The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth

[Martin Marprelate]

Correction. I just googled Allis up and observe that he was a colleague of J. Gresham Machen, so I must have seen his name when I read Machen's biography some years ago.
But all the Presbyterians I have read or debated with (on the Puritan Board) have been adamant that the covenants are all one, and read infant baptism in from the circumcision of the Abrahamic Covenant. Are you sure you have read the guy correctly?

 

[Jope]

I never heard of Oswald Allis in my life. If he does not believe in the continuity of the covenants (except for the Sinaitic Covenant - Heb 8:13), I would say that he is not a covenant theologian of any sort. Why would I want to read his book?
But isn't it great that we agree about something? We both disagree with Oswald Allis.
Have you quoted from a pile of dispensational theologians? I hadn't noticed.

If you want to claim that I have taught doctrine that is at odds with dispensational theologians while claiming to be dispensational, please do the work and reference the post and the dispensational author(s). Even if you could show that, it doesn't mean I am incorrect and that the dispensational authors are correct. The reason I brought up the fact that you are at odds with covenant amillennialism is because you claim to be covenant amill while teaching doctrine that is at odds with the most crucial doctrines of those theories. This thread is about the covenantal amill interpretation of Rev 20. So I'm not really seeing how you proving I am at odds with dispensational authors would relate to this thread. Do you see the difference now?

Surely we are supposed to voice our own views on a discussion board? Do you really want a list of all the theologians I have read? What would that prove? But if you want a few covenant guys who believe in the continuity of the covenants, start with Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen in the 17th Century all the way through to A.W. Pink in the 20th.
All the early Particular Baptists believed in covenant theology, and all that I've read believed in its continuity.

Every Covenantalist and every Amillennialist inherently believes that God has changed the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants to be fulfilled in the present age. These covenants are changed, according to Covenantalists and Amillennialists, because Abraham's covenant spelled out the land of Canaan/Israel (which land the Church does not occupy), and David's throne was always understood, even by Mary in Luke 1, to be referring to the earthly throne he ruled from in Jerusalem.
I suppose there are exceptions, like Anthony Hoekema who taught that the Abrahamic land and Davidic throne aspects of those covenants are fulfilled after the millennium. He also was at odds about the covenant of works.

 

[Jope]

Correction. I just googled Allis up and observe that he was a colleague of J. Gresham Machen, so I must have seen his name when I read Machen's biography some years ago.
But all the Presbyterians I have read or debated with (on the Puritan Board) have been adamant that the covenants are all one, and read infant baptism in from the circumcision of the Abrahamic Covenant. Are you sure you have read the guy correctly?

Are you sure you're not committing the straw man fallacy again?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you sure you're not committing the straw man fallacy again?

I didn't commit it the first time.
Are you going to try and defend your faulty theology, or shall we just carry on swapping insults?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Every Covenantalist and every Amillennialist inherently believes that God has changed the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants to be fulfilled in the present age. These covenants are changed, according to Covenantalists and Amillennialists, because Abraham's covenant spelled out the land of Canaan/Israel (which land the Church does not occupy), and David's throne was always understood, even by Mary in Luke 1, to be referring to the earthly throne he ruled from in Jerusalem.

That's because the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are fulfilled in the present age. It's not I who says so, but God. So long as you live in the Old Testament and pretend the New Testament doesn't exist, you can pretend you are right, but my Bible contains two Testaments

 

[Jope]

That's because the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are fulfilled in the present age. It's not I who says so, but God. So long as you live in the Old Testament and pretend the New Testament doesn't exist, you can pretend you are right, but my Bible contains two Testaments

Right. And every Christian lives in the land of Israel and Jesus is presently reigning from David's throne from earthly Jerusalem. Sarcasm intended.

 

[Jope]

I didn't commit it the first time.

Keep telling yourself lies then. My conscience is clear, I have declared the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26-27). It is up to you to read it.

Are you going to try and defend your faulty theology, or shall we just carry on swapping insults?

It's funny that you claim we are swapping insults: what is really going on is, you just hopped on the discussion that I've been having with a number of others on this thread, brought up the same stuff that I have already rebutted, and then claimed that my posts didn't exist, and then you want to claim we are swapping insults. What is really going on is that you are the one insulting me by your behaviour that I just described.

