than Irenaeus had done.22"

Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism

Reformed Christian Biblical article regarding eschatology and Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism. by Charles E. Hill

www.mountainretreatorg.net

The main reasons rejected as majority view premil eschatology were that seeing prophecy as spiritual allegorical was coming into the Churches, and was made prominent view by influences of Augustine and church of Rome, so came mainly from efforts of an Apostate church

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Spiritual Israel is now the Church bride and Body of Christ, saved out Jews and Gentiles, but God also will turn back to dealing with national israel in last days to prepare them to meet Jesus at second coming as their promised messiah

We who hold to reform Baptist theology as espoused by such as Spurgeon and hold to CT would still still some future hope for national Israel in last days around second coming events

Apostate

For each of the last 12 statements you have made in the form of gratuitous assertion fallacies*, which according to Google's AI, "occurs when no arguments are provided to validate one's own assertions beyond the fact that we have made them (where in practice, the person makes a claim, but does not provide any reason to support it. *see gratuitous assertion fallacy),

I have given 8 to 20 Biblically supported statements of my own, backed by the relative, related, pertinent verses being quoted.

That's 12 statements by a Quack Talking Trash,
verses 120+/- statements where God has been Spending Cash.

"BUY the TRUTH and SELL IT NOT,
also Wisdom, and Instruction, and Understanding."
Proverbs 23:23.

Now, I am going outside and talk to the brick wall on the side of the house,
to tell it, "YOU ARE NOT GOD", over and over, just to see what happens; why not?

New thread:
God "Took Away the First" Promise to Restore Israel as a Nation,
to "Establish the Second", thru the BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST!

Hebrews 8:13;

"In that He saith, A New Covenant,
He hath Made the First Old.
Now that which Decayeth and Waxeth Old
is ready to Vanish Away."

& Hebrews 10:9;

"Then said He,
Lo, I Come to Do thy Will, O God.
He Taketh Away the First,
that He May Establish the Second."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The main reasons rejected as majority view premil eschatology were that seeing prophecy as spiritual allegorical was coming into the Churches, and was made prominent view by influences of Augustine and church of Rome, so came mainly from efforts of an Apostate church

"Chiliasm is the ancient name for what today is known as Premillennialism.

"Premillennialism, the belief that when Jesus Christ Returns He Will Not Execute the Last Judgment at once,
but Will first Set Up on Earth a Temporary Kingdom, where Resurrected Saints Will Rule with Him
over Non-Resurrected subjects for A Thousand Years of Peace and Righteousness.1

"To say that the Church “rejected chiliasm” may sound bizarre today, when Premillennialism is the best known Eschatology in Evangelicalism.

"Having attached itself to fundamentalism, chiliasm in its dispensationalist form has been vigorously preached in pulpits,
taught in Bible colleges and seminaries, and successfully promoted to the masses through study Bibles, books, pamphlets, charts,
and a host of radio and television ministries. To many Christians today, premillennialism is the very mark of Christian orthodoxy.

"But there was a period of well over a “millennium” (over half of the Church’s history),
from at least the early fifth century until the sixteenth, when chiliasm was dormant and practically non-existent.

"Even through the Reformation and much of the post-Refor-mation period,
advocates of chiliasm were usually found among fringe groups like the Münsterites.

"The Augsburg Confession went out of its way to condemn chiliasm (Art. XVII, “Of Christ’s Return to Judgment”),
and John Calvin criticized “the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years” (Institutes 3.25.5).

"It was not until the nineteenth century that chiliasm made a respectable comeback, as a favorite doctrine of Christian teachers who were promoting revival in the face of the deadening effects of encroaching liberalism.

"But how are we to view the Church’s earliest period up until the first decisive rejection of chiliasm in the Church?

"By most accounts this was the heyday of chiliastic belief in the Church. Many modern apologists for Premillennialism
allege that before the time of Augustine chiliasm was the dominant, if not the “universal” Eschatology of the Church,
preserving the Faith of the Apostles.2

"Some form of chiliasm was certainly defended by such notable names as Justin Martyr
and Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century and Tertullian of Carthage in the third.

"How and why then did this view finally fall into disrepute?

"The answer given by modern premillennial apologists usually suggests that premillennialism was overcome for illegitimate reasons.

"They cite the rise of an unbiblical and dangerous allegorical hermeneutic
(by such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen) which took a sad toll on sound biblical exegesis.

