Questions for Dispensationalists

[Amy.G]

...yet Scripture states it will be here on Earth one day. That's a physical kingdom, on a physical earth, with physical new bodies.

Regardless of one's eschatology...I think it's important to study what Heaven is, and will be in God's plan. Randy Alcorn has a great book called Heaven. He doesn't get into eschatology at all, but what the Bible has to say about Heaven (which is more than you would believe). When looking at what Heaven is and will be, amillenialism doesn't hold water. For me it was reverse eschatology...studying the outcome then the views.

If you're talking about the new heaven and new earth, I agree. But if you're talking about Christ as physical literal king on this dying corrupt earth, I disagree.

Also, it seems that there are varying views on who will be in the millennial kingdom. Some say the Jews, some say resurrected christians, some say both mortal and immortal. What say you?

 

[webdog]

If you're talking about the new heaven and new earth, I agree. But if you're talking about Christ as physical literal king on this dying corrupt earth, I disagree.

Also, it seems that there are varying views on who will be in the millennial kingdom. Some say the Jews, some say resurrected christians, some say both mortal and immortal. What say you?

That might make for a great thread :thumbs: I wouldn't want to derail this one...

 

[Amy.G]

That might make for a great thread :thumbs: I wouldn't want to derail this one...

Done. :type:

 

[Grasshopper]

HumblesmithSo many interesting questions. I'll do my best.

Regarding Joshua 21:43: It must be that he was speaking of the boundaries made with Moses in Numbers 34, and not the boudaries made with Abraham. This is because right after this, in Judges 1, they were still trying to drive out the inhabitants of the land. Further, In Jer. 11 and Amos 9 both repeat prophecies about the land, which would indicate the land promises were not totally fulfilled in Joshua. And in Romans 11:25 ff, Paul still speaks of it as future.

I should have included this:

Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

The promise is found in Genesis:

Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: Gen 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Gen 15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,


I don't know how else to interpret these verses other than God kept His promise:

1Ki 4:21 And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.

Neh 9:22 Moreover thou gavest them kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them into corners: so they possessed the land of Sihon, and the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan.
Neh 9:23 Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land, concerning which thou hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it.
Neh 9:24 So the children went in and possessed the land, and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their kings, and the people of the land, that they might do with them as they would.

2Sa 8:3 David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.


Abraham lived and dwelt in the land of promise but that was not what he was looking for.

Next, we must distinguish between the kingdom and the covenant, for they are not one and the same. (My kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36); The kingdom is within you (Lk 17:20-21)) and it has a future literal fulfillment (when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, and the apostles sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, Matt. 19:28). This is true because of the following:
--The disciples were still asking about it in Acts 1, and Jesus didn't correct them;
--Peter was still offering a literal kingdom in Acts 3:19-26 (When Jesus comes He will "restore everything")
--2 Tim 4:1 implies Jesus will appear and restore His kingdom

As Amy pointed out scripture states He is now on His throne. Jesus states in the scripture you quote that His Kingdom is not physical yet you insist there will be a physical kingdom. Why?

--Many passages in the OT speak of a literal, national kingdom, with a government, borders, tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, etc. To make these mean different than what they literally say is to wrench the text.

How else would you describe a spiritual kingdom without using physical terms? The writer of Hebrews tells these 1st century Jewish Christians they had come to Mount Zion:

Heb 12:22 But, ye came to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers,
All these are types and shadows of future spiritual realities.

1Co 15:46 but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.

Regarding the question "Why does Paul quote from the OT so much if it speaks nothing of the church," this is a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow. For example, just because Paul quotes from the OT does not mean that everything in the NT was predicted in the old.

I have not made that statement.

This argument would only be true if the OT quotes specifically speak of the church (which I think was Swaimj's original question). So this question does not answer Swainj's question. However, Paul does specifically speak of mysteries that were not known in the OT, and he specifically says in Eph.2 that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles, with Jesus as the cornerstone. So the church was not specifically known in the OT, but established with Christ and the apostles in the NT. All Abraham knew was that "through you all the nations of the earth will be blessed" but he didn't know how.

