Revelation is not about the FUTURE

[Alan Dale Gross]

The Apostles still saw a future restoration for the kingdom to National israel, just had to learn that until that happens at second coming event, need to be about teaching and preaching Jesus as Lord

Yep. Right. Uh-huh.

I get it. You're saying that in reference to all the Apostles teaching in the Scriptures you quoted...

Which was zero.

So, that's the way it is, is it?

There are Bibles you can Google online, if you don't have one, man.

I just quoted 17 verses that are actually in The New Testament.

And they aren't the first ones.

It makes a difference, if they are in the Bible, or they are not in The Bible at all.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The Apostles still saw a future restoration for the kingdom to National israel

"It is very clear both Contextually and Textually that there is no room for a 1000 year Reign of Christ "on earth" after the tribulation.
Not according to Scripture. For the Second Coming of Christ signals the Judgment and the Rapture, not a New Reign of Christ on Earth.

just had to learn that until that happens at second coming event,

"Christ currently Reigns in Heaven with the souls of the martyrs who have died,
and we are also Spiritually Reigning with Christ Currently (Col. 1:13, Rom. 5:17) as Kings and Priests unto our God.

"Though many choose to ignore these Biblical Truths, we cannot lean unto our own understandings and traditions.

"The Word of God is Definitive, Trustworthy, and Explicitly (not implicitly) Teaching the Kingdom of Christ is now.
Everywhere you look in Scripture the Reign of Christ Now, is Evident.

"The parable of the tares in Matthew chapter 13 gives us another sound illustration of this biblical principle.
Jesus gives us this parable, and that there should not be any question about it's interpretation, He Himself interprets it for us!

"We don't even have to search the Scriptures to see what the Symbolism means,
because Jesus Explains the Parable clearly for us so no one can use their own private interpretations.

"He says the wheat (Believers) and the tares (Unbelievers) will remain in the field (World) "Together" until the harvest (End of the World). This is Christ talking! It's not a matter of my interpretation, or of your interpretation, it's clearly Christ's interpretation.
How can we ignore Christ's interpretation simply because of our Church teachings?

"In fact, in the very Parable itself it was asked if the tares should be plucked out so they couldn't choke God's wheat, and God says, NO!

"The tares and the Wheat must stay together until the End of the World,
then the tares Will be Gathered to be Burned, and the wheat Gathered into God's Barn.

"Again, that's not my private interpretation, that's the unadulterated Word of God.

"But Pretribulation Theorists flatly contradict Christ in this, saying,
"NO! The Wheat will be taken out of the field first because God doesn't want His Wheat being beaten up in the horrible time
when these tares rise up in the Tribulation Period to persecute and kill them".

"That plain and simply is a contradiction of GOD. It's confusion!
If we say that the Church has already been taken out of the World before the Tribulation,
then who are these tares persecuting for the Name of Christ (Matt. 24:9) if not Christians? Is the Body of Christ divided? God Forbid!
And what's the purpose in taking out believers if there will still be both Jew and Gentile believers here on Earth still?

"Pretribulation theorists say God doesn't want believers to go through this Wrath, as they're not "appointed to it",
and yet there are believers here going through this wrath and persecuted and killed for Christ's sake.

"It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! Some Theologians attempt to explain this saying,
"because these will be Jewish believers who will Evangelize the Gentiles".

"But, that was the whole purpose of the Church.

This theory makes the Church's work non effectual by their Doctrine. And how does this change the fact
that they claim the believers were previously Raptured because believers are not appointed to this Wrath?

"The real truth of course is that Jewish and Gentile believers are all one Holy People, one body of Christ, one Church of God. Not two!
Both in "one" Olive tree, not two! There was one Old Testament with Israel, and there is one New Testament with Israel.

"One Name whereby men may Be saved, One Acceptable Time when He took Away the sins of Israel.
It's not a Future Event, it's a Past Event. ...according to Scripture!

So it gets back to that Age Old Question again:

"The Question is not one of Interpretation, the Question is who are we going to believe. God, or our teachers?

"God says the believers and unbelievers will remain together in the World until the End of the World.

"Man says no, that's wrong, the believers will be taken out before the End of the World.
And he teaches that without a single scripture that Actually says that.

"Yes, they will produce a few verses, but "none" of them will "Actually" say
that the Church will be taken out of the World before the tribulation.

"They will "privately interpret" them to mean that, but not one actually says that.

"...How can I say that?

"Because it's a fact, and not one person has ever been able to say it's not, nor produce a single scripture which says these things!
There is no scripture that says the Church will be taken out before the tribulation.

"There are many scriptures (as I've given the one of the wheat and the tares)
which tell us that we will all (both believers and unbelievers),
be here until the End of the World/Age and God won't Pluck one Up because the other is choking it.

"So we have a choice. Believe God, or man.

"I've just given you a few verses, there are many, many more which show the very same thing.

"The Rapture, and the Judgment, is at the End of the World, at the Last Day, not before the Tribulation.

"The 1000 year Reign that Revelation chapter 20 talks about says, the souls "of" the martyrs (those who died),
NOT souls (which could be people), or people here Reigning with Christ "on Earth" in the literal middle eastern city of Jerusalem.

"It says souls "of" the martyred dead, while the rest of the dead lived not again.
NOT one word about living people Reigning "upon Earth" with Christ.

"...He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

"Study scripture carefully leaning upon it's Words alone (Sola Scriptura) and the Holy Spirit Will Guide you into Truth.

"Accept the words of men and of Church traditions and you set yourself up for a great fall by building upon unsound foundation.