If you want to claim that my posts don't exist, and if that's how you are going to try and rebut my points, I'm not going to try and stop you.
Any rational person that is interested in discussion free from presuppositions and who hates sophistry will find my posts a treasure.
From now on, I will likewise consider your posts non-existent. People who listen more than they talk will naturally read the posts in this thread before they respond, and the discussion I would have with those types of people will be much more fruitful.
Ciao.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Right. And every Christian lives in the land of Israel and Jesus is presently reigning from David's throne from earthly Jerusalem. Sarcasm intended.

Christ is presently reigning in a much higher place than earthly Jerusalem, 'which is in bondage with her children,' and every Christian, in the mind of God, 'is seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.'
Right; that's it. I've better things to do than try to debate with someone who can't defend his position, but would rather be snarky. The field is yours.

 

[kyredneck]

Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 is that the “children of the promise” are Israel.

24​	even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

28​	Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. Gal 4

 

[Jope]

As per Proverbs 23:9, I barely think it is worth giving a response, as you've shown yourself incapable of coherence.

Rev 20 NIV
11 Then I saw a great white [not mentioned in the sheep and goats judgment] throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence [where is this mentioned in the sheep and goats judgment?], and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne [the dead are not in focus in the sheep and goats judgment], and books were opened [no mention of books opened at the sheep and goats judgment]. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them [no mention of this happening in the sheep and goats judgment], and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire [no mention of this in the sheep and goats judgment]. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

By contrast, the sheep and goats judgment (Mt. 25:31ff) specifically states it is a judgment of the Gentiles (verse 31; I doubt me repeating myself a third time will have much effect on you though). Mt 25:34 states a reward for good deeds (how they treated Jesus): specifically inheriting the kingdom prepared in Adam. There is no mention of this in the great white throne judgment of Rev 20.

Something else for @canadyjd to consider is, in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection is described as not happening all at once:

1 Cor 15 NIV
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

In Amillennialism, all judgments (and the resurrections associated with them) are placed in the same box and are seen as happening simultaneously at one big event.

I really don't think Paul could've gotten more clear about at least two resurrections.

 

[Jope]

24​	even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

28​	Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. Gal 4

Assuming you are trying to claim that the term Israel can include Gentiles, I have answered this in my previous posts, here and here. Repeating arguments after they've been addressed is a logical fallacy.

Even the passage @canadyjd used, they are not all Israel, who are of Israel (Romans 9:6), betrays his point, since Paul is clearly talking about one group of Israel as having came from the other group of physical Israelites. This is my argument, as shown in the links I have provided above.

Also, the passages you are using, @kyredneck , are ripped out of their context and don't prove what you want them to. Paul is clearly not talking about Israel in Romans 9:24. In verse 21 he clearly talks about two different types of creations. He talks about the Gentiles as is clear from his quotations on verses 22 to 26, then he clearly switches objects in verse 27, "Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ..." (NIV). The distinction is seen very clearly at the end of the chapter too, which I have already pointed out in my previous post.

Rom 9 NIV
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.

If you're trying to claim that Paul used the terms "the Gentiles" and "Israel" interchangeably, Romans 9 would be the last place one should reference.

In Galatians 4:28, you have again ripped this out of context and ignored very clear statements from Paul that go directly against your argument about the Gentiles and Israel being interchangeable terms.

Galatians 4 NIV
Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law [i.e., Covenant Theologians and those who think "Israel" and the "Church" are the same terms], are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Paul clearly states that the Church is separate from Israel in verses 24 to 26. And in case you wanted to claim that Israel and the Church have the same inheritance, verses 29 to 31 further clarifies they don't have the same inheritance.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

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.

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

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

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

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

The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth.​

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

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

 

[MrW]

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

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

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

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

The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth.​

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

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

You say that. I disagree 100%.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

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

You say that. I disagree 100%

I was hoping you'd deduct Jesus' Reign of a thousand years on Earth from whatever End Times System of Interpretation you have, to see what you make of things then, but you say it's in the Bible, even though it's not in the Bible?

If so, do you know where abouts that might be?