So is it your belief that the earth was to be blessed by means other than the Church? Or that the Prophets spoke of the Church but did not know what they spoke of?

Regarding "if the New Covenant has been established dispensationalism crumbles," I don't understand how this could be, since most dispensationalists believe it is currently established. Again, don't confuse the NC with the messianic kingdom.

Was the New Covenant of Jer. 31 made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah or is it still future? Is this New Covenant the same as the one Jesus made?

Regarding whether life in the church is like what the OT prophets predicted, the answer is yes, it is similar to it. But it is not the same as, since the OT prophets clearly spoke of a nation, forever, with the tribe of Judah, from a mountain called Zion, controlling the Nile to the Euphrates. So there are many similarities and many differences. The Mosaic covenant has been replaced by the new, but not the Abrahamic or Davidic

Peter spoke of this nation after quoting OT passages:

1Pe 2:9 and ye are a choice race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired, that the excellences ye may shew forth of Him who out of darkness did call you to His wondrous light;

As shown earlier the writer of Hebrews speaks of this Mount Zion:

Heb 12:22 But, ye came to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers,

Abraham wasn't looking for a piece of land, that was just a type/shadow of a greater fulfillment.

 

[Humblesmith]

How can you say it has a future fulfillment?


Eph 1:20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated [Him] at His right hand in the heavenly [places,]
Col 3:1 IF then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.


Christ is already seated at the right hand of God and already has a kingdom.

How can you compare the two? Do you really think that Christ is now reigning in glory, when His name is trashed all over the globe? Only in the church is He honored, and certainly not by the 12 tribes. How could He be reigning in glory when the 12 tribes are blaspheming Him daily? And the glory He showed on the Mount of Transfiguration is nowhere to be seen? Yes, He is seated in Heaven right now. But He's certainly not reigning in glory from Zion, for most of the inhabitants of that city do not even know Him.

 

[Humblesmith]

I don't know how else to interpret these verses other than God kept His promise:

1 kings 4 says Solomon reigned over the land to the border of Egypt, not to the Nile. And it was not forever, as repeated several times in Genesis.

Without checking, the verses in Neh. appear to be speaking of Joshua's day. My earlier statements still stand, for I cited Amos, a contemporary of Neh., and other verses, both OT and NT, that have the bible saying the kingdom / land promise is yet future to Neh's day:
Amos 9
Romans 11:25ff
Acts 1 (Jesus didn't correct them)
Acts 3:19-26 (Jesus will "restore everything" when He comes)
2 Tim 4:1.

Abraham lived and dwelt in the land of promise but that was not what he was looking for.

I think the verse you quoted is speaking of Gen 12:1, where Abe left Og, to a place where God said "I will show you." So he left not knowing where he was going. But this doesn't nullify the covenant, which did tell Abe where the land was.

Jesus states in the scripture you quote that His Kingdom is not physical yet you insist there will be a physical kingdom. Why?

See the passages I cited in my message. I just gave the answer.

How else would you describe a spiritual kingdom without using physical terms?

The grammatical method allows for figurative language. And again, I noted that dispensationalists today all hold that there is a current spiritual kingdom. The difference is that we believe this has not replaced the clear literal promises made in the OT.

So is it your belief that the earth was to be blessed by means other than the Church? Or that the Prophets spoke of the Church but did not know what they spoke of?

The phrase "all the nations of the earth will be blessed" does apply to the church. I'm sure God can have other means also if He wishes. The OT prophets spoke of the gentiles being blessed, but not specifically of the church. THey did not know how the gentiles would be blessed.

Was the New Covenant of Jer. 31 made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah or is it still future? Is this New Covenant the same as the one Jesus made?

