Angels We Have Heard on High - The Location of Christ's Reign

[Dee Dee Warren]

ANGELS WE HAVE HEARD ON HIGH: The Location of Christ’s Reign

by Dee Dee Warren

I am a fully recovered premillennial, pretribulational, futurist. It is now amazing to me how easily I see the wealth of passages that utterly defeat those earlier much-cherished eschatological doctrines. That being said, I do not believe for a second that other people hold them because they are unintelligent and do not love the Word of God because I once zealously held them myself….. but I do remember that once I started taking a look at certain passages without the grid I was so carefully taught, the scaffolding just fell away. Now while I didn’t receive the particular insight that I am now going to share in those earlier days, I am hoping that this may be used to open the eyes of others to consider the possibility that the idea that Jesus is going to return to set up a thousand year Kingdom and rule from a physical throne in physical Jerusalem is simply not Biblical.

The primary text under consideration is:

….Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Paul is beautifully describing a current reality for him in the first century, the reign of Christ. It is a heavenly reign with Christ seated in the heavenlies not on the earth. It is a reign at the right hand of the Father. Most Christians can look at this passage and do not grasp the implications. As a premill, I was taught that this passage describes the reign of Christ in the age in which we are now living (the same age in which Paul was living) and in the “age to come” which is the Millennial Kingdom of Christ. However…. Paul in describing the nature and location of the reality of Christ’s first century, also states that this reality continues throughout the “age to come.” That is, even if we futurize the Millennium, which can chronologically be dismantled through numerous other means, the location (in heaven) and the nature (spiritual) of Christ’s reign does not change. He was “physically” located in heaven for Paul enjoying a spiritual rule, and He will remain so throughout “the age to come.”

This comports with this passage’s reference to Psalm 110 which arguably is the most important OT passage to the NT authors as it is referenced and/or alluded to more than any other. Psalm 110 states that Christ is to sit at the right hand of the Father (He is fixed there) UNTIL His enemies are made His footstool. Now since this already happened judicially at the Cross, this cannot be what is being referred to here, but rather the actual practical subjugation of Christ’s enemies during the ages. The writer of Hebrews recognizes this tension:

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.

There will come a day when we will see all things put under Him practically, and He remains at the Father’s right hand until that happens and will physically return concurrent with the destruction of the LAST enemy, death (1 Cor. 15:26). When He returns there will be no enemies left to vanquish, the Kingdom is complete, consummated, and handed over to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). So… He cannot leave the heavenly throne and position to come to rule from the earth, which is merely His footstool (Isaiah 66:1), for in the Premill paradigm, satan is still not in the Lake of Fire, sin is still alive and kicking, and death is still a reality for the saved, and there are enough enemies to provoke a final eschatological showdown at the end of the Millennium. This is utterly contrary to Scripture. What is that sound? It is the tumblers falling into place. The "age to come" and the Kingdom are now present in His New Covenant people, the Church. Scripture offers no alternative.

300

This article was featured (http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000280.htm) recently by my buds at Razormouth (http://www.razormouth.com) where you can find many articles on similar subjects. Please go and check them out. The title of this article was created by them and thus credit for that is theirs.

Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[Xavier]

Nice Article DD...

Short even... :wink:

Yours,
Xavier

:xavier:

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Thanks, Dee Dee -

I confess, I really did not have any handle at all on this 'pre-' vs 'post-' Millennium stuff - I still don't know what preterism means - And this little article is very helpful - Even I can understand something of those issues now, thanks to you...

And I would guess that this was a major dragon that needed slaying in your world - And you are right, it is so plainly obvious, once the insight is gained that the Father gave Christ to be head over all things, AND that in the same stroke He gave Him to the Ekklesia, whichever Ekklesia is His own body, and it is this Ekklesia that is the very fullness of Him, and it is He Who is fufilling all things, in all [of those in Him]... [And that this kingdom is here now upon this earth, and is entered through a purified heart that is humble and obedient to the Head, for only in obedience to Christ can we have His rulership, and his rulership is indeed, in this fallen world, His Kingdom...]

I really think that, in order to understand the etiology of the dragon, we must look at Reformational cynicism regarding the Church against which the Reformation protested... And from Which it emerged... The Church became to their mind but a body of human people gathering together, and thus lost this wonderful and pure and holy understanding that it has had from the beginnings... And notice that Paul is not saying the institutional Church, but the *HTIS* Church, literally translated as: "*Whichever* [ekklesia] is His Own Body..." And as Revelation so clearly shows, there are many ways in which a Church can go wrong, and will receive correction, and will not be suffered to exist if not willing to be corrected... Christ is directly the Head of His Ekklesia - And struggles and tribulations are essentials...

Thanks again...

[geo] Arsenios

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey George, thanks for the encouragement. This insight is short but I do think pretty powerful in the scheme and easy to get one's hands around. I am hoping that it does start to open some minds to consider that premill has much speaking against it.

[John Reece]

Yes :yes: Dee Dee :thumb:

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Hey George, thanks for the encouragement.


Well, you ARE pretty incorrugible... er... encouragible??



This insight is short but I do think pretty powerful in the scheme and easy to get one's hands around. I am hoping that it does start to open some minds to consider that premill has much speaking against it.


It's a hard issue, so shallow are the usual wells, and so parched the soil, and so great the thirst...