I know Earth is not mentioned in Revelation 20:4.
So, there is not thousand year Reign on Earth mentioned there.

And 'saints' aren't mentioned in Revelation 20:4.
So, there no thousand year Reign of the saints mentioned there.

And, of course, 'Jerusalem'
is not mentioned in Revelation 20:4.

But, you think a thousand year Reign of Christ from His Throne in Jerusalem with the saints
is taught somewhere in the Bible?

That's fantastic.

Or, are you saying that you believe that whether you can find it in the Bible, or not?

You're protected by The Freedom of Religion we enjoy in this Country, if so.

No way God accepts something brought in from outside His Word as Worship though,
if that is any concern or consideration of yours.

 

[Jope]

I was hoping you'd deduct Jesus' Reign of a thousand years on Earth from whatever End Times System of Interpretation you have, to see what you make of things then, but you say it's in the Bible, even though it's not in the Bible?

If so, do you know where abouts that might be?

I know Earth is not mentioned in Revelation 20:4.
So, there is not thousand year Reign on Earth mentioned there.

And 'saints' aren't mentioned in Revelation 20:4.
So, there no thousand year Reign of the saints mentioned there.

And, of course, 'Jerusalem'
is not mentioned in Revelation 20:4.

But, you think a thousand year Reign of Christ from His Throne in Jerusalem with the saints
is taught somewhere in the Bible?

That's fantastic.

Question: Where do we find the word "reign" in any other section of Revelation 20 or 21 than in Rev. 20:1-6? Since there is no mention of reigning for the saints in chapter 21, does that mean there is no future reigning for the saints after resurrection?

 

[canadyjd]

The martyred saints “reign with Christ” for 1000 years. It does not say Christ reigns on earth. Christ reigns in heaven. The reference to the 1000 years is a reward to the saints that were faithful unto death during the great tribulation

Peace to you

 

[Jope]

The martyred saints “reign with Christ” for 1000 years. It does not say Christ reigns on earth. Christ reigns in heaven. The reference to the 1000 years is a reward to the saints that were faithful unto death during the great tribulation

Peace to you

Why does the absence of the word "Earth" in Rev 20 and 21 make you conclude that there is no reign of Christ on Earth, but the absence of the word "reign" in the new Earth (Rev 21, which comes next in the divine program according to Amillennialism), conveniently make you conclude there IS reigning going on for the saints in the future new Earth? You have a selective argument from silence going on here.

 

[MrW]

I was hoping you'd deduct Jesus' Reign of a thousand years on Earth from whatever End Times System of Interpretation you have, to see what you make of things then, but you say it's in the Bible, even though it's not in the Bible?

If so, do you know where abouts that might be?

I know Earth is not mentioned in Revelation 20:4.
So, there is not thousand year Reign on Earth mentioned there.

And 'saints' aren't mentioned in Revelation 20:4.
So, there no thousand year Reign of the saints mentioned there.

And, of course, 'Jerusalem'
is not mentioned in Revelation 20:4.

But, you think a thousand year Reign of Christ from His Throne in Jerusalem with the saints
is taught somewhere in the Bible?

That's fantastic.

Or, are you saying that you believe that whether you can find it in the Bible, or not?

You're protected by The Freedom of Religion we enjoy in this Country, if so.

No way God accepts something brought in from outside His Word as Worship though,
if that is any concern or consideration of yours.

The Thousand-Year-Reign of Christ is taught in the Bible.

 

[MrW]

The martyred saints “reign with Christ” for 1000 years. It does not say Christ reigns on earth. Christ reigns in heaven. The reference to the 1000 years is a reward to the saints that were faithful unto death during the great tribulation

Peace to you

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

 

[canadyjd]

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

And so we disagree.

His reign is eternal. His reign is in heaven.

There is no 1000 year reign on the earth. That is a misunderstanding of Revelation.

You asked why the words “on earth”, which are missing from Revelation 20, should discount an earthly reign.

Because the context doesn’t allow for it to mean “on earth”. Since much of Revelation discusses Christ’s heavenly reign, why should an earthly reign be considered an option?

His throne has been established in heaven. His throne is eternal. He will not leave that throne.

Peace to you