Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom?

[Aaron]

But we also keep in mind the larger context has a thrust of reassuring believers that there will be a resurrection of the dead.

So we cannot equate that resurrection, defined by Paul as bodily resurrection, with the spiritual resurrection which takes place when we are born again.

We have to address each passage dealing with resurrection in it's own context. The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 deals with the glorification of the saints, whereas the resurrection of 1 Thessalonians deals with the Church, as a whole, being raised when Christ returns for her. The resurrection of the Two Witnesses deals with the rapture of the Two Witnesses. The resurrection called the First Resurrection deals with the resurrection of Tribulation Martyrs, and is a separate event from the resurrection of the dead just prior to the Great White Throne Judgment.

But here Paul makes it clear that it would be futile for him to preach the Gospel if there was no resurrection of the dead. "Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Or in other words, live it up, because this is all you get folks. Paul addresses that error on the part of the Corinthians, and it is not a new error to Bible Doctrine. The Sadducees rejected anything supernatural, as well as a resurrection.




And while I understand some of my brethren see it this way, Aaron, I do not. The purpose of salvation and the new birth is that we might have life, and life more abundantly (than what we had prior to salvation).

One may be persecuted and not bereft of his joy of salvation, and in fact that faith evidences his salvation in the midst of persecution.

No man can force us to bow the knee to Baal, and we see that God has always had a remnant...who did not do that.

Paul is the shining example given to us in Scripture of a man of faith in the midst of persecution, some taking the view that on one occasion he literally died (and not talking about his execution). And still Paul distinguishes in teaching between the spiritual aspects/elements of salvation and those teachings which concern bodily resurrection.

So I do not equate the tribulation we are promised in this world with the Tribulation Period prophesied. As I said, I can understand how one could embrace a view that views these things from a spiritual perspective, but I don't think those views can be reconciled to the Whole Counsel. Thus I seek to discuss them with people. And here recently there has been a little more productive discussion on the issue, which is a good thing. It is necessary for us to understand first what our antagonist believes, then why. I think many views are reasonable on the surface, but, I think when we bring the Whole Counsel to the Table, there are a number of issues which should point out weaknesses or strengths of each view.


God bless.

All I asked is what Paul meant by saying "I die daily." He was saying he lived in peril of his life every day. Like those who volunteer for a suicide mission, he basically resolves to die at the hands of the enemy, and, in a real sense, he does die, even if he returns alive. He wasn't using hyperbole when he said, "I die daily." He is communicating the true gravity of his resolve.

So it is when Christ says that His followers must take up their crosses and follow Him.

Neither statement depends upon any resurrection for its meaning. They are not about being dead in sins, they are about suffering at the hands of their persecutors, and how this suffering is viewed from Heaven.

 

[Aaron]

So I do not equate the tribulation we are promised in this world with the Tribulation Period prophesied.

As you see it . . .

. . . but that's obvious. I know how you are reading Revelation, and I'm not presuming to be able to change your mind about that. What one calls the "whole counsel of God" depends greatly on his biases and presuppositions.

But, I've shown that I have solid, biblical bases for saying that there has been a resurrection. I call it the First Resurrection. That all believers suffer tribulation, and that God counts it as a laying down of their lives.

I've also shown that while He was on earth, Christ bound Satan.

 

[Aaron]

How I read Revelation:

Pretend that the four Gospels are one book, with four sections.

The first is about Christ's earthly life and ministry, and He is revealed as the King of Israel.
The second segment is, again, about Christ's earthly life and ministry, and He is revealed as a bearer of burdens, a servant.
The third segment is about Christ's earthly ministry again, but He is revealed as the Son of Man.
The fourth segment is yet again about Christ's earthly ministry, but He is revealed as the Son of God.

Four parallel accounts, each with a different view of the same Person.

That is how I read Revelation, a series of parallel images of what was, is, and is to come in regard to Christ and His church.

 

[Darrell C]

As you see it . . .

. . . but that's obvious. I know how you are reading Revelation, and I'm not presuming to be able to change your mind about that. What one calls the "whole counsel of God" depends greatly on his biases and presuppositions.

Agreed, our views are subject to our interpretational approach.

However, what I mean by the Whole Counsel is that we must reconcile all Scripture.

That means that if one passage differs from another, and shows an event that seems similar, then we have to examine the relevant passages to draw a conclusion that does not neglect other passages. One example would be a belief that there is one general resurrection, which Revelation cannot be made to present. Three distinct resurrections would dismiss a dogmatic view of one resurrection.