We confess that we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come, but we also confess our hope/expectation [same word in Greek - elpizo, as I recall], and the basis of this expectation is not that we live in the world to come today in full, but in part - Paul says we have an EARNEST [part] of the age to come, that we see now but darkly, such is our fallen condition upon this fallen earth... So that when we cannot see our "earnest" facilitously, when it is obscured by our lack of faith, when we expect that the earnest is only pleasure in God, and should have no pain, that peace ignores tribulation, rather than embracing it, that there is no ongoing and permanent pain in a successful Christian life, we can then very easily say that this life is pretty much a wash-out, to be but gotten through as best we can, and ignored as much as we can, taking what good things we can as we can, and looking to the glory of the life to come to place our selves outside ourselves and into a future hope, disvaluing present... Yet the present is where we are, and we have much to do in it, and that is to turn from the world and unto God, and that is a lot of discomfort and work and effort and yes, even agony, as we voluntarily take up our own cross and follow Christ...

But for those who have not found this way, for whom Christianity is all about what God has done and will do for you, and not all that much about what YOU DO... For these, based upon their life experience, their conclusion only makes sense, for they have not tasted the power of the age to come, as Paul writes, and thus are not able to receive the value of repentance in the agony unto death of the taking up of one's own cross...

So what I would stress is that you not be too hard on those who believe differently, for if they are not participating in the power of the earnest of the age to come, they cannot know its existence in the present. They can only read, remember, and argue Bible passages - And human reasoning about these can support any position [and has supported all possible positions on virtually every passage...] Which is why the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and not the people who are Her members, but are not Her... And certainly not just anyone who picks up their Gideon's and forms an opinion...

For myself, faithless wretch that I am, I can but marvel at their faith in the absence of so much that I so take for granted... They are far more faithful than I will ever be... And I sit at their feet, even though dis-agreeing with them...

[geo] Arsenios

[Daywalker]

the idea that Jesus is going to return to set up a thousand year Kingdom and rule from a physical throne in physical Jerusalem is simply not Biblical.

If Christ does not COME to the earth to reign then he would have confused the people of Matt. 25 because THEY WOULD have believed it as the text below states. The audience would have taken it just as it is stated. If the THRONE OF HIS GLORY is UP IN HEAVEN at THIS point (Matt.25's fulfillment) then there is no reason for him to COME. Moreover, you will notice that the ENTIRE text below takes place IN THE WORLD.

Matthew 25:31-34 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

They no DOUBT would have viewed that to be ON EARTH. It is only in Preterism that a person is told to allegorize this. Granted, Israel recognized symbolism, but there would COME A POINT in which this WOULD take place ON EARTH. HE LEFT earth and would COME AGAIN to it. I am NOT a PreTrib rapture person, by the way. I believe that believing saints AT THE END of Daniel's 70th week are caught up.

Acts 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:

The kingdom of God was simpy God's GOVERNMENT. It is NOT "physical" in essence, but it IS manifested IN the physical when the time comes for it to be done.

What they looked forward to was ISRAEL being the headquarters. Although that would not COME TO FULL BLOOM until AFTER Daniel's 70th week, Israel could still have a role IN the kingdom of God without being it's "home base".

Acts 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?

They were not to know the time of THAT aspect. When the leadership of the world was put in Israel's hands.

Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

After Christ ascended he took "A" throne. Technically, he sits as a king and a Priest though being the seed of David still (Acts period). He would only come once the restoration and restitution of all things occured. THAT would take place BEFORE (yes, BEFORE) the tribulation period. It actually was scheduled to start some time AFTER Acts. After the restitution came from the presence of the Lord, THEN Christ would come afterwards. It is not the other way around.

Acts 3:19-21 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

NOTICE: Times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, THEN Christ comes. The heaven holds Christ UNTIL the times of restitution of "all things". Elijah would have been raised from the dead (Ez. 37). IT IS NOT UNTIL THE 1000 YEAR REIGN THAT THEY PUT ON IMMORTALITY WITH GLORIFIED BODIES. They come up with NATURAL bodies just like they did in Acts. In this resurrected nation, Elijah would have come forth and restored all things.

Matthew 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

Elijah restored NOTHING in the book of Revelation, which from chapters 6 and onward are Daniel's 70th week. In fact, the person that most people MISTAKE FOR ELIJAH in Rev. 11 gets KILLED. "ALL THINGS" are NOT restored by Elijah at the Second Coming, that is why Christ comes to beat down the enemies.

Therefore this text:
Acts 2:33-35 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

In Acts he was preached as being on the right hand of God (positionally).

Is fulfilled BEFORE the 1000 year reign. In this case, it comes in PEACEABLY.

Remember in Ps. 110 Christ's enemies ARE his footstool BEFORE he comes and it is the Father's doing. In Daniel's 70th week (book of Revelation) we see CHRIST doing the work, not the Father. The NATIONS will be OBEDIENT to his rule though many of the people will NOT NECESSARILY be Christian. It is like that in America now. We SUBMIT to the government, but not all are children of God. We do what we do because it is to our best interest to do so.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Psalms 110:2-3 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

OKAY, the above text CLOSES the time frame of the restititution of all things where the earth is RENEWED (Matt. 19:28). Christ rules FROM ZION at that point. Zion will be located IN THE WORLD, IN HEAVEN, (THE SKY). At some point during the PreTribulational kingdom it will appear to all. That is why people can later see it and REBEL against it. If you study out Ps. 2 you will see that the heathen (non-Israel nations) are saying that they will REBEL against Zion (cast AWAY the cords, break the bands, etc.). They don't say "let's rebel against some place that is not IN THIS WORLD". They recognize that the place is IN GOD'S HOLY HILL where Christ is sitting because they CAN see Zion, just like the text alludes to. It will be UP IN THE SKY-visibly manifested. In order for them to say "Psalms 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us" it is obvious that he MUST HAVE RULED them BEFORE he COMES FROM ZION and TAKES THEM AS HIS INHERITANCE. It is then and ONLY then does he rule IN WRATH. God is NOT ruling the nations now. The bible plainly states that God's judgements are NOT in the earth yet, but they will be later.