"They explain that the prophetic excesses of the Montanists gave chiliasm a bad name.

"They note that the peace of Constantine led the Church to the false belief that the millennium had already arrived.

"And, finally, they suggest that the authoritative repudiation of chiliasm by Augustine,
who formerly had held such a belief, “put the nails in the coffin” of premillennialism.

"But are these the real factors?"

"The hermeneutical question is indeed an important one, but to put the debate in terms of literal against allegorical is overly simplistic.

"Both sides used literal exegesis and both used allegorical exegesis when they deemed it best. For example, despite Origen’s intentional use of the allegorical method, his essential critique of chiliasm had real theological and traditional motivations. These motivations were not his alone but belonged to large segments of the Church.

"The early Montanists, it turns out, were not chiliasts and were never criticized for being so.3

"Tertullian, who became a Montanist, did not get his chiliasm from them, but from Irenaeus.
There is no evidence that chiliasm was hurt by any association with Montanism.

"Why did the Church reject chiliasm?

"Essentially because chiliasm was judged not to be a fully Christian phenomenon.

"We have organized three faults of chiliasm around the theme of its so-called “Jewish” character.

"These faults include

1.) Premillennialism's sources;

2.) Premillennialism holding out an attenuated Hope of Blessing for the Christian after death,
because it was based in a pre-Christian system which as yet lacked a Savior Who had Raised humanity to Heaven;

3.) and Premillennialism was clinging to
an interpretation of Old Testament prophecies which did not comport with the Christian approach,
but which could be used to Justify the Crucifixion.

Instead the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus the Messiah
had effected a momentous change,
which Jewish chiliasm was not well-adapted to accommodate.

'But it was not these “faults” alone that fatally injured Premillennialism/chiliasm.

1.) "It might have lasted longer if there had not always existed in the Church
another, more fully “Christian,” and thoroughly Biblical Eschatology sustaining the Church throughout the Whole Period.

2.) "That Eschatology, Revealed in the New Testament writings, proclaimed Jesus Christ’s Present Reign Over all things from Heaven,
where His Saints were “with Him” (Luke 23:42-43; John 14:2-4; 17:24; Phil. 1:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-8).

3.) "It saw the Culmination of that Reign NOT IN THE FUTURE, Limited, and Provisional Kingdom on Earth
where perfection mingled once again with imperfection, but rather in the Full Arrival of the Perfect (Rom. 8:21; 1 Cor. 13:10)

4.) and the Replacement of the Present Heaven and Earth with a Heaven and Earth
in which Righteousness Dwells (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21-22).

5.) "Evidence of this demonstrably Biblical Eschatology runs throughout THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT and NEW TESTAMENT,
to the post New Testament Period, from Clement of Rome to Augustine.

"Modern Premillennialism, in its several forms, has indeed undergone certain transmutations from its ancient ancestor,
some of which are improvements, which obviate the worst of chiliasm’s pitfalls in antiquity, but most arguably not.

"THE MOST challenging question will always be whether any form of Premillennialism
can ever be shown to be the view of the New Testament writers."

 

[JesusFan]

"Chiliasm is the ancient name for what today is known as Premillennialism.

"Premillennialism, the belief that when Jesus Christ Returns He Will Not Execute the Last Judgment at once,
but Will first Set Up on Earth a Temporary Kingdom, where Resurrected Saints Will Rule with Him
over Non-Resurrected subjects for A Thousand Years of Peace and Righteousness.1

"To say that the Church “rejected chiliasm” may sound bizarre today, when Premillennialism is the best known Eschatology in Evangelicalism.

"Having attached itself to fundamentalism, chiliasm in its dispensationalist form has been vigorously preached in pulpits,
taught in Bible colleges and seminaries, and successfully promoted to the masses through study Bibles, books, pamphlets, charts,
and a host of radio and television ministries. To many Christians today, premillennialism is the very mark of Christian orthodoxy.

"But there was a period of well over a “millennium” (over half of the Church’s history),
from at least the early fifth century until the sixteenth, when chiliasm was dormant and practically non-existent.

"Even through the Reformation and much of the post-Refor-mation period,
advocates of chiliasm were usually found among fringe groups like the Münsterites.

"The Augsburg Confession went out of its way to condemn chiliasm (Art. XVII, “Of Christ’s Return to Judgment”),
and John Calvin criticized “the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years” (Institutes 3.25.5).