But, I've shown that I have solid, biblical bases for saying that there has been a resurrection.

I agree, but is it a spiritual resurrection as we have in regeneration, a bodily resurrection as we have in the Rapture, or a general resurrection as we see at the Great White Throne judgment?

We have passages that teach all of these, both implicitly as well as explicitly.

I call it the First Resurrection.

Whereas I see noting in History that has Tribulation Martyrs raised from the dead in glorified form to reign with Christ for one thousand years.

This world is still awaiting Christ to take possession, and to reign temporally even as He reigns in the hearts of His people today:


Revelation 11:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.


One might try to make the events of the First Century fit this, and say it is a spiritual reign. I don't have a problem with that, but the spiritual reign of Christ did not begin in AD68-70, but began at Pentecost. It was at that time when Christ's Kingdom began, and that Kingdom is built with born again believers who have been spiritually resurrected and immersed into Christ.

Consider:


Colossians 1:12-13

King James Version (KJV)

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

That all believers suffer tribulation, and that God counts it as a laying down of their lives.

No-one argues this, as we are promised tribulation as long as we are in this world.

But, it is hard to see the events of Revelation as describing the tribulation we go through.

I've also shown that while He was on earth, Christ bound Satan.

I must have missed that, but I haven't gotten to both/all the posts yet.


God bless.

 

[percho]

Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Mat 12:22-29

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.​

Are the nations, and the people who make up those nations, presently being deceived by Satan the devil?

Are there presently, that is today, demon princes's of nations guiding those nations as here: Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Hebrews 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world (the inhabited earth) to come, whereof we speak.

 

[Aaron]

Are the nations, and the people who make up those nations, presently being deceived by Satan the devil?

Are there presently, that is today, demon princes's of nations guiding those nations as here: Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Hebrews 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world (the inhabited earth) to come, whereof we speak.

Your questions are steeped in presupposition and erroneous notions (and at least one rewritten verse from Hebrews).

Obviously his binding hasn't removed evil men, evil intent, blindness and hardness of heart from the earth. Or even demons. Maybe not the Devil himself. But the point Christ makes is very clear, his power is greatly curtailed, and he describes that curtailing as a binding.

 

[Darrell C]

How I read Revelation:

Pretend that the four Gospels are one book, with four sections.

The first is about Christ's earthly life and ministry, and He is revealed as the King of Israel.
The second segment is, again, about Christ's earthly life and ministry, and He is revealed as a bearer of burdens, a servant.
The third segment is about Christ's earthly ministry again, but He is revealed as the Son of Man.
The fourth segment is yet again about Christ's earthly ministry, but He is revealed as the Son of God.

Four parallel accounts, each with a different view of the same Person.

That is how I read Revelation, a series of parallel images of what was, is, and is to come in regard to Christ and His church.

I would agree that the Gospels have a unique perspective they give.

But, each Gospel still maintains a timeline of events which we can compare between them. So rather than one book with four sections, we see that they are four giving the same account, though we distinguish the differences which make them distinct.

This is exactly what you should do with Prophecy. Just as you acknowledge that all four Gospels have a consistent theme, Christ's ministry, even so all Prophecy has a consistent theme. And like Christ's Deity can be seen in all four, the last Gospel (in sequence) drives home that particular issue. So too, the Prophecy of Revelation, being the last Book we have in regards to Prophecy, drives home and clarifies what the other books reveal. We can track Antichrist from Daniel, to the Gospels, to Paul's writing, to John's writing, which culminates in Revelation. The same is true in regards to Messiah, we can track the revelation through the Old Testament, to the Gospels, to Revelation. IF a person isn't sure Christ is the Son of God from the Old Testament, and still isn't sure by the time they get through the Gospels, and still isn't sure by the time they work through the Epistles, by the time they get to Revelation, if they haven't drawn that conclusion, they may never do so.

The Lord stating "I am Alpha and Onega, the First and the Last" should remove all doubt, right?

So in Revelation we see a timeline of events that can be set down in orderly fashion, even as Christ's ministry can be set down in orderly fashion. We place Christ's birth in the same lace in every timeline, just as we do His death.

Taking off, Aaron,, but I would just suggest giving a Chronological Read a chance. As I have said before, Prophecy can be seen to have multiple fulfillments, and a final fulfillment. Our salvation is just like that, for we are saved (from the penalty of sin), are being saved (from the power of sin), and will be saved (from the presence of sin altogether). While in God's eternal perspective we are glorified, there remains a day when we will receive those bodies which will be like unto Christ's, glorified, and suitable for eternal existence with God. But if we try to make that glorified form something we possess now, we disrupt the sequence presented in Scripture. So too, with Prophecy, there is a sequence of events, and those events are distinguished in Revelation. Just like John is the distinctive treatment in the Gospels of Christ's Deity, even so Revelation is the distinctive treatment of all Prophecy.