Isaiah 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

There will be underground rebellion later which will eventually break out OPENLY and that is the reason that the KING will COME (as mentioned in Matt. 25) and ONLY THEN will the heathen literally be his inheritance THROUGH WRATH. But before then, it was THROUGH PEACE.

When God begins the kingdom of God, "the church, which is his body" will be the forerunner in carrying out God's government, BUT we won't be the only ones in the end. God will resurrect Israel from the dead DURING the kingdom of God (not to be confused with the resurrection of Rev. 20).

David, during the PREMILL kingdom will rule ON THE THRONE IN ISRAEL while Christ is above IN the Heavenly City, Mt. Zion. Israelites and saved Gentiles will be Joint-heirs with Christ.


The primary text under consideration is:
Ephesians 1:15-22….Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.


Paul is beautifully describing a current reality for him in the first century, the reign of Christ. It is a heavenly reign with Christ seated in the heavenlies not on the earth. It is a reign at the right hand of the Father. Most Christians can look at this passage and do not grasp the implications.

As a premill, I was taught that this passage describes the reign of Christ in the age in which we are now living (the same age in which Paul was living) and in the “age to come” which is the Millennial Kingdom of Christ.

IT IS. Christ is the head over "all things"-context? He is the head of the church where he has a REIGN over us NOW and over the principalities and powers. That is all that is mentioned in that book. NO NATIONS are mentioned there. Now, there are other passages to show that we will reign over nations, but not in Eph. Eph. 1 does not speak to that effect. This headship starts NOW and is better realized in the ages to come. In the above text there is no mention of Christ ruling over nations. That was not the point.


However…. Paul in describing the nature and location of the reality of Christ’s first century, also states that this reality continues throughout the “age to come.” That is, even if we futurize the Millennium, which can chronologically be dismantled through numerous other means, the location (in heaven) and the nature (spiritual) of Christ’s reign does not change. He was “physically” located in heaven for Paul enjoying a spiritual rule, and He will remain so throughout “the age to come.”

This text stated in the heavenlies. But we are also seated IN THE HEAVENLIES NOW, by identification. If you notice, it does say above "this and that", but it is above POSITIONALLY. Where it is at GEOGRAPHICALLY is honestly NOT the point.

Ephesians 2:6-7 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

We, like Christ, are identified as being in HEAVENLY PLACES of authority. Christ is above what? EVERY NAME too. So, is he standing on it? NO. He is above the name POSITIONALLY. It is an anthropomorphism used to describe the fact that Christ is the one whom the father has chosen to be "the HEAD"; the leader of the Father's administration. The LOCATION CAN CHANGE, the position of authority can not. The kingdom of God will be both in the sky (HEAVEN) and on the EARTH. That was actually the whole point of this prayer:

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

In HEAVEN, the principalites and powers are SUBJECT TO HIM. IN HEAVEN, even Satan must ask permission before he could TOUCH JOB. On earth, well, that is another story! And when Satan gets too big for his britches and DOES attack the heavenly City during Daniel's 70th week, God sends forth his angels and they lay the smack down on him! Rev.12


This comports with this passage’s reference to Psalm 110 which arguably is the most important OT passage to the NT authors as it is referenced and/or alluded to more than any other. Psalm 110 states that Christ is to sit at the right hand of the Father (He is fixed there) UNTIL His enemies are made His footstool. Now since this already happened judicially at the Cross, this cannot be what is being referred to here, but rather the actual practical subjugation of Christ’s enemies during the ages. The writer of Hebrews recognizes this tension:

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.

There will come a day when we will see all things put under Him practically, and He remains at the Father’s right hand until that happens and will physically return concurrent with the destruction of the LAST enemy, death (1 Cor. 15:26). When He returns there will be no enemies left to vanquish, the Kingdom is complete, consummated, and handed over to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24).

I.Cor. 15:26 and the other texts around that point say NOTHING about him not changing physical locations untill the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

By the way, we get OUR Glorified bodies (because we are NOT the Israel of God-unlike the Acts period saints) BEFORE the 1000 year reign-right at the start of the "PreMill" Kingdom.


So… He cannot leave the heavenly throne and position to come to rule from the earth, which is merely His footstool (Isaiah 66:1),

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

The point of THAT verse was NOT that God COULD NOT REIGN on earth. The point is that there is NO HOUSE THAT YOU COULD STUFF HIM INTO, ie, his "presence" can be everywhere. Here, look at this verse:
1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Okay, so can the heavenS not contain him now either???

2 Chronicles 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!


for in the Premill paradigm, satan is still not in the Lake of Fire, sin is still alive and kicking, and death is still a reality for the saved, and there are enough enemies to provoke a final eschatological showdown at the end of the Millennium. This is utterly contrary to Scripture.

I hope that anybody reading this will realize that I am NOT to be confused with the typical PreMill position.

Now, what happened? WHY is it that we did not see the TRUE Coming of Christ???
Answer: God postponed the setting up of the kingdom of God.

There are many, many times in the scripture where God is GOING to do something, but the TIMING can be ALTERED. Even Molonism allows for Libertarian free will and SHOULD allow for a God that is not impassable.

Isaiah 38:1-5 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live. Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD, And said, Remember now, O LORD, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying, Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

However Molonism explains this, the fact remains...God CAN change his mind on WHEN HE WILL PERFORM CERTAIN ACTS. What I am saying is that after the Acts period, God PAUSED what he was doing for this present age's sake.

He created a group, not to REPLACE ISRAEL and BREAK HIS WORD to the nation of Israel-but another group to go along SIDE ISRAEL IN THAT KINGDOM TO COME.

