Greetings.
I bumped into Zephaniah 1 today. I thought of this discussion. Zephaniah 1 states that only the redeemed will enter the kingdom.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth
- Thread starter MrW
- Start date
Greetings.
I bumped into Zephaniah 1 today. I thought of this discussion. Zephaniah 1 states that only the redeemed will enter the kingdom.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You are reading into the passage (separate people from another” as meaning separating Jews from Gentiles?
Jesus is referring to the great throne judgment. He is separating the saved from the lost.
There can be no separate future for Jews and Gentiles. Paul clearly tells us in Ephesians that Jews and Gentiles have been made into “one new man” by the cross of Christ. They are bound together by God Holy Spirit.
To have a separate future for Jews and the Church, the work of the cross of Jesus must be undone, that is impossible.
BTW, I do know what a red herring fallacy is. What you quoted from me does not fit the definition. Maybe study a little more before you make such statements.
If, for example, I claimed you were raised in a RCC setting, therefore your opinion was incorrect, that would be a red herring fallacy, since it really doesn’t have anything to do with the conversation. (Not saying you are RCC)
Everything I have posted is directly related to the topic, therefore, not red herring
Peace to you
Jesus is referring to the great throne judgment. He is separating the saved from the lost.
There can be no separate future for Jews and Gentiles. Paul clearly tells us in Ephesians that Jews and Gentiles have been made into “one new man” by the cross of Christ. They are bound together by God Holy Spirit.
To have a separate future for Jews and the Church, the work of the cross of Jesus must be undone, that is impossible.
BTW, I do know what a red herring fallacy is. What you quoted from me does not fit the definition. Maybe study a little more before you make such statements.
If, for example, I claimed you were raised in a RCC setting, therefore your opinion was incorrect, that would be a red herring fallacy, since it really doesn’t have anything to do with the conversation. (Not saying you are RCC)
Everything I have posted is directly related to the topic, therefore, not red herring
Peace to you
So here is my question. Are you saying that Jesus does not return to earth at all or that He returns and then leaves again during the 1000 year rule?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I’m saying Matthew 25 is definitive. Jesus is directly answering several questions related to His return.
He speaks of a persecution like nothing seen before or will be seen again. That must be the “Great Tribulation”.
He says AFTEr that tribulation, He returns in the clouds. The sound of the Trumpet announces His return as a conquering King. This is His 2nd coming.
He says His angels collect His elect from all over the world. This is the rapture. No pre-trib rapture.
He then describes the great throne judgment in Heaven. It’s over. Christ has fulfilled all prophecy.
I am saying there is no 1000 year reign on earth.
That is a misunderstanding of Revelation in which the faithful saints martyred during the great tribulation are promised they will reign with Christ for 1000 years. It does not say that reign is on earth. Christ reigns in heaven.
I apologize that my responses have seemed rude. I have reread them, and wish my tone had been more appropriate for civil dialog
Peace to you
37818
Well-Known Member
Yet future. Revelation 20.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Again, John does not write in chronological order, but in repeating themes.
At the beginning of the vision, he was shown things that are, that were, and that shall be. He shows these events, but not in Chronological order. It is obvious if you look closely.
For example, the dragon (Satan) is shown as persecuting God’s people (Israel? Those that strive with God? The saints martyred during the great tribulation? All of these?)
Later, he is shown as being bound and then loosed for 1000 years (symbolic language representing a long period of time)
Was the later reference to the dragon and persecution further explanation of the prior reference to the dragon? Yes, John writes in repeating themes.
Many that see the reference to Satan being loosed on earth for 1000 years as somehow tied to the faithful saints reigning with Christ (in heaven) for a 1000 years and then conclude it means Christ reigns on earth for 1000 years after Satan persecutes the saints for 1000 years.
Ill post more
Peace to you
Thank you very much for the reply. I would point out something. First, I assume you are referring to Mat. 24 not 25. Secondly scripture does not say that He gathers/collects His elect from all over the world. It says in verse 31; And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
The elect are already in heaven. They went there the instance that they died. The angles are gathering them us from all over heaven and He is bringing them back with Him.
For there to be a second coming He has to come to earth since He was on earth in the first coming.
Jude says;
In fact, the little book of Jude identifies that those returning to Earth with Jesus at His Second Coming are not angels. Jude writes: “[14] And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, [15] To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
With this let me ask you again. Are you saying that Jesus will not literally come back to earth and be on the earth at least for some period of time?
"A Thousand" in Scripture"
Psalm 50:10. 'For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.' There are more than a thousand hills on earth; do the other ones not belong to God?
Psalms 90:4. 'For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.' Are not also 1,001 years, 2,000 years or 10,000 still like a watch in the night.
Psalms 105:8. 'He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded for a thousand generations.' There may not be a thousand generations before our Lord returns, but if there were a thousand and one, or two thousand, would He forget His covenant?
2 Peter 3:8. 'But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day.' Once again, if there were 1.001 years, would they not be like a day to God? Are these verses not telling us that God exists outside of time? Does He not live in a boundless present?