Regardless, have enjoyed the conversation, even when it was a little heated, lol, and just suggest that it's not all bad, a it is good for us to challenge each other in regards to our views. It can only strengthen us one way or the other.


God bless.

 

[percho]

Your questions are steeped in presupposition and erroneous notions (and at least one rewritten verse from Hebrews).

Obviously his binding hasn't removed evil men, evil intent, blindness and hardness of heart from the earth. Or even demons. Maybe not the Devil himself. But the point Christ makes is very clear, his power is greatly curtailed, and he describes that curtailing as a binding.

I do not believe Satan is presently bound from deceiving the world, the nations thereof nor the people of those nations, with the possible exception of those called by God and given the Holy Spirit of God to rule with Christ over those nations at the return of Christ. That is, in the millennium.

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Rev 12:7-9

Is Rev 12:7-9 the state of Satan, relative to this present world, the exact same word for world found in Heb 2:5, yet still to come. Is the world to come which shall not be subject to angels, the world spoken of that is not deceived by Satan in Rev 20? Is the world to come of Heb 2:5, of the age of the resurrection, spoken of in Luke 20:35 contrasted to this present age in 2 Cor 4:4 that has a different, god?

And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. Luke 19:17

I do not believe anyone in presently ruling with Christ in their, "spiritual resurrection."

 

[OldRegular]

Nowhere does Scripture teach that the Son of God laid aside His glory, but rather that His Glory was veiled when He manifested in human flesh. Not as taught in the popular teaching of the Kinosis, which teaches that the Son "emptied Himself of that glory, that implies a setting aside of Deity. That glory remained, though veiled in human flesh, which the writer of Hebrews calls the "veil." That veil separated man from God, and only by going through the veil could men come into His presence.

Christ was fully God and fully Man.



Same way they did here:


John 20:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.


Christ was still God, still in the flesh He took upon Himself, yet raised in glorified form.

That is how He will return.




I would agree this is the Godhead, but let's not forget that God also visited men on a number of occasions where He also took on human form. He met with Abraham on the Plains of Mamre, for example.




We are not talking about God changing, but how God ministered to men differently.

We do see a change in ministry when He veiled His glory in the Incarnation. While the Lord had previously taken on human form to interact with men, this time that form was specifically created that He might die in that body and be raised from the dead in that Body. That same body He took up residence in is at this time the same body He was raised in.

That isn't "God changing," simply God ministering in a way in which prior to the Incarnation He had not.




We distinguish between God in His Eternal Godhead and God stepping into our universe. The Son is Eternal, but the Christ has a point in time when He came into existence...in this realm, the physical universe. He is not the "eternally begotten Son," but by His own Word He has made it clear that there was a day in which He would be begotten, and that took place, whereby God stepped out of Eternity into our sphere for the specific purpose of dying for our sin.

Abraham prophesied this:


Genesis 22:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.


God bless.

DC

I had not planned to enter into discussion with you again. In response to my post you take the typical Darby//dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture: You interpret it to support your erroneous doctrine.

As I show both the Old and New Testamants tell us that mortal man cannot look upon the full glory of GOD and live. GOD does not change! Moses could not look upon the full Glory of GOD. Neither can man in the New Testament, neither can mortal man in the so-called millennial kingdom, regardless of your assertions to the contrary.

John Gill in his discussion of the millennium at least got that correct.. All his remarks show that only resurrected//glorified Saints can inhabit the earth in the presence of the Glorified Savior.

Just because you post a lot of Scripture does not mean you understand Scripture. A number of other BB members have pointed this out to you in recent weeks.

 

[DHK]

DC

I had not planned to enter into discussion with you again. In response to my post you take the typical Darby//dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture: You interpret it to support your erroneous doctrine.

As I show both the Old and New Testamants tell us that mortal man cannot look upon the full glory of GOD and live. GOD does not change! Moses could not look upon the full Glory of GOD. Neither can man in the New Testament, neither can mortal man in the so-called millennial kingdom, regardless of your assertions to the contrary.

John Gill in his discussion of the millennium at least got that correct.. All his remarks show that only resurrected//glorified Saints can inhabit the earth in the presence of the Glorified Savior.