The covenant of Jer. 31 was made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." This is yet future. But as Hebrews points out, this covenant is applied to the church today, and in that sense is current. The fact that Hebrews applies this covenant to the church today does not logically mean that it will not literally be fullfilled in Israel and Judah as Jeremiah says.

Thank you for pointing out the wonderful verses. They have made me think.

 

[Amy.G]

How can you compare the two? Do you really think that Christ is now reigning in glory, when His name is trashed all over the globe? Only in the church is He honored, and certainly not by the 12 tribes. How could He be reigning in glory when the 12 tribes are blaspheming Him daily? And the glory He showed on the Mount of Transfiguration is nowhere to be seen? Yes, He is seated in Heaven right now. But He's certainly not reigning in glory from Zion, for most of the inhabitants of that city do not even know Him.

I'm just quoting scripture. It says that Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father. Christ is reigning in the Church. His Spirit indwells believers. We are the temple of God because God dwell in us.

Jesus said:

Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

It seems that Christ's kingdom is not a visible earthly one.
Why do you keep trying to make it earthly? Isn't that what the Jews were looking for? They were wrong. You say He doesn't reign now on earth because of the evil and violence, so why would you think He would reign on a destroyed (because of the events of the tribulation), earth that is still filled with sinful people? I don't get it.

 

[Humblesmith]

Again, see the previous posts. The bible teaches that there is indeed a present spiritual kingdom. The distinction is that this does not replace the literal one. As the previous posts point out, Jesus does say His kingdom is not of this world, but then He also turns around and says that it will be physically fulfilled in the future (Matt. 19:28, etc....again, see the previous posts.)

We are told that Jesus will "reign with a rod of iron." There is no need to rule like this if the only subjects are worshipping the King. The only reason a King would need a rod of iron is if He was meting out justice. This implies a messianic rule over people who are unbelievers. In the messianic Kingdom, the King will not allow evil and violence, even though there are unbelievers, because He is ruling........strictly, with a rod of iron.

 

[Allan]

It seems that Christ's kingdom is not a visible earthly one.

Actaully it 'will be' but at the present time it is spiritual and 'that' is what scripture declares.

Please remember that the early church held to an earthly kingdom of Christ coming. The view of it being only spiritual was not widely held and did not come into prominance until Augustine 500 years later.

Even the disciples who were taught by Christ Jesus asked when He was going to 're-establish' the Kingdom of Israel. Look at Acts when Jesus was teaching them about the Kingdom of God and then what they asked:

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Now watch what the apostles ask Jesus:

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Did Jesus say 'it is not a physical kingdom I was just teaching you about'? No He did not but said "It is not for you to know when that time is". But what is for you to know is that you have been given power to be my witnesses.

Why do you keep trying to make it earthly?

because scripture declares it will be an earthly kingdom one day.

Isn't that what the Jews were looking for? They were wrong.

No, they were not because it was the promise of God to do such and God does not lie.

You say He doesn't reign now on earth because of the evil and violence, so why would you think He would reign on a destroyed (because of the events of the tribulation), earth that is still filled with sinful people? I don't get it.

The only reason He doesn't completely and sovereignly reign over the earth (in a literal manner) now is because it is not God's appointed time. Right now it is under the power of the Prince of the power of the air. He is not bound or restrained but scripture actually states that in the last days things will get much worse - good will become evil and evil will become that which is considered good. Does that sound like he is restrained or chained? Nor does the bible

I would suggest you get a good book on the dispensational view and study it's scripture passages and views.. THEN get one on this view you are arguing for and compare the passages used there.

I have personally done this and come away absolutely convinced that niether full nor partial preterism is biblical (though they do have some biblical points to consider) - but that is me not you.

Remember God does not make a promise then not keep it and so for there to not be a literaly earthly Kingdom of God utilizing the people of Israel and Jerusalem as it's capital would make God a liar.