Some Preterists point to the fact that Paul expected to LIVE to SEE CHRIST according to his EARLY WRITINGS. They say this is Daniel's 70th week. Paul DID TEACH in Acts that he WOULD LIVE to see Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

How about the fact that after Acts 28 when he records his LATTER WRITINGS, he expected to DIE before he saw Christ?

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
2 Timothy 4:7-8 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.


There is only one way to solve this...to divide Paul's word and realize that something DID change between what Paul wrote in Acts vs. what he wrote after Acts. That would bring us to TRULY DIVIDING Paul's word just like 2 Tim. 2:15 states. There was another program brought in...

Grace,
Mike
PS. The 70 weeks of Daniel NEVER EVEN STARTED. I mean, not even WEEK 1...but it COULD HAVE some time after Acts IF God did not insert a parenthetical dispensation. And, as some are pondering this, know this:

The 70 weeks are based upon a COMMAND to rebuild JERUSALEM, NOT a proclomation from an earthly king to build a temple IN JERUSALEM. The TYPE IS NICE, but it is not accurate. Ezra 1 vs. Dan. 9

Moreover, it should be noted that the vision given to Daniel in Dan. 9 was to be TIED IN WITH JEREMIAH.

Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

This wall and JERUSALEM would be built in troubulous times...the GRADUAL regathering of Jews BACK TO THE HOMELAND OF ISRAEL duing the PREMILL kingdom of God. That, according to what Dan. read, was the time of Jacob's "trouble"-it went THROUGH the 70 weeks. It was not simply "Daniel's70th week".

This brings us to the next question:
WHO is Messiah the Prince?
Messiah just means "anointed".
It is DAVID. He will RULE from Israel on earth as Christ's Joint-heir.

Ezekiel 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Now, if what I am saying is correct then I should be able to find the text that ties these 2 things together. Here it is from Jeremiah himself:

Jeremiah 30:6-11 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him: But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them. Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid. For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

This will be hard for Israel. They will go through 490 years WITHOUT A GAP BETWEEN THE 69TH AND 70TH WEEK(!!). At the end, Israel will COMPLETELY BE SAVED AS A NATION. Her everlasting righteousness occurs. She paid for her sins. Preterism does not let her pay for her sins and thus be restored, THEY KILL HER. :eek:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Daywalker, thank you for your response.

I have to respond to something from someone who responded to an older article of mine, then I will respond here. FYI - though you brought many issues up that are way beyond the scope of the article. The article was uncharacteristically short for me, and I was hoping to deal with the few important points without having to go into refuting the entirety of open view or X9 dispensationalism. So as such, I am letting you know that there are certain points you raised that I purposefully am not going to get into on this thread as it is way beyond what I wrote the article for and posted it for I posted it with the requisite time commitment for a discussion. Also my article is not about preterism per se. It does not require a preterist view to hold to it. In fact this view about Christ's reign has been the dominant view of the historical church while preterism has not, though it has enjoyed its periods of popularity.

The issue of the 70 weeks of Daniel is something that would be interesting for another thread. There was an older one with me and RightIdea that was interesting and rather than revive it, it might be interesting to do a new one at some point in the future.

I guess I am saying in short is that my response is going to be very focused on the points raised in my article, and I am going to try very hard not to go far afield.

[Daywalker]

refuting the entirety of open view or X9 dispensationalism.
Deal with the issues when you have the time. That is fine, I was actually too busy to do what I did-but that is how it goes.

I believe that this dispensatation (or however YOU would choose to call it) started AFTER the book of Acts entirely.

And as far as the Open View goes, the other models (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc) all have their way of explaining what was said regarding Is. 38. I would say that if Molonism (for example) would say that God said what he did to get Hezekiah to repent (supposing that that is what GOD wanted all along) then a person has no reason to not apply that same perspective to the immenency of Christ spoken of in the Acts epistles.

Grace,
Mike

[Lazy Agnostic]

All this business is too esoteric for me. I can't imagine why God would want us to spend any personal energy on it at all. Seems like it would be the pedantic pastime of pharisees who wish to claim a rank in some heavenly Mensa Club hierarchy---and thus avoid doing actual goodworks. [But that might be a little cynical]


And as Revelation so clearly shows, there are many ways in which a Church can go wrong, and will receive correction, and will not be suffered to exist if not willing to be corrected...
Yet John Hagee and his "ministry" get fatter every day.

[Dee Dee Warren]

LA, this article is written is for believers on a point of orthodox Christian doctrine and is not meant as a point of debate for nonChristians or as a departure from orthodoxy. It just wasn't written for that.

As the author I ask that we stick to the narrow topic in the post. Hagee has nothing to do with it.

[Lazy Agnostic]

LA, this article is written is for believers on a point of orthodox Christian doctrine and is not meant as a point of debate for nonChristians or as a departure from orthodoxy. It just wasn't written for that.

As the author I ask that we stick to the narrow topic in the post. Hagee has nothing to do with it.
Oops; I did it again. Apologies.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sorry for the delay. That is par for course with me though....

I am going to respond to Mike's post at this point. I am not going to answer each point as I am going to stay within the narrow confines of the original article, anyone knowing me knows that it is difficult for me to wrote anything short and keep it within narrow confines. I made this statement which is basically the thesis statement of the article:


…the idea that Jesus is going to return to set up a thousand year Kingdom and rule from a physical throne in physical Jerusalem is simply not Biblical.

I then utilize one primary verse and several related ones to support this point. There are others that could be used to support it and ones that others would use to defend against my proposition. I am looking to deal though simply with these texts in question. Because Mike's post went into other areas, I hope I faithfully extract out the portions dealing with this particular point within the parameters of the article. If not, I am sure Mike will correct that.