"Souls of those who are beheaded for Christ's sake do not rise up out of the Earth to Reign literally in Jerusalem.

"The Saints upon their death immediately go to Heaven to Reign with Christ!

"The teaching that this chapter says souls are literally Reigning on Earth in Jerusalem, is untenable.
But it's repeated so often that those who do not carefully compare Theologians words with the scriptures,
have actually told me that this was explicitly written there,
i.e., they heard it so much that they really think that this verse actually says that.

In Reality John says (the Word of God says) that he saw souls "of" the martyred, Reigning!
He saw the souls of those killed (Beheaded).

"Not Souls (which could be people), and not Martyrs, but the "Souls, of the martyrs!"
And since when does souls of the dead Martyrs Reign on the Earth?

"Why would a soul apart from his body, be Reigning in a literal city in the Middle East?

"These souls Reign in the Jerusalem from above, not in an Earthly Nation, Holy City, or Holy Temple.

"A Spiritual Holy Nation, the Jerusalem from above Galatians 4:26;

"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

From: An Exposition of Revelation Chapter Twenty.

 

[JesusFan]

"It is very clear both Contextually and Textually that there is no room for a 1000 year Reign of Christ "on earth" after the tribulation.
Not according to Scripture. For the Second Coming of Christ signals the Judgment and the Rapture, not a New Reign of Christ on Earth.



"Christ currently Reigns in Heaven with the souls of the martyrs who have died,
and we are also Spiritually Reigning with Christ Currently (Col. 1:13, Rom. 5:17) as Kings and Priests unto our God.

"Though many choose to ignore these Biblical Truths, we cannot lean unto our own understandings and traditions.

"The Word of God is Definitive, Trustworthy, and Explicitly (not implicitly) Teaching the Kingdom of Christ is now.
Everywhere you look in Scripture the Reign of Christ Now, is Evident.

"The parable of the tares in Matthew chapter 13 gives us another sound illustration of this biblical principle.
Jesus gives us this parable, and that there should not be any question about it's interpretation, He Himself interprets it for us!

"We don't even have to search the Scriptures to see what the Symbolism means,
because Jesus Explains the Parable clearly for us so no one can use their own private interpretations.

"He says the wheat (Believers) and the tares (Unbelievers) will remain in the field (World) "Together" until the harvest (End of the World). This is Christ talking! It's not a matter of my interpretation, or of your interpretation, it's clearly Christ's interpretation.
How can we ignore Christ's interpretation simply because of our Church teachings?

"In fact, in the very Parable itself it was asked if the tares should be plucked out so they couldn't choke God's wheat, and God says, NO!

"The tares and the Wheat must stay together until the End of the World,
then the tares Will be Gathered to be Burned, and the wheat Gathered into God's Barn.

"Again, that's not my private interpretation, that's the unadulterated Word of God.

"But Pretribulation Theorists flatly contradict Christ in this, saying,
"NO! The Wheat will be taken out of the field first because God doesn't want His Wheat being beaten up in the horrible time
when these tares rise up in the Tribulation Period to persecute and kill them".

"That plain and simply is a contradiction of GOD. It's confusion!
If we say that the Church has already been taken out of the World before the Tribulation,
then who are these tares persecuting for the Name of Christ (Matt. 24:9) if not Christians? Is the Body of Christ divided? God Forbid!
And what's the purpose in taking out believers if there will still be both Jew and Gentile believers here on Earth still?

"Pretribulation theorists say God doesn't want believers to go through this Wrath, as they're not "appointed to it",
and yet there are believers here going through this wrath and persecuted and killed for Christ's sake.

"It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! Some Theologians attempt to explain this saying,
"because these will be Jewish believers who will Evangelize the Gentiles".

"But, that was the whole purpose of the Church.

This theory makes the Church's work non effectual by their Doctrine. And how does this change the fact
that they claim the believers were previously Raptured because believers are not appointed to this Wrath?

"The real truth of course is that Jewish and Gentile believers are all one Holy People, one body of Christ, one Church of God. Not two!
Both in "one" Olive tree, not two! There was one Old Testament with Israel, and there is one New Testament with Israel.

"One Name whereby men may Be saved, One Acceptable Time when He took Away the sins of Israel.
It's not a Future Event, it's a Past Event. ...according to Scripture!

So it gets back to that Age Old Question again:

"The Question is not one of Interpretation, the Question is who are we going to believe. God, or our teachers?

"God says the believers and unbelievers will remain together in the World until the End of the World.

"Man says no, that's wrong, the believers will be taken out before the End of the World.
And he teaches that without a single scripture that Actually says that.

"Yes, they will produce a few verses, but "none" of them will "Actually" say
that the Church will be taken out of the World before the tribulation.

"They will "privately interpret" them to mean that, but not one actually says that.

"...How can I say that?

"Because it's a fact, and not one person has ever been able to say it's not, nor produce a single scripture which says these things!
There is no scripture that says the Church will be taken out before the tribulation.

"There are many scriptures (as I've given the one of the wheat and the tares)
which tell us that we will all (both believers and unbelievers),
be here until the End of the World/Age and God won't Pluck one Up because the other is choking it.

"So we have a choice. Believe God, or man.

"I've just given you a few verses, there are many, many more which show the very same thing.

"The Rapture, and the Judgment, is at the End of the World, at the Last Day, not before the Tribulation.

"The 1000 year Reign that Revelation chapter 20 talks about says, the souls "of" the martyrs (those who died),
NOT souls (which could be people), or people here Reigning with Christ "on Earth" in the literal middle eastern city of Jerusalem.