Someone mentioned the great age of Methuselah. He lived 969 years and most of the other antediluvians lived similar great ages. Where there is a precise number, 969, 777 etc., of course it should be taken precisely at is written, but in the light of the examples above is it not obvious that 'a thousand' means 'all that there are'?
I have mentioned this before. In fact, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times!
Psalm 50:10. 'For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.' There are more than a thousand hills on earth; do the other ones not belong to God?
Psalms 90:4. 'For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.' Are not also 1,001 years, 2,000 years or 10,000 still like a watch in the night.
Psalms 105:8. 'He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded for a thousand generations.' There may not be a thousand generations before our Lord returns, but if there were a thousand and one, or two thousand, would He forget His covenant?
2 Peter 3:8. 'But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day.' Once again, if there were 1.001 years, would they not be like a day to God? Are these verses not telling us that God exists outside of time? Does He not live in a boundless present?
Someone mentioned the great age of Methuselah. He lived 969 years and most of the other antediluvians lived similar great ages. Where there is a precise number, 969, 777 etc., of course it should be taken precisely at is written, but in the light of the examples above is it not obvious that 'a thousand' means 'all that there are'?
I have mentioned this before. In fact, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times!
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
As an example of John writing in repeating themes, please consider Revelation 6-7 and then 20-21. Both are a description of the Great throne judgment. The saints martyred during the great tribulation are identified. They are promised peace and that God would wipe every tear and other similar language is used.
Peace to you
Peace to you
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.
Paul also distinguished between the Church, Israel and the Gentiles (1 Cor 10:32).
In Romans 9:2-5, he defines the term "Israel"
Rom 9 NIV
2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
In Romans 11, especially verses 25 to 29, it is clear that Paul thinks Israel separate from the Church, as using the terms interchangeably makes zero sense.
Rom 11 NIV
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: [the Church] has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all [the Church] will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, [the Church] are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, [the Church] are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Some questions I have with your view:
1) Can you please elaborate on how the Church has experienced a hardening in part? When, why and how did this hardening happen?
2) What happens when the Church's hardening is dispelled? (v. 25) The entire Church is saved in the future? I thought they already had their sins taken care of.
3) How is the Church enemies with the Church as far as the gospel is concerned (v. 28)??? How is the Church loved on account of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
4) didn't Jesus say "I will build my Church" (Mt. 16:18)? Doesn't that make the Church a future entity after the earthly ministry of Jesus?
How? Why?
This is why I don't think anything I say to you will matter. You don't know up from down and can't follow a convo/discussion.
37818
Well-Known Member
No such Biblical teaching.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
First, thank you for the well thought out response. You are correct, I should have been quoting Matthew 24-25, instead of just Matthew 25.
Second, please let me explain why I disagree.
There are 3 heavens: The sky where the birds fly (1st); Space where the sun, moon and stars are (2nd); and the 3rd Heaven which Paul visited is the Spirit realm where God, the angels and fallen saints abide.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, Paul describes the rapture. He says Jesus returns with a shout and the Trumpet, the dead in Christ rise first, the saints alive arise (transformed) and together, they meet Jesus in the sky and are with Him forever.
If you compare that passage to Matthew 24, there are many similarities. The description of Jesus returning in the sky, the sound of the trumpet, the collection of the saints in the sky (or heaven according to version) and then in chapter 25, the great throne judgment.
These two passages are describing the same events. The 1 Thessalonians passage cannot mean the saints are collected from heaven, imo.
The answer that your last question is yes, of course. Scripture is clear that Jesus returns to the earth. Whether He actually places Hus feet on the ground or not….???? Don’t really know for sure, but I don’t believe that is necessary to fulfill the prophecy of His return.
There is references to a “new heaven and new earth”, but I’m simply not sure if this is literal physical or symbolic of the spiritual life we will live in heaven. I favor the latter.
Peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Romans 9-11 identifies those who are the “Israel of God”. The name “Israel” means the one which strives with God. The name was given to Jacob by God when he wrestled with a “man” all night and refused to let go until He blessed him.Paul also distinguished between the Church, Israel and the Gentiles (1 Cor 10:32).
In Romans 9:2-5, he defines the term "Israel"
Rom 9 NIV
2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
In Romans 11, especially verses 25 to 29, it is clear that Paul thinks Israel separate from the Church, as using the terms interchangeably makes zero sense.
Rom 11 NIV
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: [the Church] has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all [the Church] will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, [the Church] are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, [the Church] are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Some questions I have with your view:
1) Can you please elaborate on how the Church has experienced a hardening in part? When, why and how did this hardening happen?
2) What happens when the Church's hardening is dispelled? (v. 25) The entire Church is saved in the future? I thought they already had their sins taken care of.
3) How is the Church enemies with the Church as far as the gospel is concerned (v. 28)??? How is the Church loved on account of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
4) didn't Jesus say "I will build my Church" (Mt. 16:18)? Doesn't that make the Church a future entity after the earthly ministry of Jesus?
How? Why?
Paul clearly states in Romans 9-11 that the children of Abraham are not by genealogy, but children by faith. These inherit the promises of God and are made up of both Jew and Gentiles.
Paul states the “hardening” of the Jews (in general, not total because some Jews were saved) was so the gospel would go to the gentiles.