Thus Rom 11 makes much more sense to understand that Paul is speaking about that Kingdom of Isreal is coming (when all Israel will be saved) but for now it is the time of the Gentiles. Whereby Jews can be saved as well but the nation is still blinded as whole.

 

[Grasshopper]

I'll try to narrow down the debate.

The grammatical method allows for figurative language. And again, I noted that dispensationalists today all hold that there is a current spiritual kingdom.

Was this spiritual kingdom taught in the OT?

The difference is that we believe this has not replaced the clear literal promises made in the OT.

I would say literal promises can be fulfilled in a spiritual manner. In other words just because something has a spiritual fulfillment doesn't mean it isn't literal.

The phrase "all the nations of the earth will be blessed" does apply to the church. I'm sure God can have other means also if He wishes. The OT prophets spoke of the gentiles being blessed, but not specifically of the church. THey did not know how the gentiles would be blessed.

I agree they did not now how, the question is the Church the "how" it was to be done. I say yes.

The covenant of Jer. 31 was made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." This is yet future. But as Hebrews points out, this covenant is applied to the church today,

This is where I believe dispensationalism starts to fall apart. First, you have the church benefiting from a covenant that has yet to be made. That makes no sense to me.

Secondly you must believe in 2 New Covenants because Jesus made a New Covenant. Is this a fair statement, 2 New Covenants?

Thirdly you deny what I see as the clear teaching of Hebrews. In chapter 8 (in fact the entire book) there is a contrast of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. It is this New Covenant that Jesus mediates. Then the writer of Hebrews quotes Jer. 31 more than suggesting that the covenant Jesus brought was indeed the covenant Jer. 31 spoke of.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, and when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 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.

The fact that Hebrews applies this covenant to the church today does not logically mean that it will not literally be fullfilled in Israel and Judah as Jeremiah says.

We must let the NT prophets interpret the passage for us. The writer of Hebrews tells us of its fulfilment. It was literally fulfilled in a spiritual manner. How does God write His law in their hearts in a "literal" way?

 

[Grasshopper]

1 kings 4 says Solomon reigned over the land to the border of Egypt, not to the Nile. And it was not forever, as repeated several times in Genesis.

Adam Clarke comments on the promise in Gen. 15:18

From the river of Egypt - Not the Nile, but the river called Sichor, which was before or on the border of Egypt, near to the isthmus of Suez; see Jos_13:3; though some think that by this a branch of the Nile is meant. This promise was fully accomplished in the days of David and Solomon. See 2Sa_8:3, etc., and 2Ch_9:26.


John Wesley

. In David's time and Solomon's their jurisdiction extended to the utmost of these limits, 2Ch_9:26. And it was their own fault that they were not sooner and longer in possession of all these territories.

 

[Amy.G]

The only reason He doesn't completely and sovereignly reign over the earth (in a literal manner) now is because it is not God's appointed time. Right now it is under the power of the Prince of the power of the air. He is not bound or restrained but scripture actually states that in the last days things will get much worse - good will become evil and evil will become that which is considered good. Does that sound like he is restrained or chained? Nor does the bible

Allan, I have never said the devil has been chained. I haven't gotten to that yet.

I would suggest you get a good book on the dispensational view and study it's scripture passages and views.. THEN get one on this view you are arguing for and compare the passages used there.

That is a good suggestion. But I am not arguing "for" anything. I'm just looking into other interpretations and I think I have brought up some valid points.

Even among dispensationalists, the interpretations vary greatly.
For instance, some say the MK is a peaceful, righteous time with no death or sin. Some say it will be a time of rebellion, no different than the world today.
How do you know who's right?

 

[Humblesmith]

This is where I believe dispensationalism starts to fall apart. First, you have the church benefiting from a covenant that has yet to be made. That makes no sense to me.

Secondly you must believe in 2 New Covenants because Jesus made a New Covenant. Is this a fair statement, 2 New Covenants?