"It was not until the nineteenth century that chiliasm made a respectable comeback, as a favorite doctrine of Christian teachers who were promoting revival in the face of the deadening effects of encroaching liberalism.

"But how are we to view the Church’s earliest period up until the first decisive rejection of chiliasm in the Church?

"By most accounts this was the heyday of chiliastic belief in the Church. Many modern apologists for Premillennialism
allege that before the time of Augustine chiliasm was the dominant, if not the “universal” Eschatology of the Church,
preserving the Faith of the Apostles.2

"Some form of chiliasm was certainly defended by such notable names as Justin Martyr
and Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century and Tertullian of Carthage in the third.

"How and why then did this view finally fall into disrepute?

"The answer given by modern premillennial apologists usually suggests that premillennialism was overcome for illegitimate reasons.

"They cite the rise of an unbiblical and dangerous allegorical hermeneutic
(by such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen) which took a sad toll on sound biblical exegesis.

"They explain that the prophetic excesses of the Montanists gave chiliasm a bad name.

"They note that the peace of Constantine led the Church to the false belief that the millennium had already arrived.

"And, finally, they suggest that the authoritative repudiation of chiliasm by Augustine,
who formerly had held such a belief, “put the nails in the coffin” of premillennialism.

"But are these the real factors?"

"The hermeneutical question is indeed an important one, but to put the debate in terms of literal against allegorical is overly simplistic.

"Both sides used literal exegesis and both used allegorical exegesis when they deemed it best. For example, despite Origen’s intentional use of the allegorical method, his essential critique of chiliasm had real theological and traditional motivations. These motivations were not his alone but belonged to large segments of the Church.

"The early Montanists, it turns out, were not chiliasts and were never criticized for being so.3

"Tertullian, who became a Montanist, did not get his chiliasm from them, but from Irenaeus.
There is no evidence that chiliasm was hurt by any association with Montanism.

"Why did the Church reject chiliasm?

"Essentially because chiliasm was judged not to be a fully Christian phenomenon.

"We have organized three faults of chiliasm around the theme of its so-called “Jewish” character.

"These faults include

1.) Premillennialism's sources;

2.) Premillennialism holding out an attenuated Hope of Blessing for the Christian after death,
because it was based in a pre-Christian system which as yet lacked a Savior Who had Raised humanity to Heaven;

3.) and Premillennialism was clinging to
an interpretation of Old Testament prophecies which did not comport with the Christian approach,
but which could be used to Justify the Crucifixion.

Instead the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus the Messiah
had effected a momentous change,
which Jewish chiliasm was not well-adapted to accommodate.

'But it was not these “faults” alone that fatally injured Premillennialism/chiliasm.

1.) "It might have lasted longer if there had not always existed in the Church
another, more fully “Christian,” and thoroughly Biblical Eschatology sustaining the Church throughout the Whole Period.

2.) "That Eschatology, Revealed in the New Testament writings, proclaimed Jesus Christ’s Present Reign Over all things from Heaven,
where His Saints were “with Him” (Luke 23:42-43; John 14:2-4; 17:24; Phil. 1:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-8).

3.) "It saw the Culmination of that Reign NOT IN THE FUTURE, Limited, and Provisional Kingdom on Earth
where perfection mingled once again with imperfection, but rather in the Full Arrival of the Perfect (Rom. 8:21; 1 Cor. 13:10)

4.) and the Replacement of the Present Heaven and Earth with a Heaven and Earth
in which Righteousness Dwells (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21-22).

5.) "Evidence of this demonstrably Biblical Eschatology runs throughout THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT and NEW TESTAMENT,
to the post New Testament Period, from Clement of Rome to Augustine.

"Modern Premillennialism, in its several forms, has indeed undergone certain transmutations from its ancient ancestor,
some of which are improvements, which obviate the worst of chiliasm’s pitfalls in antiquity, but most arguably not.

"THE MOST challenging question will always be whether any form of Premillennialism
can ever be shown to be the view of the New Testament writers."

many Calvinist holding to Covenant theology though still hold to Historical premil, and some to Dispy version of Premil

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

many Calvinist holding to Covenant theology though still hold to Historical premil, and some to Dispy version of Premil

If it helps you any, everyone I have ever known in our Baptist circles is a rock solid Bible believing Five-Point 'Calvinist'
and I can count on one hand the Brothers I have come to know among them who understand how to Interpret Prophecy.

But, that is no reason that multitudes of others can't learn what Jesus and the writers of The New Testament knew.