I said:


The primary text under consideration is:

Ephesians 1:15-22…. <verse edited out for brevity>

Paul is beautifully describing a current reality for him in the first century, the reign of Christ. It is a heavenly reign with Christ seated in the heavenlies not on the earth. It is a reign at the right hand of the Father. Most Christians can look at this passage and do not grasp the implications.

As a premill, I was taught that this passage describes the reign of Christ in the age in which we are now living (the same age in which Paul was living) and in the “age to come” which is the Millennial Kingdom of Christ.

Mike responds…




IT IS. Christ is the head over "all things"-context? He is the head of the church where he has a REIGN over us NOW and over the principalities and powers. That is all that is mentioned in that book. NO NATIONS are mentioned there. Now, there are other passages to show that we will reign over nations, but not in Eph. Eph. 1 does not speak to that effect. This headship starts NOW and is better realized in the ages to come. In the above text there is no mention of Christ ruling over nations. That was not the point.

Not the point!?! Really? Are you suggesting that Christ is not in fact ruling over the nations now? Just that He is ruling over the Church and angels and demons? Who is ruling over the nations? satan? Welll then Christ de facto IS ruling over the nations even in that reduction as satan is a principality and power and if Christ is ruling him, He is ruling what he rules. But that reduction is untrue... some texts.

Rule in the midst of your enemies!

Psalm 110 is describing the current state of Christ and His current position. He is currently reigning from the right hand of YHWH, and is currently reigning over His enemies. Unless the Church is His enemy, His present rule is NOT restricted to simply the Church and angels (good or bad).

I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, "You are My Son, todayI have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for Your inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces likes a potter's vessel.

This once again is describing the current reign of Christ. Over the nations. Over ALL. It is not speaking of a Millennium of peace, but of violence in which Christ conquers the disobedient, of which there are plenty. Notice in Psalm 110:2 a "rod" is also mentioned. It is the rod of the present rule of Christ. The Book of Hebrews chapter 1 tells us that the Psalm 2 event started in the first century. He was then ruling over ALL, in fact upholding ALL things by the word of His power.

I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.

This is not speaking of a descent to earth. Notice the direction of the coming. It is UP to the Father. This is not speaking of His return, but His vindication over death and ascension to the Father.... the very same event spoken of by the Ephesians passage. This is quite obvious. Let's now look once again at that primary text for discussion breaking it apart a bit....

.. and what is the exceediing greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the workiing of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places....

Pause. He raised and seated. That is exactly what is being spoken of in Daniel 7. God raised up Christ to Him and seated Him with Him (thrones were put in place - Daniel 7:9). This is also what is being spoken of in Psalm 110. What was Christ to do? RULE in the midst of His enemies.

continuing...

... far above all principality and power and might and every name that is named not only in this agebut also in that which is to come.

This is not limited. Paul goes out of his way to be unlimited. Is there a name to be named? Christ is ruling over it and subjugating it. Is that "name" a nation? Is it the "nations"? It is included. Paul is universal. Additionally Paul states that the extent of Christ's reign remains the same spanning two ages. If anyone is positing a future reign over the nations in some "millennium" - if He is not ruling over the nations now, He won't be then either.

Let's look at the extent that Paul gives (and remember just in case he missed anything, Paul adds "and every name that is named" - kind of like how Psalm 8:6 goes so far as to say even the animals are included).

Principality - arche (Strong's 746) - this word primarily means beginning, thus signifiying authority, but it is used of human rulers and authorities such as magistrates (Luke 12:11), governors (Luke 20:20), as well as Christ Himself (Col1:18; Rev 22:13); and most likely the Father (Rev 1:8).


For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities (arche) nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Can the “nations” separate us from the love of Christ? Nothing can.


For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions (kuriotes) or principalities (arche) or powers (dunamis). All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.


The verse is speaking of the supremacy of Christ over all things and uses the very same words. One cannot limit the range of meanings here or in Ephesians. The “nations” are not some rogue entities outside the primacy of Christ. The connection is tight. One cannot examine the Ephesians passage while not taking into consideration this one as well. I in hindsight should have included it in the article. It makes the case much stronger as against the type of argument that Mike proposes.

Power - exousia (Strong's 1849) – the word primarily means authority, it is used of humans very very often as in governing power or authority (Luke 23:7 is a good example). It is not limited.

Might - dunamis (Strong's 1411) – from which we get the word dynamite… mighty works or power. Human or otherwise.

Dominion - Kuriotes (Strong's 2963) – government, lordship. It unequivocably is referring to human government in Jude 8 and 2 Pet 2:10.

[font=Arial]Notice in that Colossians verse teaching the supremacy of Christ and creatorship of Christ over ALL things these very same words are used with the exception of dunamis. It does though add “thrones” to our list of the present rulership of Christ. Mike’s attempt to limit the Ephesians verse does not work. The same rule Christ was enjoying when Paul wrote, is the same rule He will/is enjoying in the “age to come.” Nothing is added. Not the nations. Nothing.

Moving on I stated:


However…. Paul in describing the nature and location of the reality of Christ’s first century, also states that this reality continues throughout the “age to come.” That is, even if we futurize the Millennium, which can chronologically be dismantled through numerous other means, the location (in heaven) and the nature (spiritual) of Christ’s reign does not change. He was “physically” located in heaven for Paul enjoying a spiritual rule, and He will remain so throughout “the age to come.”

to which Mike responded:


This text stated in the heavenlies. But we are also seated IN THE HEAVENLIES NOW, by identification. If you notice, it does say above "this and that", but it is above POSITIONALLY. Where it is at GEOGRAPHICALLY is honestly NOT the point.