Thirdly you deny what I see as the clear teaching of Hebrews. In chapter 8 (in fact the entire book) there is a contrast of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. It is this New Covenant that Jesus mediates. Then the writer of Hebrews quotes Jer. 31 more than suggesting that the covenant Jesus brought was indeed the covenant Jer. 31 spoke of.

One more time, then I'm done with this one.
No, the covenant has already been made in the OT. The church benefits, but from covenant already made.

No, there is only one covenant. The old dispensationalists went a bit overboard and held to two new covenants, one with Israel and one with the chiurch. No one that I know if teaches that today. There is only one new covenant. Made with Israel in Jer., which will be literally fulfilled in the future. Hebrews takes it and also applies it to the church today.

I respectfully submit that your third point does not apply, for the reasons already stated. Again, Hebrews does indeed apply the one NC to the church today. This does not mean that it cannot be literally fulfilled as promised.

As I bow out of this thread, may I suggest the following sources:
"The Greatness of the Kingdom" by Alva McClain.
"The Theocratic Kingdom" by George Peters.
Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, by Norman Geisler.

All these go into very much detail about the dispensatioinal position and literal interpretation.

Thanks, you've given me things to think about. Peace.

 

[Grasshopper]

One more time, then I'm done with this one.
No, the covenant has already been made in the OT. The church benefits, but from covenant already made.

I thought by this statement you said it was future:

The covenant of Jer. 31 was made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." This is yet future.

No, there is only one covenant. The old dispensationalists went a bit overboard and held to two new covenants, one with Israel and one with the chiurch. No one that I know if teaches that today. There is only one new covenant. Made with Israel in Jer., which will be literally fulfilled in the future. Hebrews takes it and also applies it to the church today.

Jesus made a covenant, is it the same as the one in Jer 31??

I respectfully submit that your third point does not apply, for the reasons already stated. Again, Hebrews does indeed apply the one NC to the church today. This does not mean that it cannot be literally fulfilled as promised.

It was literally fulfilled, unless Jesus failed. Perhaps you believe it will be fulfilled twice??

As I bow out of this thread, may I suggest the following sources:
"The Greatness of the Kingdom" by Alva McClain.
"The Theocratic Kingdom" by George Peters.
Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, by Norman Geisler.

All these go into very much detail about the dispensatioinal position and literal interpretation.

Thanks, you've given me things to think about. Peace.

:thumbs: :wavey:

 

[Allan]

Allan, I have never said the devil has been chained. I haven't gotten to that yet.

but it will eventually :laugh:

That is a good suggestion.

It was one made to me when I was asking just as many questions as you are, so I figured - it couldn't hurt to give you the same advise given me

But I am not arguing "for" anything. I'm just looking into other interpretations and I think I have brought up some valid points.

Sorry, I was not meaning you 'believe' that specifically but that you are giving arguments from that view point.

One more thing to remember however about 'interpretation'. Men can come up with many different meanings for symbolism as well as interpretations, but scripture interprets itself. When you see something that is used metaphorically look at the rest of scripture to see when it was also used. Remember to look for the key words that make it metaphorical, words such as 'like' and 'as' for starters. example - His eyes were as a flame; His feet were like brass; 1 day with the Lord is as a 1000 years.

These words 'like' and 'as' used in this way convey not a literal meaning but a metaphorical one. Now just to clarify something, when scripture states that one day with the Lord is 'as' a thousand years.. it is refering back to Psa 90:4

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

but when dispy's state the reign of Christ will be a literal thousand years it is not based off of these scriptures but off of this:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 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.
Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Notice if you will a specific amount of time is spoken of here through the usage of 'a thousand years' and 'the thousand years'. It is a specific and set amount of time. We also see this in the other words used in describing the thousand years such as "when the thousand years were FINISHED" and "when the thousand years are EXPIRED". This literal physical reigning of Christ is a literal period of time that has both a beginning and end.