Just because you post a lot of Scripture does not mean you understand Scripture. A number of other BB members have pointed this out to you in recent weeks.

Surely you knew what he meant OR. Here is what John said:

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
--It is impossible for any man to look upon God and live. DC simply said that Christ did not "lay aside his glory (or deity as some would have us to believe), but it was merely veiled so that we could look upon--especially they of the first century.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--He was made flesh. God doesn't change in his attributes. But God became a man, and that is a change. It says so right here. He became flesh, and John says: "We beheld his glory." This was impossible just a few years previous to this.
No man can see God. Now John says, I can see Him; he is standing right before me, so to speak.

Who is this God?
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
God the Word is none other than Jesus Christ, the same who became flesh, whom John looked upon. As DC said, he did not "lay aside his deity or glory," but it was merely veiled so that man could see him in the flesh. And that is what happened. Right?

 

[agedman]

DC

I had not planned to enter into discussion with you again. In response to my post you take the typical Darby//dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture: You interpret it to support your erroneous doctrine.

Seems that "YOU interpret (Scripture) to support your erroneous doctrine," too. So such a claim is not only puffy clouds that carry little water, but are not worthy of serious discussion. You, in deed, are just as guilty in holding onto a view you consider Scripturally right, and others may hold a differing view. Don't attempt to claim higher ground by stating something is "erroneous doctrine" when it just may be that yours is the one that is erroneous.

As I show both the Old and New Testamants tell us that mortal man cannot look upon the full glory of GOD and live. GOD does not change! Moses could not look upon the full Glory of GOD. Neither can man in the New Testament, neither can mortal man in the so-called millennial kingdom, regardless of your assertions to the contrary.

Actually, one can.

Again, you are attempting to place the "glory of the Father" upon the Son, prior to the New Heaven and Earth. Doesn't work that way. The Apostles were told that "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." So, the unbelievers who saw Him ascend as well as believers (unless you want to claim no unbelievers saw Him ascend for Pentecost had not yet occurred) could look upon Him. It is that same way in the Millennium.

When Christ prayed, ""Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was" is not a statement that can be taken as humankind could not look upon Him. For, perhaps you do not recall that Abraham looked upon Him when He visited Abraham warning of what was to befall Lot's abode. The High priests looked upon Him once a year as they went behind the veil. Besides, the "glorify Me together with Yourself" isn't claiming a singularity, rather a fellowship. The Glory of the Father, and the Glory of the Son are two different yet one in the trinity. Even in the New Heaven and New Earth this is evident. God the Father is the illumination and the Son is the Lamp - two different, yet one. (Rev. 21)

Just because you post a lot of Scripture does not mean you understand Scripture. A number of other BB members have pointed this out to you in recent weeks.

So, rather than contending over Scripture, OR, you must make a personal remark.

Why? I, again, could lay the very same claim at your own posts. What is interpreted is: Do YOU understand Scriptures? If you did, you would certainly agree with me, and you would see all that I see, and conclude in the same manner I conclude...

That, in essence, is what you are claiming, and could be taken as a haughtiness and a pride.

I don't view you that way, but take you from the landscape of one who is earnest and desires that folks grasp truth. That you are exuberant in your intentions, and word things from that heart.

What I am attempting, in this post, is two items:
1) show how grandiose claims of being right can be turned back upon any poster.
2) show how Christ in the Millennium can be looked upon as the Scriptures do state. Look at the prophecy from Zachariah 12:

“And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. “In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. “The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves."​

 

[OldRegular]

.0

Seems that "YOU interpret (Scripture) to support your erroneous doctrine," too. So such a claim is not only puffy clouds that carry little water, but are not worthy of serious discussion. You, in deed, are just as guilty in holding onto a view you consider Scripturally right, and others may hold a differing view. Don't attempt to claim higher ground by stating something is "erroneous doctrine" when it just may be that yours is the one that is erroneous.



Actually, one can.

Again, you are attempting to place the "glory of the Father" upon the Son, prior to the New Heaven and Earth. Doesn't work that way. The Apostles were told that "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." So, the unbelievers who saw Him ascend as well as believers (unless you want to claim no unbelievers saw Him ascend for Pentecost had not yet occurred) could look upon Him. It is that same way in the Millennium.