"While the Postmillennial view appeals to the humanity of man, the Premillennial view appeals to the traditions of man.

"They are basically an offshoots of the old Judaic tradition in the law-bound beliefs in nationalism,
earthly governments, and genealogical glory.

"When studied carefully, they are both inconsistent and contradictory.

"Unfortunately, like its namesake Judaism, Premillennialism continually denies God's Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophesies
(which scripture clearly declare have already been fulfilled).

"Amillennialism gives us an Authoritatively Consistent and Biblically Tenable Doctrine
that doesn't undermine God's Word of Fulfillment.

"We need a recognition in the Church that when God's Word says something is Fulfilled (completed), then it's Fulfilled.

"And this makes perfect sense, because it testifies to the emphasis of God's Word on the inward man,
the Spiritual Nature of Messiah's Kingdom, and of those who Reign in it.

"Amillennialism confirms that we are citizens of that Kingdom (now), as Prophesied,
and Presently Reign in True Peace as Kings and Priests unto our God.

"Not in a carnal or political government in the middle eastern city of Jerusalem,
but in a Spiritual Government that is upon Christ's Shoulders.

"We are part of the Rule of a Spiritual City from above.

"Earthly Jerusalem remains in bondage, rejecting this rule of Christ."

Galatians 4:25-26;

• "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
• But Jerusalem which is above is Free, which is the mother of us all."

"We are Ruled in a Government wherein we are subjects who obey the laws thereof "in Christ," Who Rules over us.

"Amillennialism is a view in which "every point"
can be unambiguously justified with Scripture quoted Word for Word.

"The four major Eschatological positions regarding Christ's Kingdom are called, Amillennialism, Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Praeterism (Preterism). Despite the objections by many Theologians, these positions are biblically incompatible with each other.
Therefore at best only one of these views can be the Truth of Scripture.

"And so it is incumbent upon those who desire Truth, to search out the Scriptures and Earnestly Contend for the Faith
that was Once Delivered to the Saints. True understanding comes through the diligent study of God's Word (2nd Timothy 2:15), via the Spirit,
and is Born of the Faith of Christ. Nothing that God has Planned and Foretold in His Word concerning the Human Race,
is insignificant with regards to our Sojourn on this Earth. Nor can it be without some Planned Spiritual Bearing on our lives.

"In other words, God didn't inspire the doctrines of the millennial reign of Christ to be penned and incorporated into scripture just to take up space. They are there because the Lord wants us to know about the things to come, and glean just how they are intimately identified with the body of Christ, the things that have been, and things that are.

"Thus, whatever is in God's Word is basic, necessary, and even essential for living a good Christian life
according to the Divine Purpose and Will of God. The Bible is the Blueprint, the Guidebook,
and the Revelation of what God has Given us to Know of these things.

"So in order to have a truly accurate understanding of Eschatology, we must search these Divinely Inspired Scriptures,
rather than the dogmas and traditions of men.

"Whatever Prophecy is Recorded "within" Scripture, is the True Authoritative Eschatology that God Inspired.

"By the same token, whatever Prophecies are from "outside" of the scriptures, are of personal opinion,
and thus are an Eschatology of private (personal) interpretation, supposition or speculation.

Alan's Note: Adding an "Earthly Reign", to Revelation 20:4-6,
is an obvious example of where men are known to "add to" the "Words of Prophecy".

And it is Jesus Himself Who is the One Who Says that it is, "He Who Testifies to These Things", in Revelation 22:20.

Jesus is "He Who Testifies" to what things?

The two verses before that say, in 22:18 & 19;

"I testify to everyone who hears the Words of Prophecy in this Book:
If anyone adds to them, God Will Add to him the Plagues described in this Book.

19; "And if anyone takes away from the Words of this Book of Prophecy,
God Will Take Away his share in the Tree of Life and the Holy City, which are described in this Book."

and then, there we see where men have taken, "the souls of those who had been beheaded" "Away", from their 'Interpretation".

And yet, the rest of the verse where Jesus says it is, "He Who Testifies to These Things", in Revelation 22:20,
says, “Yes, I Am Coming Soon”, meaning that anyone with the idea that they will tell Jesus Christ that they are the expert
on what the Bible SHOULD HAVE SAID, and what the Bible SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID, WILL HAVE THEIR MOUTH SHUT THAT DAY.

"As the Prophet Joseph so rhetorically and wisely asked, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8) ...indeed they do!