Even among dispensationalists, the interpretations vary greatly.

Not really. Among Dipsy's and Hyper-Dipsy's they vary greatly. Most Dipsy's and historical Dipsy's are very similar with some divergence on a few views.

For instance, some say the MK is a peaceful, righteous time with no death or sin. Some say it will be a time of rebellion, no different than the world today.
How do you know who's right?

I have never heard any Dipsy (historical or otherwise) state the thousand year reign of Christ will be rebellious just like in the world today. There will be a time of rebellion at the end of the thousand years (when the thousand years are expired) and satan is loosed to decieve the nations once again and leads those who have not received Christ to their destruction.

I 'have' heard some state that they 1000 years is one of peace (and that is true) and no death (this is not). These are typically those of the charismatic flavor but I do know some baptist who state this. The first part is true that it will be a time of peace but there will also be death but it will not be as prevelent as we see it today since there will be a change in many things and as such they will live much longer - like in Gen.

Those who have died or were raptured (before the Great Tribulation) will reign with Christ over the living during the Millennial Kingdom. During this time it will be a return to what life was like in the Garden of Eden. Creation will be restored to the way God had intended it, but not fully. There will still be sin and death. Sin will be dealt with quickly however, and death will be rare as the one who dies at 100 years of age will be considered a youth. Isaiah 65:20-25 describes this.

"Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the works of their hands. They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the LORD, they and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.”

Here is a question asked to John MacArthor about death in the MK

Question
Why is there death in the Millennial Kingdom?

Answer
Why is there death? He’s talking about in the kingdom, the thousand year millennium, there will be death, because wherever there is physical life there is death. There are people alive today, we’re going to get raptured and taken out of the world and there’ll still be people here right? So we’re in heaven, there are still people here, alright? Some of those people are going to be saved right? In fact, Revelation seven says innumerable number of them are going to be saved and the whole nation of Israel is going to be saved. Great revival in the tribulation, alright? The Bible tells us that Antichrist is going to slaughter those people that are saved, is that true? It is true. But he will not kill all of them. As best we can tell the Prophets indicate that Satan will kill two out of three.

So in the tribulation period there are going to be people who will have believed in Christ and escaped the slaughter of the Antichrist. If you read Revelation you will find that in the twelfth chapter and on that there is going to be an escape, these people are going to flee from Antichrist. Antichrist's army is going to chase them, the ground is going to open and swallow the Antichrist army, and the people will be saved. Some people feel they’ll be hidden in Petra in Edom, nonetheless there will be some saved.

Now when Christ comes at the end of the tribulation, and He comes to set up his kingdom, He will judge the ungodly, the "goats," Matthew 24. And he will say to the goats, "Depart you cursed into everlasting punishment," but the sheep are the still remaining living saints, who have escaped the Antichrist--to them he will say, "Come ye beloved of my Father, and inherit the kingdom." Therefore going into the millennial kingdom are living, physical beings. They’re the ones who because they still have a physical body will have the capacity to die. Now, the change in the environment, in the food, and in the pollution and everything that occurs in the kingdom, is going to lengthen their life, so that if they do die at a hundred they die like a baby. But none the less where there is physical life there is decay and death. So they will die physically. But there will be death as long as there is physical life and there will be people in the kingdom in physical form.

 

[Amy.G]

Thanks Allan. You've given me a lot think about. I'll get back to you in about 10 years and let you know what I decided! :laugh:

One question I have asked a couple of times, but didn't get an answer is when the MK begins, the earth will be a mass of death and destruction due to the cataclysmic events of the tribulation, correct? This is the earth that Christ will rule? This will be a million times worse than Katrina and you say that people will live longer lives? There will be so much disease it's doubtful anyone would survive. And what about the cleanup? Talk about disaster relief! There won't even be places for people to live or food to eat. This is worldwide. How is all this explained?