Mike answered his own objection. He points out that the text says that we are also in the heavenlies, and we are obviously on the earth, so it is not teaching about our location, for we are only in the heavenlies “positionally.” Of course! But why? Because we are IN Christ who no one denies IS ACTUALLY in the heavenlies. One cannot reduce the part speaking about Christ to a mere positional statement since he is in fact LOCATED there. Part and parcel of the Position of Christ IS His location. He reigns from where YHWH reigns. From heaven.


Ephesians 2:6-7 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Mike continues…


We, like Christ, are identified as being in HEAVENLY PLACES of authority. Christ is above what? EVERY NAME too. So, is he standing on it? NO. He is above the name POSITIONALLY. It is an anthropomorphism used to describe the fact that Christ is the one whom the father has chosen to be "the HEAD"; the leader of the Father's administration. The LOCATION CAN CHANGE, the position of authority can not.

We are because we are in Christ who is actually in fact there. I have no issue with agreeing with Mike that the main point of this passage is not to teach about the location of Christ’s reign but to teach about the reality of Christ’s reign. But the reality does not change from age to age according to Paul, and the reality for Paul was a reign from heaven, which he says will continue “not only in this age, but also in the age that is to come.” It is a true maxim that can be drawn from the main point. To bring in the idea that Christ is “above” every name to defeat this point by raising the spectre of hyperliteralism is invalid. I do not deny positional authority whatsoever. But the FACT is this… let’s take this slowly please….

…Which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places….

The rest of the NT teaches the raising was literal and He literally was taken up into Heaven (Acts 1:8). This is not merely positional for Christ. The position is subsumd by the actual. What others can only have by virtue of vicarious position (ie how Psalm 110 would have applied as well to past Hebrew rulers yet ultimately to Christ) Christ in reality has.

Luke makes it a point to say that the LOCATION was key in the Psalm 110 passage which is the clear referent for the Ephesians passage:

For David himself did not ascend into the heavens but he says himself: The Lord said to my Lord, sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.

Luke’s point is that David could not have fulfilled that passage for though David may have positionally been at YHWH’s right hand, he did not really get seated by LOCATION in the heavens.

Mike continues….




The kingdom of God will be both in the sky (HEAVEN) and on the EARTH. That was actually the whole point of this prayer:

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

No comment as I have no issue with this. A King does not have to be “physically” present to reign. Many people today think that satan rules the earth, yet he is not physically present, so why does Christ have to be?


This comports with this passage’s reference to Psalm 110 which arguably is the most important OT passage to the NT authors as it is referenced and/or alluded to more than any other. Psalm 110 states that Christ is to sit at the right hand of the Father (He is fixed there) UNTIL His enemies are made His footstool. Now since this already happened judicially at the Cross, this cannot be what is being referred to here, but rather the actual practical subjugation of Christ’s enemies during the ages. The writer of Hebrews recognizes this tension:

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.

There will come a day when we will see all things put under Him practically, and He remains at the Father’s right hand until that happens and will physically return concurrent with the destruction of the LAST enemy, death (1 Cor. 15:26). When He returns there will be no enemies left to vanquish, the Kingdom is complete, consummated, and handed over to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24).

Mike says….




I.Cor. 15:26 and the other texts around that point say NOTHING about him not changing physical locations untill the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Demonstrably untrue. But Mike did not give much details to refute, merely made an assertion that I can see.

Paul again tells us about the timing of this event.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

After the resurrection and “change” of the living and the dead it is the END. It is the LAST DAY. There is no Millennium to follow. It is the completion of the Kingdom and Christ delivers the Kingdom to the Father. After this resurrection, there is NO MORE DEATH because that is the LAST enemy to be destroyed. So that means that it is impossible for there to be a millennium in which people die. Death is destroyed at the Coming of Christ. There is no room to insert a Millenium in here.


So… He cannot leave the heavenly throne and position to come to rule from the earth, which is merely His footstool (Isaiah 66:1),

Mike responds….




The point of THAT verse was NOT that God COULD NOT REIGN on earth. The point is that there is NO HOUSE THAT YOU COULD STUFF HIM INTO, ie, his "presence" can be everywhere.

I am sorry if I was not clear. I did not claim that verse was teaching that God could not reign on the Earth. God can do whatever He pleases. The Bible could certainly have taught that Christ will physically reign on the earth. God could do that. But the Bible doesn’t teach that. Here is my point with verse (and I do not deny the application Mike also brought out of it, but I am focusing on the first half of the verse that Mike did not focus on

Heaven is My throne and earth is My footstool…

Leaving that part out destroys the point. It is not JUST that a Temple could not hold His immense presence…. It was the the regal throne is in heavenand it is an insult to think that the earth, disparaging called a footstool, would suffice. With that in mind, it sheds some light on the insistence we have that Christ will leave His heavenly glory for the footstool.


for in the Premill paradigm, satan is still not in the Lake of Fire, sin is still alive and kicking, and death is still a reality for the saved, and there are enough enemies to provoke a final eschatological showdown at the end of the Millennium. This is utterly contrary to Scripture.

Mike stated:




I hope that anybody reading this will realize that I am NOT to be confused with the typical PreMill position.

This is where he goes far afield of the narrow scope of the article so I am not responding to the rest. However, in light of my above quote, even though Mike is not a typical PreMill, my criticism above still holds to his position. It is still a common element.

[Daywalker]

Not the point!?! Really? Are you suggesting that Christ is not in fact ruling over the nations now?

Yep. That is exactly what I am saying. He is not reigning now, man is. Christ always has had an influence in this world, but that is not the same a governmental order and control. If Christ is reigning now, then we are in trouble, because it is the worse reign that this world has ever seen.