"It says souls "of" the martyred dead, while the rest of the dead lived not again.
NOT one word about living people Reigning "upon Earth" with Christ.

"...He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

"Study scripture carefully leaning upon it's Words alone (Sola Scriptura) and the Holy Spirit Will Guide you into Truth.

"Accept the words of men and of Church traditions and you set yourself up for a great fall by building upon unsound foundation.

"Souls of those who are beheaded for Christ's sake do not rise up out of the Earth to Reign literally in Jerusalem.

"The Saints upon their death immediately go to Heaven to Reign with Christ!

"The teaching that this chapter says souls are literally Reigning on Earth in Jerusalem, is untenable.
But it's repeated so often that those who do not carefully compare Theologians words with the scriptures,
have actually told me that this was explicitly written there,
i.e., they heard it so much that they really think that this verse actually says that.

In Reality John says (the Word of God says) that he saw souls "of" the martyred, Reigning!
He saw the souls of those killed (Beheaded).

"Not Souls (which could be people), and not Martyrs, but the "Souls, of the martyrs!"
And since when does souls of the dead Martyrs Reign on the Earth?

"Why would a soul apart from his body, be Reigning in a literal city in the Middle East?

"These souls Reign in the Jerusalem from above, not in an Earthly Nation, Holy City, or Holy Temple.

"A Spiritual Holy Nation, the Jerusalem from above Galatians 4:26;

"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

From: An Exposition of Revelation Chapter Twenty.

Jesus right now in his role as mediator and High priest, not in directly Kingdom Ruling until second coming and establishment of the Messianic Age

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Jesus right now in his role as mediator and High priest,

not in directly Kingdom Ruling until second coming and establishment of the Messianic Age

?
"If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not,
there are several things with which you must reconcile within your brain:
?
UNLESS, THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES ARE SOMETHING YOU HATE.
?
You must necessarily believe that Physical Death will continue to exist
beyond the Time of Christ’s Second Coming. The reason for this is that all premillennialists must account for the rebellious and unbelieving nations
in Revelation 20:7-10 who launch an assault against Christ and His people
at the end of what they believe is 'the millennial age'.
?

until second coming and establishment of the Messianic Age

?
"Where did these people come from? They must be the unbelieving progeny
born to those believers who entered 'the millennial age' in physical, un-glorified bodies.
?
"Not only they, but also the believing progeny born to those believers
will be subject to Physical Death (notwithstanding the alleged prolonged life spans experienced by those who live during 'the millennial' Reign of Christ).
?
"You must necessarily believe that the Natural Creation will continue,
beyond the Time of Christ’s Second Coming, to be subjected to the curse
imposed by the fall of man. The reason for this is that all premillennialists must concede that unbelievers will continue to populate and infect the earth during 'the millennial' Reign of Christ.
?
"Notwithstanding the Presence of Christ Himself, as premillennialists argue,
the Earth will continue to be ravaged by war and sin and death,
even if only at 'the millennium’s' end (Revelation 20:7-10).
?
As a premillennialist, you must necessarily believe that
the Redemption of the Natural Creation and its being set free
from bondage to corruption does not occur, at least in its Consummate Expression,
until '1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s Return'.
?
You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth
will not be introduced until '1,000 years subsequent to the Return of Christ'.
This is not in itself problematic, except for the fact that the NEW TESTAMENT
appears to teach that the New Heavens and New Earth
are Inaugurated at the Time of Christ’s Second Coming,
not '1,000 years thereafter' (2 Peter 3:8-13).
?
You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to Saving Faith in Christ for at least '1,000 years subsequent to His Return'. The reason for this is that, according to premillennialism, countless millions of people will be born during the course of 'the millennial' Reign of Christ.
?
"Are premillennialists asking us to believe that upon their attaining to an age when they are capable of understanding and responding to the Revelation of God and the Personal, Physical Presence of the Risen and Glorified Christ Jesus Himself, that none of them will be given the opportunity to respond in Faith to the claims of the Gospel?
?
"You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally Resurrected until at least '1,000 years subsequent to the Return of Christ'. All premillennialists affirm that the Final Resurrection of the unsaved occurs at the Close of the 'millennial kingdom'.
?
"You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally Judged and Cast into Eternal Punishment until at least '1,000 years subsequent to the Return of Christ'.
?
"So, what’s wrong with believing these things, asks the premillennialist?
?
"What’s wrong is that these many things that premillennialists must believe
the EXACT THINGS The NEW TESTAMENT Explicitly Denies.
?
"In other words, in my study of the Second Coming of Christ I discovered that, contrary to what premillennialism requires us to believe (see above), Physical Death is Defeated and Swallowed up in Victory at the Parousia (1 Cor. 15:22-28, 50-57),
!
"The Natural Creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the Parousia (Rom. 8:18-23),
!
"The New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the Parousia (2 Pet. 3:8-13),
!
"All opportunity to receive Christ as Savior Terminates at the Parousia (2 Cor. 6:1-2; Heb. 9:27),
!
"And both the Final Resurrection and Eternal Judgment of unbelievers will occur at the Time of the Parousia (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 2 Thess. 1:5-10).
!
"Simply put, the NEW TESTAMENT Portrayals
of the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
Forced me to Conclude that:

'A Millennial Age', Subsequent to Christ’s Return,
of the Sort Proposed by premillennialism was Impossible."