When Christ prayed, ""Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was" is not a statement that can be taken as humankind could not look upon Him. For, perhaps you do not recall that Abraham looked upon Him when He visited Abraham warning of what was to befall Lot's abode. The High priests looked upon Him once a year as they went behind the veil. Besides, the "glorify Me together with Yourself" isn't claiming a singularity, rather a fellowship. The Glory of the Father, and the Glory of the Son are two different yet one in the trinity. Even in the New Heaven and New Earth this is evident. God the Father is the illumination and the Son is the Lamp - two different, yet one. (Rev. 21)



So, rather than contending over Scripture, OR, you must make a personal remark.

Why? I, again, could lay the very same claim at your own posts. What is interpreted is: Do YOU understand Scriptures? If you did, you would certainly agree with me, and you would see all that I see, and conclude in the same manner I conclude...

That, in essence, is what you are claiming, and could be taken as a haughtiness and a pride.

I don't view you that way, but take you from the landscape of one who is earnest and desires that folks grasp truth. That you are exuberant in your intentions, and word things from that heart.

What I am attempting, in this post, is two items:
1) show how grandiose claims of being right can be turned back upon any poster.
2) show how Christ in the Millennium can be looked upon as the Scriptures do state. Look at the prophecy from Zachariah 12:

“And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. “In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. “The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves."​

Are you joined to DHK at the hip or at the head?

 

[Iconoclast]

.0

Are you joined to DHK at the hip or at the head?

welcome back brother....ThumbsupThumbsupThumbsup

 

[DHK]

.0

Are you joined to DHK at the hip or at the head?

Not much of a refutation of either post is there?

 

[OldRegular]

Not much of a refutation of either post is there?

When agedman goes the pretribdispensartionalroad he makes just as much sense as you do. "None"! So! Hip or head, no difference, same Darbyite nonsense; pain induced nightmare!

 

[DHK]

When agedman goes the pretribdispensartionalroad he makes just as much sense as you do. "None"! So! Hip or head, no difference, same Darbyite nonsense; pain induced nightmare!

I clarified what DC said. It had nothing to do with dispensationalism, Darby, pretrib, or eschatology of any kind. It had to do with the humanity and deity of Christ.
Why not address the Scriptures given to you instead of attacking people?

 

[KLD]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Rapture from a Pre-Millennial perspective. Participants of either Pre, Mid, or Post-Trib view are encouraged to join in, but, all participants are asked that only Scripture be the reference source for the Basis of their belief. No commentaries, no teachers, no opinions...only Scripture references.

A-Millennial and Preterist brethren are welcome to join in as well, but a rejection of a Millennial Kingdom makes your participation moot. You are not going to be able to discuss who populates the Millennial Kingdom if you do not believe thee is going to be one. If you want to debate the veracity of one of the above views, well...go start a thread of your own, and appropriately title it.



I will start this out by saying that the Pre-Tribulation view is the only view which conforms to all of Prophecy. The next most reasonable view is the Mid-Trib view. Lastly, we have the Post-Trib view which seems to be the most popular today.

We see in Revelation...

Revelation 20:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

...that physical descendants rebel against God at the end of the Millennial Kingdom, which prompts the question of the OP. If all believers are glorified at the end of the Tribulation...

...who populates the Millennial Kingdom, and where do these offspring come from?


God bless.

1. Please show me the word "rapture" in the Bible.
2. The kingdom was established in the first century, according to inspired writers: Paul (Colossans 1; 1 Corinthians 15), John (Revelation 1:6-9).
3. If the kingdom has yet to be established, there are two implications: (1) Jesus Christ is a liar [see Mark 9:1] (2) There are people walking the earth who are 2,000 years old [Mark 9:1].

The kingdom is the church (Matthew 16:18-19; Colossians 1; et al.).

 

[tyndale1946]

1. Please show me the word "rapture" in the Bible.
2. The kingdom was established in the first century, according to inspired writers: Paul (Colossans 1; 1 Corinthians 15), John (Revelation 1:6-9).
3. If the kingdom has yet to be established, there are two implications: (1) Jesus Christ is a liar [see Mark 9:1] (2) There are people walking the earth who are 2,000 years old [Mark 9:1].

The kingdom is the church (Matthew 16:18-19; Colossians 1; et al.).

Have patience my Brother some are still learning... Brother Glen

 

[agedman]

1. Please show me the word "rapture" in the Bible.

Is that really an argument? That really doesn't carry much authority.

Can you find the name Jesus Christ in the OT? Not there. Rather it was alluded to in the names given such as Emmanuel, Prince of Peace, Lord of Lords ... But the name was FIRST heard by Mary, "You will call His name Jesus."

Such is the same with "church" and "Apostle." They were not part of the thinking of the OT.