Revelation 11:15 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.

What else would "are become" mean if it "always was"? Without even getting into the whole Preterism vs. Futurism thing here, the fact remains that when Christ ascended to heaven he did not simply have his rule in this world. I imagine that a Preterist would say that this verse was fulfilled in AD 70ish? Even so...that would still place it after the ascension and the Acts period.


Just that He is ruling over the Church and angels and demons? Who is ruling over the nations? satan? Welll then Christ de facto IS ruling over the nations even in that reduction as satan is a principality and power and if Christ is ruling him, He is ruling what he rules. But that reduction is untrue... some texts.

For the record, I stated principalities and powers...
Again, a person will be hard pressed to prove that the body of knowledge "handed to the Ephesians" emphatically declared that Christ rules the nations. Remember too, we can not speak for them and demand that they could cross reference like us. They would have just read Eph. and believed what was stated. If God wanted to show them that Christ was now ruling the nations, Paul could have written it. Who rules the world? LFW.


Rule in the midst of your enemies!

Psalm 110 is describing the current state of Christ and His current position. He is currently reigning from the right hand of YHWH, and is currently reigning over His enemies. Unless the Church is His enemy, His present rule is NOT restricted to simply the Church and angels (good or bad).
Psalms 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Do we really believe that the nations are WILLING right now? Just ask the United Nations... Just because he sits on the throne does not mean that that is the current state of his administration. Again, it stated "in the day" of his power. Evidently, that day has yet to come. I would HATE to think that this is as good as it gets. Thankfully, it isn't.



[Psalm 2:7-9]I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, "You are My Son, todayI have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for Your inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces likes a potter's vessel.[/verse]

This once again is describing the current reign of Christ. Over the nations. Over ALL. It is not speaking of a Millennium of peace, but of violence in which Christ conquers the disobedient, of which there are plenty. Notice in Psalm 110:2 a "rod" is also mentioned. It is the rod of the present rule of Christ. The Book of Hebrews chapter 1 tells us that the Psalm 2 event started in the first century. He was then ruling over ALL, in fact upholding ALL things by the word of His power.

Preterism is built under the notion that the judment in AD 70 was NOT over the whole of the planet, but rather localized. Ironic. When this text listed above comes to pass, it will have the rebellious nations unto the ends of the earth in shambles exactly as the verse states.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

A sceptre of righteousness IS God's kingdom...but those other nations were not of God's kingdom---YET. Christ's government would come in STAGES.


I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days[b], and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.

This is not speaking of a descent to earth. Notice the direction of the coming. It is UP to the Father. This is not speaking of His return, but His vindication over death and ascension to the Father.... the very same event spoken of by the Ephesians passage. This is quite obvious. Let's now look once again at that primary text for discussion breaking it apart a bit....

Then we have a real problem, because you have just stated that this reign, in accordance with Ps. 110 points to his PRESENT REIGN in the earth. Again, if this is his reign, his government is already defeated. Sin rules the world now. Paul would agree with my comments:
Galatians 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:


.. and what is the exceediing greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the workiing of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places....

Pause. He raised and seated. That is exactly what is being spoken of in Daniel 7. God raised up Christ to Him and seated Him with Him (thrones were put in place - Daniel 7:9). This is also what is being spoken of in Psalm 110. What was Christ to do? RULE in the midst of His enemies.

Again, what does it mean to RULE in the midst of your enemies. When David reigned, there were enemies around him, but he controlled Israel. When Christ rules then he too will rule his area-the world.






[verse=Ephesians 21]... far above all principality and power and might and every name that is named not only in this agebut also in that which is to come.

This is not limited. Paul goes out of his way to be unlimited. Is there a name to be named? Christ is ruling over it and subjugating it. Is that "name" a nation? Is it the "nations"? It is included. Paul is universal. Additionally Paul states that the extent of Christ's reign remains the same spanning two ages. If anyone is positing a future reign over the nations in some "millennium" - if He is not ruling over the nations now, He won't be then either.

Here is the bottom line on this whole thing without answering every single arguement in detail...
Yes, he has a name above all names...that would mean that he is the most honorable. It never stated anything more. BUT...One day, the world will be instructed by God to BOW to that name...but the fact that the nations do not submit proves that this administration of the physical reign in this world has not started yet. It will someday, but not yet.

Yes, all things are made for him. But that does not prove that he is running the show, but one day he will be. Heck, "we are made" for him too, he does not execute unilateral control over us.

Yes, things visible and invisible were created by him and for him, but that looks to the positions that will one day be realized by his saints in addition to what his "angels" will play out. That too has not happened yet.

In short, this whole thing is about one thing. Does Christ actually rule right now, or is it that the stages are being set for a future rule?
Obviously, the latter.

I find it ironic...
Preterism spends soooo much time telling futurists that their future will get "better and better". Do they believe it??? I do. Then again, I am a futurist. I believe that one day God will "set up shop" right here just like he promised.
To the readers:
Grace,
Mike

[Rdr. Arsenios]

DeeDee observes:
"This is also what is being spoken of in Psalm 110.
What was Christ to do?
RULE in the midst of His enemies."

And Mike replies:
"Again, what does it mean to RULE in the midst of your enemies."

That is the meaning of the incarnation, to establish that RULE, in the midst of enemies, upon the earth, for the whole problem we have as humanity is the falling away from the grace of Paradise in Eden that came from Adam's turning away from God...