Why I Am An Amillennialist.​

August 29, 2022 by Sam Storms

 

[JesusFan]

?
"If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not,
there are several things with which you must reconcile within your brain:
?
UNLESS, THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES ARE SOMETHING YOU HATE.
?
You must necessarily believe that Physical Death will continue to exist
beyond the Time of Christ’s Second Coming. The reason for this is that all premillennialists must account for the rebellious and unbelieving nations
in Revelation 20:7-10 who launch an assault against Christ and His people
at the end of what they believe is 'the millennial age'.
?

?
"Where did these people come from? They must be the unbelieving progeny
born to those believers who entered 'the millennial age' in physical, un-glorified bodies.
?
"Not only they, but also the believing progeny born to those believers
will be subject to Physical Death (notwithstanding the alleged prolonged life spans experienced by those who live during 'the millennial' Reign of Christ).
?
"You must necessarily believe that the Natural Creation will continue,
beyond the Time of Christ’s Second Coming, to be subjected to the curse
imposed by the fall of man. The reason for this is that all premillennialists must concede that unbelievers will continue to populate and infect the earth during 'the millennial' Reign of Christ.
?
"Notwithstanding the Presence of Christ Himself, as premillennialists argue,
the Earth will continue to be ravaged by war and sin and death,
even if only at 'the millennium’s' end (Revelation 20:7-10).
?
As a premillennialist, you must necessarily believe that
the Redemption of the Natural Creation and its being set free
from bondage to corruption does not occur, at least in its Consummate Expression,
until '1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s Return'.
?
You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth
will not be introduced until '1,000 years subsequent to the Return of Christ'.
This is not in itself problematic, except for the fact that the NEW TESTAMENT
appears to teach that the New Heavens and New Earth
are Inaugurated at the Time of Christ’s Second Coming,
not '1,000 years thereafter' (2 Peter 3:8-13).
?
You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to Saving Faith in Christ for at least '1,000 years subsequent to His Return'. The reason for this is that, according to premillennialism, countless millions of people will be born during the course of 'the millennial' Reign of Christ.
?
"Are premillennialists asking us to believe that upon their attaining to an age when they are capable of understanding and responding to the Revelation of God and the Personal, Physical Presence of the Risen and Glorified Christ Jesus Himself, that none of them will be given the opportunity to respond in Faith to the claims of the Gospel?
?
"You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally Resurrected until at least '1,000 years subsequent to the Return of Christ'. All premillennialists affirm that the Final Resurrection of the unsaved occurs at the Close of the 'millennial kingdom'.
?
"You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally Judged and Cast into Eternal Punishment until at least '1,000 years subsequent to the Return of Christ'.
?
"So, what’s wrong with believing these things, asks the premillennialist?
?
"What’s wrong is that these many things that premillennialists must believe
the EXACT THINGS The NEW TESTAMENT Explicitly Denies.
?
"In other words, in my study of the Second Coming of Christ I discovered that, contrary to what premillennialism requires us to believe (see above), Physical Death is Defeated and Swallowed up in Victory at the Parousia (1 Cor. 15:22-28, 50-57),
!
"The Natural Creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the Parousia (Rom. 8:18-23),
!
"The New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the Parousia (2 Pet. 3:8-13),
!
"All opportunity to receive Christ as Savior Terminates at the Parousia (2 Cor. 6:1-2; Heb. 9:27),
!
"And both the Final Resurrection and Eternal Judgment of unbelievers will occur at the Time of the Parousia (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 2 Thess. 1:5-10).
!
"Simply put, the NEW TESTAMENT Portrayals
of the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
Forced me to Conclude that:

'A Millennial Age', Subsequent to Christ’s Return,
of the Sort Proposed by premillennialism was Impossible."

Why I Am An Amillennialist.​

August 29, 2022 by Sam Storms

So all nations shall not come up to Jerusalem to pay Homage to the King Messiah as foretold in bible?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

So all nations shall not come up to Jerusalem to pay Homage to the King Messiah

As with all your other romantic and speculative surmising, that sounds like quite the Sentimental Journey.

"Premillennial Interpreters, bound by their Sentimental Literalist Hermeneutic,
feel compelled to interpret it Ethnically, and therefore Futuristically."

Like, "John MacArthur writes, “Israel’s Repentance will come because they look to Jesus,
the One whom they Rejected and Crucified, in Faith at the Second Advent.”

"On the Gratuitous Assumption (Fallacy) that a Sentimental Literalist Hermeneutic is an inherently self-evident necessity
and to interpret it Ethnically, and therefore Futuristically is indeed the only valid method of Prophetic Interpretation:...
Zechariah’s Oracle must be Fulfilled in the Eschatological agony, conversion, and Millennial Exaltation of Ethnic Israel.
For the Prophetic Literalist who is trying to honor NT Revelation, there is simply no other option.

"However, as natural as this approach may appear to be, we have seen repeatedly
that the NT positively rejects a Sentimental Literalist Hermeneutic as a possibility, much less, necessity,
to interpret Old Testament Prophecy Ethnically, and therefore Futuristically, both by precept and example.

"Because again, both Christ and the Apostles consistently teach that the True Sphere of Fulfillment
of all Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy is the New Covenant, and also the New Spiritual Nation
to which the New Covenant gives birth: the Eschatological “Israel of God,” the Churches of Jesus Christ (comprised of Jew and Gentile)."

"But if this is so, then we cannot Interpret this or any other Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy, using wooden literal letterism.

"Rather, we must Interpret Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy Eschatologically, Covenantally, Typologically, and Ecclesiologically.

You see, while a Sentimental Literalist Hermeneutic binds itself Ethnically, and therefore Futuristically,
the idea of an Interpretation being "Spiritual" does not automatically force a consideration "it could mean Allegorical pie in the sky thing."