 

[Allan]

Thanks Allan. You've given me a lot think about. I'll get back to you in about 10 years and let you know what I decided! :laugh:

One question I have asked a couple of times, but didn't get an answer is when the MK begins, the earth will be a mass of death and destruction due to the cataclysmic events of the tribulation, correct? This is the earth that Christ will rule? This will be a million times worse than Katrina and you say that people will live longer lives? There will be so much disease it's doubtful anyone would survive. And what about the cleanup? Talk about disaster relief! There won't even be places for people to live or food to eat. This is worldwide. How is all this explained?

Do you think that when Christ returns He will leave this all as it will be?

Scripture states He will heal it but not completely yet since sin and death are still present but held at bay. Scripture states most explicitly of the peace and joy in this Kingdom as well as His healing of the lands.

 

[Amy.G]

Do you think that when Christ returns He will leave this all as it will be?

Scripture states He will heal it but not completely yet since sin and death are still present but held at bay. Scripture states most explicitly of the peace and joy in this Kingdom as well as His healing of the lands.

Could you provide that scripture?

 

[Allan]

Could you provide that scripture?

Global Environment - The heavens and earth will be renewed to restore the creation to Eden like conditions and repair the damage from man’s long abuse and the judgments of the Tribulation period.3 Isa. 65:17; 4 Mtt. 19:28

Also many aspects of the curse (Gen. 3:15-19) will be reversed. People will live to a great age, but death will still occur.5 As before the flood, animals will revert to vegetarianism and will no longer fear man. Living waters will flow from beneath the sanctuary of the Millennial Temple bringing life to the regions they water. Isa. 11:6-9; 65:20, 25; Eze. 47:8-12; Zec. 8:4; 14:8; (Rev. 21:1-2+)

The earth be able to provide for mans productivity and will be fruitful as men will enjoy the fruit of their labors. Ps. 67:6-7; 72:16; Isa. 35:1; 55:13; 65:22; Joel 2:24-26; 3:18; Amos 9:13-14

 

[Grasshopper]

Global Environment - The heavens and earth will be renewed to restore the creation to Eden like conditions and repair the damage from man’s long abuse and the judgments of the Tribulation period.3 Isa. 65:17; 4 Mtt. 19:28

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Is this a different New H&E than what Peter and the Revelation spoke of?

Also many aspects of the curse (Gen. 3:15-19) will be reversed. People will live to a great age, but death will still occur.5 As before the flood, animals will revert to vegetarianism and will no longer fear man. Living waters will flow from beneath the sanctuary of the Millennial Temple bringing life to the regions they water. Isa. 11:6-9; 65:20, 25; Eze. 47:8-12; Zec. 8:4; 14:8; (Rev. 21:1-2+)

The earth be able to provide for mans productivity and will be fruitful as men will enjoy the fruit of their labors. Ps. 67:6-7; 72:16; Isa. 35:1; 55:13; 65:22; Joel 2:24-26; 3:18; Amos 9:13-14

Here is the problem with taking poetic language literally. You use Is. 11 as a proof text. Notice:

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Notice the Lion? You also quote from Is. 35. Notice what is found in your proof text:

Isa 35:9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:

No Lion! So which is it? Is there a Lion or is there not? How do you take these verse literally and deal with your "lion" problem?

Secondly when you quoted from !s.11, you stopped at verse 9. Continue on to verse 10:

Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Wesley's comments:

Isa 11:10 A root - A branch growing upon the root. Ensign - Shall grow up into a great tree, shall become an eminent ensign. The people - Which not only the Jews, but all nations, may discern, and to which they shall resort. Rest - His resting - place, his temple or church, the place of his presence and abode. Glorious - Shall be filled with greater glory than the Jewish tabernacle and temple were; only this glory shall be spiritual, consisting in the plentiful effusions of the gifts, and graces, of the Holy Spirit.

Paul uses this passage to speak of the Church:

Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.