When the time of the gentiles is fulfilled, the hardening will be lifted and there will be a massive movement among the Jews to accept Jesus as their promised Messiah.
When Paul says “all Israel” will be saved, he is speaking of the “Israel of God” which he had just identified as being made up of both Jews and Gentiles.
Peace to you
Your description conveniently leaves out the passage I specifically asked you about (Rom. 9:2-5), where Paul explicitly and specifically states that "Israel" is the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Also, "Israel of God" is a term used in Galatians, not Romans. In that Galatians verse, Paul never states that Israel is composed of Gentiles either. Nor does Paul say that the Church is Israel. All Paul says is, blessed be the Israel of God. Let's look it up:
Gal 6 NIV
14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.
Paul is stating that circumcision doesn't mean anything, and peace and mercy to the Israel of God who also have the same view. This doctrine wasn't a novelty to Old Testament Moses and Jeremiah, by the way.
Deuteronomy 10:16 NIV
Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and stiffen your necks no more.
Deuteronomy 30:6 NIV
The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, and you will love Him with all your heart and all your soul, so that you may live.
Jer 4:4 NIV
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, remove the foreskins of your hearts, O men of Judah and people of Jerusalem. Otherwise, My wrath will break out like fire and burn with no one to extinguish it, because of your evil deeds.
Jonah's ministry was to the Gentiles, and we read that they were sanctioned by the God of Israel (Rom. 3:29; etc.). See also Jabez, 1 Chronicles 4:9-10. In the future tribulation period, and in the millennium, we read that Gentiles will be sanctioned by God (Rev. 7:9-10; Zech. 14:16-18; etc.).
And just because Paul says that a Jew is a true Jew who is one inwardly, and that the Church, which is composed of mostly Gentile saints, are the true circumcision (Rom. 2:29; Philipp. 3:3; Col. 2:11-12 etc.), doesn't mean that God has cast off His physical descendants of Jacob (Rom. 11:25-29). A Gentile (and a Jew) leaves behind his Gentile (and Jewish) heritage when he becomes a part of the Church (Psalm 45:10; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2; etc.).
There are a number of passages in the New Testament that are incongruous with the theory that the Church and Israel are interchangeable terms. I have already given you a number of them. Here is another:
1 Thessalonians 2:14 NIV
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews
Paul claims that the Jews are not the Church.
Well at least you got this part right.
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Romans 9:6+ states that not all Israel are descendants of Israel and not all of Abraham’s descendants are Israel.
Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 is that the “children of the promise” are Israel.
In Romans 11 Paul explains some Jews have been cut off from the tree and the Gentiles graphed in. There are not two trees, one for Jews and and one for Gentiles, there is one tree made up of both Jew and Gentile.
He further explains the partial hardening that has taken place among the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles has come. “And so, all Israel shall be saved”
The “and so” carries the meaning of “in this way”. Here, Paul is speaking of “Israel” as those who are the children of the promise that he spoke of earlier that make up both Jew and Gentiles.
Peace to you
Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 is that the “children of the promise” are Israel.
In Romans 11 Paul explains some Jews have been cut off from the tree and the Gentiles graphed in. There are not two trees, one for Jews and and one for Gentiles, there is one tree made up of both Jew and Gentile.
He further explains the partial hardening that has taken place among the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles has come. “And so, all Israel shall be saved”
The “and so” carries the meaning of “in this way”. Here, Paul is speaking of “Israel” as those who are the children of the promise that he spoke of earlier that make up both Jew and Gentiles.
Peace to you
The "true Israelites" of Rom 9:6-7 are speaking of a select portion of Jews (physical descendants of Abraham) who are saved.
I see that we are just running around in circles, and/or that we have some similar doctrines.
Here is what I stated, which you still have not debunked:
Where we seem to differ is that you view the term Israel as interchangeable with the Church, and that "Israel" can include Gentiles, even though you have no scriptural support for these beliefs.
Here is another passage in Romans 9 that is incongruent with your beliefs about Israel:
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.
Paul clearly distinguishes between the Gentiles and Israel.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Let’s focus on Romans 11.
Paul describes a tree containing two types of branches. The natural branches represent the Jews. The wild branches represent the Gentiles. Some natural branches (Jews) are cut off and are replaced by wild branches (Gentiles)
What does this tree represent?
It represents the “Children of the promise” from chapter 9 and contains both Jews and Gentiles.
There are not two trees, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. There is one tree containing both Jews and Gentiles.
What does this mean?
Peace to you
Paul describes a tree containing two types of branches. The natural branches represent the Jews. The wild branches represent the Gentiles. Some natural branches (Jews) are cut off and are replaced by wild branches (Gentiles)
What does this tree represent?
It represents the “Children of the promise” from chapter 9 and contains both Jews and Gentiles.
There are not two trees, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. There is one tree containing both Jews and Gentiles.
What does this mean?
Peace to you
I think it unsound to base a whole system of doctrine on an interpretation of one parable, especially when numerous other Scriptures disagree with the interpretation of the parable.
The divine method is to teach plainly, and then use parables to help understanding of the initial plain teaching.