A Spiritual Interpretation, in a Spiritual Book, by a God Who is Spirit can be MORE EXPRESSIVE OF BIBLE TRUTH, than Literal Letterism.

Just like, "Figures of Speech", are are MORE EXPRESSIVE OF BIBLE TRUTH, than any lain old cursive approach to writing.

It is in that sense that "Spiritual Interpretation" and "Figures of Speech", Parables, Prophecy, etc., are Literal, Linguistic Literature, also.

Jesus Coming, "as a Thief in the night", LITERALLY tells us more in that use of "Figurative" LITERATURE, than other LINGUISTICS might.

So, in case you didn't catch that, "Spiritualization", in its proper application IS A FORM OF LITERAL SPEECH/ in every day LIITERATURE.

God Uses Spiritual Literature in His Bible Writings ALL THE TIME (not all the time = a lot) to be treated with "Spiritualizing" the Interpretation.

"We must understand Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy as a “veiled” and “mysterious” representation of life under the New Covenant;
life in one or both of the stages of the Spiritual Kingdom that the New Covenant creates.

And, therefore that , rather than some willy-nilly free for all way of thinking about what we are reading in the Old Testament, in this case,
we are on rock solid Bible ground to Interpret Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy, using a Spiritual Hermeneutic Approach that we may be comfortable defining and qualifying Eschatologically, Covenantally, Typologically, and Ecclesiologically.

"Importantly, to adopt this approach is to see immediately that in Zechariah’s great Oracle,
God was speaking not only to OT Jews, but also—and primarily—to the Lord's New Testament Churches,
and supplying her with the Wisdom, Strength, and Comfort she will need for her arduous Pilgrimage
through the Domain of Darkness, especially as she enters The Last of the Last Days (Colossians. 2:2, Ephesians 4:3, 13).

You see, to wax negative, a Sentimental Literalist Hermeneutic believed Ethnically, and therefore Futuristically is deeply problematic.

"How did the Jews described in 12:1-9 enjoy such strength and blessing from God if they were not yet converted to Christ?
"How shall the houses of David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei suddenly reappear on the stage of history just prior to Christ’s Return?
"And how can Israel’s National Conversion be effected by the Visible Return of Christ, when, according to pervasive NT teaching,
"God’s Pleasure and Purpose in NT Times is to Save sinners strictly by the “foolishness of preaching”
(Matthew 28:18ff, John 17:17, Romans 10:14ff, 1 Corinthians 1:21)?

"No, premillennial Literalism cannot uncover the meaning of this Prophecy, nor can it illumine the time of its Fulfillment.

Moreover, once we abandon premillennial Literalism and Futurism in favor of the New Covenant Hermeneutic, we are able to see it clearly.

"Was there ever an OT Prophet whose writing more fully embodied the SPIRITUAL “Apocalyptic” mode of Divine Revelation than Zechariah?
"Was there ever a Prophet who more consistently edified and encouraged God’s Old Testament people
by "Clothing" his great Eschatological Revelations in Vision and Symbol?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

as foretold in bible?

When will this beautiful Prophecy be Fulfilled?

"Will the nations really go up to a Physical Jerusalem to join Ethnic Israel in observing the Feast of Booths (14:16)?

"Will they really bring Animal Sacrifices to a Physical Temple;
and will Priests really lay those Sacrifices upon a Physical Altar, or boil them in Physical Cooking Pots (14:20-21)?

"The mind steeped in NT Revelation simply cannot bring itself to assent to such propositions.
Instead, it looks immediately and instinctively for NT Antitypes; for the NT Spiritual Realities
of which all these Mysterious Pictures are Old Testament Types, Shadows, and Symbols."

First, though, if we may, let's go about the business of "unlearning" some stuff, before we enter into learning about God's Business in all this.

"A Critique of Premillennial Approaches": "I have suggested that the NCH gives us the best possible understanding of Zechariah 12-14.
We should rejoice that it does, seeing that premillennial views involve so many intractable problems.
Because of the popularity of those views, let us mention a few of the most important.

"First, the Oracle says nothing at all about a Temporary Millennial Reign of Christ.
Anyone who reads the text objectively, refusing to import Millennial Presuppositions into it,
will see immediately that Zechariah is speaking of the conversion of Eschatological Israel, the Last Battle, the Day of the LORD,
and the Eternal Worship of the World to Come. It is completely counterintuitive to think that an Oracle so grand—so cosmic—in its scale,
should have as its terminus ad quem a Temporary Millennial Reign of the Messiah, (unless, we're utterly steeped in Demonic Sentimentality) rather than the Ultimate Glories of the perfected Kingdom of God."

Think about this, if you would, "Sentimentality IS NOT Spirituality", where Spirituality is now seen to be an Eternally Favored position.

"Secondly, we have already seen that this Oracle gives us one of at least five different OT Prophecies of the Last Battle.
We have also seen that if we interpret them all Literally, it is impossible to reconcile the conflicting data.

"Therefore, the only viable solution is to affirm, with the NCH, that in each such Prophecy
the Spirit is giving us a Symbolic—a Typologically Veiled— Revelation of the Final Clash between the Lord's Churches and the World,
a clash whose true nature is fully disclosed only in the NT.
This approach alone retains the Divine Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Perspicuity of Scripture.

"Thirdly, there is the problem of anachronisms. Do we really want to say, for example, that in our Technologically Advanced Age
the Nations of the Earth will come up against Ethnic Israel riding horses, camels, and donkeys;
or that they will bring cattle with them to serve as food (12:4, 14:15)?