"Thus GOD'S Word Interprets GOD'S Word, or as is commonly stated, "the Bible is its Own Interpreter."

"With this basic "Principle" of sound exegesis in mind, I can tell you that Amillennialism is not a word that you will find in the Scriptures.

"That is to say, unless you know exactly what the word delineates.

"Then you will discover that (like the word trinity), though it's not a word literally written within scripture, it is clearly a word that is used to define and describe the sound biblical doctrine that is.

"Therefore, what the word represents is taken "directly" from the pages of the word of God. Everything that Amillennialism has stood for is explicitly expressed on the pages of Holy Canon.

In exposition, this can be shown conclusively, and without ambiguity.

"Because what is today commonly called Amillennialism, is "nothing more" than what the scriptures themselves plainly declare.

"Amillennialism in its pure form, it is the undeniable and Biblically Validated Truth that the Prophesied Coming of Messiah,
the Deliverance of Israel, the Binding of Satan, the Peace, Safety, Government, Rule, Temple Building, Righteousness, Prosperity, Kingdom and Millennial Reign of Christ, has indeed already Come.

"And if this is the Truth, then the word Amillennial is simply the Testimony to the Witness of the Word of God itself.

"Amillennialism is nothing more than a Declaration of God's Kept Promises,
and their Ultimate Fulfillment in the Extension of Christ's Kingdom of Heaven, on Earth."

Adapted from: Amillennialism - A Word Direct from Scripture

 

[JD731]

In both Amillennial and some Premillennial theology, sin still happens during the millennium. (Dispensational Premillennial) Arnold Fruchtenbaum's commentary on Isaiah 65:20 is especially pertinent at this point.

"Verse 20 is especially significant, for it discusses life and death in the Kingdom. This verse teaches several things. First: there will no longer be any infant mortality in the Millennium; everyone who is born in the Kingdom will reach a certain age. Second: the specific age at which one may die is the age of one hundred. With infant mortality removed, everyone born in the Millennium will live at least until his hundredth year of life. Because of the prolongation of life in the Millennium, those who die at the age of one hundred will be considered as having died young. Third: this verse limits the people dying at the age of one hundred to those who are sinners; namely, unbelievers, as only they would be considered accursed. So, then, death in the Kingdom will be for unbelievers only. Comparing this passage with what is stated about salvation in other passages, the entire concept of life and death in the Kingdom can be summarized as follows. When the Kingdom begins, all natural men, both Jews and Gentiles, will be believers. The Jews in their entirety will be saved just prior to the Second Coming of the Messiah. All unbelieving Gentiles (goats) will be killed during the seventy-five day interval between the Tribulation and the Millennium, and only believing Gentiles (sheep) will be able to enter the Kingdom. However, in the process of time, there will be birth in the Kingdom of both Jews and Gentiles. These newly born, natural people will continue to inherit the sin nature from their natural parents and will also be in need of regeneration. Although Satan is confined, thus reducing temptation, the sin nature is quite capable of rebelling against God apart from satanic activity. In time, there will be unsaved people living in the Kingdom in need of regeneration. As in the past, the means of salvation will be by grace through faith and the content of faith will be the death of Messiah for sin and His subsequent resurrection. Those born in the Kingdom will have until their hundredth year to believe. If they do not, they will die in their hundredth year. The unbeliever will not be able to live past his first century of life. However, if they do believe, they will live throughout the Millennium and never die. Thus, death in the Millennium will be for unbelievers only. This is why the Bible nowhere speaks of a resurrection of millennial saints. This is why the resurrection of the Tribulation saints is said to complete the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4-6). It is also clear from the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that there will be no Jewish unbelievers in the Kingdom; all Jews born during the Kingdom will accept the Messiah by their hundredth year. Unbelief will be among the Gentiles only and, therefore, death will exist only among the Gentiles."

- Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Premillennialism in the Old Testament, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Thanks for posting that. In the limited contact I have had with his preaching and teaching I consider Fruchtenbaum to be among the best dispensational expositors of these last days, when knowledge shall be increased. I think the above commentary is worthy of consideration.

 

[Jope]

Thanks for posting that. In the limited contact I have had with his preaching and teaching I consider Fruchtenbaum to be among the best dispensational expositors of these last days, when knowledge shall be increased. I think the above commentary is worthy of consideration.

If you liked that, you'll love this post of mine (specifically the G K Beale part).

Cheers