In the NT the "rapture" is not specifically written, but the word is alluded by how some interpret various Scriptures.

2. The kingdom was established in the first century, according to inspired writers: Paul (Colossans 1; 1 Corinthians 15), John (Revelation 1:6-9).

Let's see how your references work:

Colossians 1 states that the "hope" of the believer is laid up in heaven. Not on this earth. The "mystery" mentioned in Colossians is NOT the church for it clearly states, "God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory ..." It is that Christ dwells IN us as no other previous time or account is found in the OT. He is the hope of glory, and it is found in none other. That the assembly is a gathering of the "Christ in you" is mistaken for appointing the passage as applicable to the church, but just as at other times, Paul writes to the church as a group but addresses the individual's needs within that body. Christ is "in you" is applicable to the believer, and as believers gather, then extrapolated to the church body. NOT the other way around.

1 Corinthians 15 records the resurrection order and is not discussing the establishment of a kingdom.

Revelation 1: 6-9 actually does mention "kingdom" but WHERE is the kingdom? Is it not where the believers are recognized as "priests to His God and Father?" Where is God and Father? Heaven.

WHEN will the kingdom come to this earth? "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen." That certainly wasn't the estate of the first coming.

So, here in this revelation passage there is a dual time stamp. That in which believers are present in the heavenly in which they are acknowledged as priests, and the second is the literal return in which every eye in the world sees Him.

Nope, no earthly kingdom at this present time mentioned in any of the passages given.

3. If the kingdom has yet to be established, there are two implications: (1) Jesus Christ is a liar [see Mark 9:1] (2) There are people walking the earth who are 2,000 years old [Mark 9:1].

So what does this passages teach.

Mark 9:1 - "And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

Did not Paul record that a person was caught up into the third heaven and was still alive and saw things of the kingdom? (2 Cor. 12)

How about John, did he not witness the fulfillment of the kingdom? (the Revelation)

Perhaps you are desiring for some magnificent place at this time, but then Christ's statement at the trial would become a lie ("My kingdom is not of this world").

Yet, what was it that the Lord Jesus stated in the example of how believers should pray? "Thy KINGDOM come..."

WHY? So that, "THY WILL be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven."

There is no evidence that such is the past, current or immediate future of this earth. Rather, the Scriptures give ONE time that such occurs. That is during the millennial reign, and ONLY that millennial reign.

The kingdom is the church (Matthew 16:18-19; Colossians 1; et al.).

I disagree. The "kingdom" is NOT the church. This church is not in the past, present or immediate future ever in control of any resemblance of a "kingdom." Kingdoms are not made up of people who are counted as sheep for the slaughter. Is that not the estate that believer should continue and be the standard?

A kingdom is not a kingdom without a kingdom. That is just plain logic.

There is no earthly church kingdom at this time. As often as it has been attempted in the past by various Utopian type hopefuls, each was a complete failure.

The church is the church and the kingdom the kingdom - two separate and not at all equal.

Christ did not die for a kingdom - He didn't need to because He already had authority over all matters as the creator and the one that sustains all that matters.

Christ died for the church, the believers that one day will rule WITH Him in an earthly kingdom. A kingdom in which the will of the Father will be done just as it currently is in Heaven.

AND, according to the Revelation, the final estate of the believers is also NOT a kingdom.

Again, when is the ONLY time there is a literal kingdom ruled by Christ in which the believers are ALL priests (not servants, not friends, not slaves, not fellow or joint heirs...) and rule with Christ?

Not for the last 2000 or more years, and not in the immediate few more years, but in the literal millennial reign as recorded in both OT prophecy and the Revelation.

 

[OldRegular]

Have patience my Brother some are still learning... Brother Glen

The true dispennsationalist will never learn. He is engulfed in the darkness introduced by the "new revelation" of Darby regarding Isaiah 32 and that of Darby's disciples.

Jesus Christ told us in John 8:32: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

The dispensationaist is swimming in the darkness of the Darby/Scofield school and only the direct intervention of GOD will change that. Simply put their doctrine is false and is the same doctrine of the carnal Jewish leaders who also were in darkness and conspired with hated Rome to murder Jesus Christ. Scripture puts it as follows and demonstrates the hatred of the Jewish leaders for Jesus Christ: John 11:43-53
43. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
44. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
45. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
46. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
47. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52.And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

But the Jews of the 1st century were ignorant of the purpose of GOD and the dispensationalist still is. Jesus Christ died for the CHURCH, not a "parenthesis" or for a restored Jewish kingdom on earth.