"Fourthly, there are Theological Problems.
"How is it that in the Millennium—when Christ Himself is allegedly Seated upon His Throne in Jerusalem—
that Israel and the Nations will revert to observing the Mosaic Law;
a Law that, according to the NT, Christ Himself Fulfilled and Rendered Obsolete (Mt. 5:17, Rom. 10:4, Heb. 8:13)?

"In particular, will parents really take it upon themselves to administer Mosaic sanctions by executing
the false prophet who sprang from their loins (13:2-4; Deut. 18:20, 13:13)?

"Finally, what about the bearing of the rest of the book upon the Interpretation of this particular Oracle?

"If, as all agree, the first half of Zechariah’s book (Zech. 1-8) is completely devoted to Eight Mystical Visions
loaded with Messianic and Kingdom Symbolism, is it not likely that the second half of the book (Zech. 9-14),
which is devoted to two great Prophetic Oracles, is loaded with Messianic and Kingdom Symbolism, as well?

Indeed, since the first half of the book also contains a number of Prophecies,
and the second half also contains a number of Visions, is it not clear that the whole book is Apocalyptic through and through,
and that we must therefore Interpret it Symbolically, rather than Literally?

"We conclude, then, from evidence found both in the OT and the New, that premillennial Interpretations of Zechariah 12-14
are fatally flawed, and that our only hope of penetrating to the deep meaning of this great Oracle
lies in the skillful use of the New Covenant Hermeneutic.

All stuff mostly borrowed from The High King of Heaven, by Dean Davis.

 

[John of Japan]

It's really very simple. If you believe in interpreting prophecy literally, you become a premillennialist. If you don't believe in interpreting prophecy literally, but allegorically ("spiritually") you become postmil, amil, or preterist. Simply state how you interpret, and the problem is solved. Everyone will know you are not premillennial.

But of course, the early church fathers (1st through 3 centuries) were almost all premillennial, because they simply interpreted literally. Chief among them is Papias, who was a disciple of John, who wrote Revelation. Now, if John had meant Revelation to be interpreted, seems like he would have taught his disciple that. But no, Papias (c. 60-130) was a premillennialist, so the non-literal interpretation idea did not come from John, who wrote Revelation! John wanted us to interpret literally. That alone should put to flight the non-literal positions.

Polycarp (69-155) wrote in his "Epistle to the Philippians," For if we be well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world also, according as He promised us to raise us from the dead, and that if we conduct ourselves worthily of Him we shall also reign with Him, if indeed we have faith.” (J. R. Lightfoot's translation of The Apostolic Fathers, par. 5, pp. 96-97
Ignatius was also a disciple of John, and he was also a premillennialist. Poor John, he couldn't get across to his own disciples that it wasn't going to be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ. In fact, there is not a single 1st century extant writer who was anything but premillennial! And there are virtually no 2nd or 3rd century writers who taught anything differently!

In illustration of my contention that interpreting literally makes one a premillennialist, this is what happened to famous evangelist John R. Rice, famous pastor Lee Roberson, and famous pastor W. A. Criswell. About Criswell (I can give quotes about the others also): "First, he abandoned topical preaching in favor of book-by-book exposition. This led, in turn, to his embracing premillennialism, though he evidently did not know the word, nor had he had the benefit of study with a premillennial teacher" (Paige Patterson, "W. A. Criswell," in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. by Timothy George and David Dockery, p. 235; an excellent resource).

 

[John of Japan]

I heard a talk on the Book of Revelation that made what I thought might be a valid point. Brandon Robbins suggested that Revelation was written to the people living at that time, people going through horrific persecution, to whom each of the “apocalyptic literature” symbols would have been painfully obvious. The book starts out with seven real churches with seven very real conditions that Christians living under that culture and persecution would have been familiar with. The horsemen represent sufferings like war and famine and oppression that those people would have been only too familiar with. After acknowledging their suffering, the veil is pulled back and John/God reveal the spiritual war going on unseen behind the events of their hard lives (offering a glimpse and a hope that Satan would ultimately be defeated). Lastly comes the climax, a glimpse of the end with the ULTIMATE PROMISE that God will not merely triumph, but that those that are suffering NOW will one day be with Him and everything will be made RIGHT.

It is not intended to be a literal future prophecy for future generations to pick apart into complex debated timelines, it is a symbolic code for people IN a hard times to find hope. It was written to THEM about THEIR TIME, but it is timeless because Christians suffer and struggle in EVERY TIME. We have done an injustice to the church by making it about some FUTURE EVENTS when it is about getting through PRESENT STRUGGLES with Hope.

Actually, the debate is all about whether to interpret the book literally or not. Once you interpret it literally, other problems become minor. (And there is nothing new nor unique about Brandon Robbins and his interpretation.

On the other hand, if you have a non-literal interpretation, the problems abound. Everyone interprets according to what is right in his eyes. There are then no standards of what is the true interpretation. For example, A. T. Robertson interpreted non-literally about the 1000 years in ch. 20, but he wrote, "For a thousand years (chilia etê). Accusative of extent of time. Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one" (Word Pictures in the NT, accessed through PowerBible software).

 

[John of Japan]

Modern scholars agree that premillennialism was the view of the early church.

“It is generally agreed that the view of the church for the centuries immediately following the Apostolic era was the premillennial view of the return of Christ” (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 373).

“Premillennialism was probably the dominant millennial view during the early period of the church. Christians of the first three centuries had a strong expectation of an early return of Christ, inaugurating the millennium. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and several other significant early theologians held to this view” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed., p. 1110).

 

[JesusFan]

It's really very simple. If you believe in interpreting prophecy literally, you become a premillennialist. If you don't believe in interpreting prophecy literally, but allegorically ("spiritually") you become postmil, amil, or preterist. Simply state how you interpret, and the problem is solved. Everyone will know you are not premillennial.

But of course, the early church fathers (1st through 3 centuries) were almost all premillennial, because they simply interpreted literally. Chief among them is Papias, who was a disciple of John, who wrote Revelation. Now, if John had meant Revelation to be interpreted, seems like he would have taught his disciple that. But no, Papias (c. 60-130) was a premillennialist, so the non-literal interpretation idea did not come from John, who wrote Revelation! John wanted us to interpret literally. That alone should put to flight the non-literal positions.

Polycarp (69-155) wrote in his "Epistle to the Philippians," For if we be well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world also, according as He promised us to raise us from the dead, and that if we conduct ourselves worthily of Him we shall also reign with Him, if indeed we have faith.” (J. R. Lightfoot's translation of The Apostolic Fathers, par. 5, pp. 96-97
Ignatius was also a disciple of John, and he was also a premillennialist. Poor John, he couldn't get across to his own disciples that it wasn't going to be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ. In fact, there is not a single 1st century extant writer who was anything but premillennial! And there are virtually no 2nd or 3rd century writers who taught anything differently!

In illustration of my contention that interpreting literally makes one a premillennialist, this is what happened to famous evangelist John R. Rice, famous pastor Lee Roberson, and famous pastor W. A. Criswell. About Criswell (I can give quotes about the others also): "First, he abandoned topical preaching in favor of book-by-book exposition. This led, in turn, to his embracing premillennialism, though he evidently did not know the word, nor had he had the benefit of study with a premillennial teacher" (Paige Patterson, "W. A. Criswell," in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. by Timothy George and David Dockery, p. 235; an excellent resource).

Would agree with you was a premil viewpoint as the prominent view, but many would seem to be more of a historical premil view

 

[JesusFan]

Modern scholars agree that premillennialism was the view of the early church.

“It is generally agreed that the view of the church for the centuries immediately following the Apostolic era was the premillennial view of the return of Christ” (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 373).

“Premillennialism was probably the dominant millennial view during the early period of the church. Christians of the first three centuries had a strong expectation of an early return of Christ, inaugurating the millennium. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and several other significant early theologians held to this view” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed., p. 1110).

It seems that the premil view took a big hit and displaced as being the prominent view once those such as Origen and others brought in spiritualizing prophecy. and really had Amil pushed to position asprimary view now view thru Augustine and others to made church of Rome the kingdom of God on earth. as "true Mother church"

 

[atpollard]

Actually, the debate is all about whether to interpret the book literally or not. Once you interpret it literally, other problems become minor. (And there is nothing new nor unique about Brandon Robbins and his interpretation.

So we should expect Jesus to look like an animal slaughtered with a sword sticking out of his mouth ... because John meant every word to be understood as LITERAL. Got it.

Why did John lie about "soon"?​

Rev 1:1 [ESV] 1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Rev 2:16 [ESV] 16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3:11 [ESV] 11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.
Rev 11:14 [ESV] 14 The second woe has passed; behold, the third woe is soon to come.
Rev 22:6-7, 12, 20 [ESV] 6 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place." 7 "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." ... 12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. ... 20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

Literal "SOON" has come and gone.​

 

[John of Japan]

So we should expect Jesus to look like an animal slaughtered with a sword sticking out of his mouth ... because John meant every word to be understood as LITERAL. Got it.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that and don't believe it. No premillennialist believes that "every word (is) to be understood as LITERAL." There is much figurative language in Revelation, but it's always evident that it is figurative: metaphors, figures of speech, word pictures, etc.

When you misrepresent your debate opponent like this, you lose (a) credibility, and (b) the possibility of future logical and friendly interaction.

Why did John lie about "soon"?​

Rev 1:1 [ESV] 1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Rev 2:16 [ESV] 16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3:11 [ESV] 11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.
Rev 11:14 [ESV] 14 The second woe has passed; behold, the third woe is soon to come.
Rev 22:6-7, 12, 20 [ESV] 6 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place." 7 "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." ... 12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. ... 20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

Literal "SOON" has come and gone.​

I don't have time right now to look at all of your references, but: the word "soon" in the first 3 chapters are not necessarily about the 2nd Coming, and at any rate could be translated "quickly" in a couple of those places. That's a far different word from "soon," indicating the speed, not the date of the coming of Christ. The Greek word ταχυ or ταχυς is often translated "quickly." And then I doubt the premillennial position of the ESV translators.

Also, it is another prevarication to insinuate that premillennialists believe John was "lying" with his language.

Now, you did not answer my point about the disciples of John, the writer of Revelation, being premillennialists. Would not John have warned them that his writing should not be taken literally?

 

[atpollard]

Now, you did not answer my point about the disciples of John, the writer of Revelation, being premillennialists.

True. Let me correct that.

I am utterly indifferent to the writings of the ECFs. First, they are not “God Breathed” like the writings of the Apostles, so why allow the “second string” to overturn the “first string”. Second, they got as much incorrect as they got correct. Shall we reject the hypostatic union as some did, or embrace the various heresies that the earliest councils needed to combat? Of course not. Thus, I throw out all their opinions and adopt a “sola scriptura” starting point (right or wrong) as the Reformers did and for the same reason (‘traditions’ of men is unreliable.)

Would not John have warned them that his writing should not be taken literally?

Being familiar with apocalyptic literature as a literary type, they had no need to be told that ‘prophetic’ (revealing spiritual truth through symbolism) visions were not literal.

 

[atpollard]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that and don't believe it.

It follows as an inevitable conclusion of the words that you did say. Your exact words (which I quoted) were …

Actually, the debate is all about whether to interpret the book literally or not. Once you interpret it literally, other problems become minor. (And there is nothing new nor unique about Brandon Robbins and his interpretation.

… then you take me to task for DARING to interpret it LITERALLY.

 

[John of Japan]

True. Let me correct that.

I am utterly indifferent to the writings of the ECFs. First, they are not “God Breathed” like the writings of the Apostles, so why allow the “second string” to overturn the “first string”. Second, they got as much incorrect as they got correct. Shall we reject the hypostatic union as some did, or embrace the various heresies that the earliest councils needed to combat? Of course not. Thus, I throw out all their opinions and adopt a “sola scriptura” starting point (right or wrong) as the Reformers did and for the same reason (‘traditions’ of men is unreliable.)

You appear to have missed the point entirely. It was from church history, not strictly theology. Again my point: the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation. He had disciples named Polycarp and Ignatius, who presumably he led to Christ. He then discipled them, so that in church history they are known as disciples of John. They then both wrote clearly that they were premillennial. Therefore it follows that John taught them to interpret the 1000 years literally, since he wrote the book of Revelation where we are told about that. As John wrote, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (3 John v. 4).

Have you ever won anyone to Christ and then discipled them? If not, you wouldn't know how it works. I'm discipling a man named R. right now. He now thinks like I do on many things (hopefully Bible based). Surprise! If, however, you have never discipled anyone, then you would not know how discipleship works. Get to work, win someone to Christ, disciple them. It's a great joy!

Being familiar with apocalyptic literature as a literary type, they had no need to be told that ‘prophetic’ (revealing spiritual truth through symbolism) visions were not literal.

Being familiar with the apocalyptic book of Daniel, they knew that the prophecies of Daniel about the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally, so they would assume that the prophecies of an apocalyptic book, inspired by God, would be fulfilled literally.

 

[John of Japan]

It follows as an inevitable conclusion of the words that you did say. Your exact words (which I quoted) were …

… then you take me to task for DARING to interpret it LITERALLY.

You are correct--I overestimated your knowledge of literal interpretation. I assumed you knew how we do that. It appears that you have never taken a course on hermeneutics or studied it for yourself, so perhaps I can help you.

The technical term for what I called "literal" is "grammatical historical-interpretation." It involves taking the text for what it directly says in the grammatical sense (according to the syntax and semantics of the original) and its historical sense (understanding the issues of the day in which the work was written). It is literal in the sense that it takes the text directly for what it says, not inserting meaning outside of the syntax and semantics of the original. It is not literal in the sense that it twists figures of speech to interpret them literally, against the nature of such expressions.

The grammatical-historical interpreter interprets figures of speech as just that: figures of speech, not meant to be taken literally. For example, one of those is the metaphor. This is a "Figure of speech in which a word or expression normally used of one kind of object, action, etc. is extended to another" (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 243). Those who, like me, take the futurist view of Revelation are well aware that the book is full of metaphors and other figures of speech, and interpret those figures of speech accordingly. So the sword coming from the mouth of Christ is obviously a metaphor for the Word of God, which metaphor had previously been taught in several NT passages.

"In contrast to the other approaches to the book of Revelation, the futuristic position allows a more literal [not "completely literal--JoJ] interpretation of the specific prophecies of the book. Though recognizing the frequent symbolism in various prophecies, the events foreshadowed by these symbols and their interpretation are regarded as being fulfilled in a normal way" (John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 21).

I hope this helps.

 

[JesusFan]

So we should expect Jesus to look like an animal slaughtered with a sword sticking out of his mouth ... because John meant every word to be understood as LITERAL. Got it.

Why did John lie about "soon"?​

Rev 1:1 [ESV] 1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Rev 2:16 [ESV] 16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3:11 [ESV] 11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.
Rev 11:14 [ESV] 14 The second woe has passed; behold, the third woe is soon to come.
Rev 22:6-7, 12, 20 [ESV] 6 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place." 7 "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." ... 12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. ... 20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

Literal "SOON" has come and gone.​

Literally interpreting also means to account for Genre in the Bible, was it symbolic, allegory, literal Metaphor? Even we who are literalist see Jesus as Not a literal door or lion or lamb!

 

[JesusFan]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that and don't believe it. No premillennialist believes that "every word (is) to be understood as LITERAL." There is much figurative language in Revelation, but it's always evident that it is figurative: metaphors, figures of speech, word pictures, etc.

When you misrepresent your debate opponent like this, you lose (a) credibility, and (b) the possibility of future logical and friendly interaction.

I don't have time right now to look at all of your references, but: the word "soon" in the first 3 chapters are not necessarily about the 2nd Coming, and at any rate could be translated "quickly" in a couple of those places. That's a far different word from "soon," indicating the speed, not the date of the coming of Christ. The Greek word ταχυ or ταχυς is often translated "quickly." And then I doubt the premillennial position of the ESV translators.

Also, it is another prevarication to insinuate that premillennialists believe John was "lying" with his language.

Now, you did not answer my point about the disciples of John, the writer of Revelation, being premillennialists. Would not John have warned them that his writing should not be taken literally?

Can also mean in the greek text that whenever these events begin, He will come quickly and soon