I did an educational thing on the search the TM Bible, under "mine enemies" in the OT, and the Psalms are chock full of this term... Now the Children of God were chased out of Egypt by the armies of Pharoah, who were killed by God in [the baptism of] the Red Sea, and this, of course, is understood by us as being 'in a figure' a pre-saging of the baptism of Christ in the Jordan, and the elimination of our enemies in the waters of baptism, where God takes them from us... After baptism, we are able [in Christ] to overcome our enemies, and this because of baptism, and because of the result of baptism, which is our new creaturely life in Christ...

So that when David writes prophetically: [Psalm 23:5] - "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;" he is writing of the table of the communion of the last supper, at which Christians even to this day, *in Christ*, approach and draw near the table prepared for them virtually in the midst of them that afflict them, for Christ tells us that in the world we will find tribulation, yet we are not of the world, for we commune with the Most High God... And are new creatures in Him...

Hence the table that is prepared for Him, in the presence of His enemies, is indeed a table upon earth, but not under the rulership of the world, which is ruled by demons, yet Christ has overcome the world, and those in him who also overcome, are made pillars in the "pillar and ground of truth", the ekklesia [Church - the body of Christ Who is its Head]... And these are afflicted by the demons of this world, yet live in the peace of Christ, amid outward tribulations, thereby glorifying God and putting their enemies to shame... For it almost seems that a part of our work as Christians is to teach the demons who have the rulership upon the earth, that their rulership is for naught for those in Christ, and to the extent that we do this, we have spiritual attainment in Christ... e.g. Those who overcome...[Rev]

And yet all this is but an earnest of the age to come, whose glory we cannot even imagine, yet the kingdom of Christ is now set here, in the midst of them [like Saul had been before he became Paul] that afflict Him, to no avail, for these are the mature in Christ, who suffer afflictions and like Paul, glory in their infirmities... And not in the vanity of their so-called 'attainments' at all, but in humility and long-suffering they confess only their sinfulness and thus remain hidden in Christ, and in His peace... So that for those who are His, Christ's kingdom is within, in obedience to Christ, making no provision for the flesh, for kingdom is rulership, and Christ's rulership makes slaves and servants of His disciples who are mature in Him...

At least, that is what it means to me, for Christ to rule in the midst of His enemies...

[geo] Arsenios

[geoff]

My word, I wrote a long argument regarding what I "thought" Dee Dee was on about, then re read it and realised i concur.

These verses can not be used to support these positions, because to do so is quite simply unnatural.

Its quite clear in Scripture, that the next time Christ comes, it will be in judgement of humanity. Only those who have faith in Him will be exempt, but those who do not, will be washed away and destroyed, as it was in the days of Noah, and burnt up like chaf (Sodom and Gomorrah).

Imagine my surprise finding that I actually agree with Dee Dee :)

*huggles*

[studyhound]

Dee Dee's "little” :wink: article got me thinking and also the commentary I am working on Revelation (and reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading) fueled my juices and gave me a interesting POV on Christ reign.



And to answer all those who would deny that Christ is now ruling but just sitting at the right hand of the father.



Rev 3:21 WEB

(21) He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as [b] [I] I also overcame, and sat down with my Father on his throne. [I][b]





So Is Christ on the throne??? :thumb:


:studyhound:

[Daywalker]

Dee Dee's "little” :wink: article got me thinking and also the commentary I am working on Revelation (and reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading) fueled my juices and gave me a interesting POV on Christ reign.



And to answer all those who would deny that Christ is now ruling but just sitting at the right hand of the father.



Rev 3:21 WEB

(21) He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as [b] [I] I also overcame, and sat down with my Father on his throne. [I][b]





So Is Christ on the throne??? :thumb:


:studyhound:
And that verse states what about Christ's "current" reign? Nothing...

[charles]

1 Corinthians 15:20-28[/verse
But now CHRIST is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in CHRIST all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: CHRIST the firstfruits, afterward those who are CHRIST’S at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Paul is addressing Israelites. He mentions Christ some 13 times before he mentions the name of Jesus. v. 31 Christ Jesus our Lord. All in Christ shall be made alive. All who died believing for a Messiah would be made alive. When he delivers the kingdom (the kingdom would be the temple destroyed in 70ad. Puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. The end of the old covenant, temple rule, the law of sin and death, the authority of the high priest. The last enemy destroyed is death. Death was conquered in the resurrection. We who have the H.S. have conquered death.

Eph.1:21-22
As a premill, I was taught that this passage describes the reign of Christ in the age in which we are now living (the same age in which Paul was living) and in the “age to come” which is the Millennial Kingdom of Christ.


Again it is not Christ who would reign. (but the H.S.) v. 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places. The verse does not mention Jesus. The book of Eph. was written to Israelites who knew of a promised Messiah. (Christ) v. 12 The we (Israelites) should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted (faith) in a Messiah (Christ). Read the book of Eph. as an Israelite from Acts 19 who was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then Eph.1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Rm.12:5 So we being many are one body in Christ,-- Paul was confirming the promised Christ (Messiah) to the Israelite.

I believe Paul never just addresses the name of Jesus in the book of Ephesians, he says, Christ Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, and very often Just Christ. Read it in this light and may God bless you.
Charles

[Dee Dee Warren]

And that verse states what about Christ's "current" reign? Nothing...

Really? Only a very low context reading would surmise that (and I am not trying to insult you). With all the "baggage" that comes with what was said in the verse, no other option is available. Verses cannot be read in strict isolationism. I am not suggesting you do that as a total practice, but in this comment you have.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dee Dee's "little” :wink: article got me thinking and also the commentary I am working on Revelation (and reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading) fueled my juices and gave me a interesting POV on Christ reign.

Thank you SH! I am really thinking of adding a significant chunk to the article with the Colossians 1 connection. Responding to Mike earlier solidified me even more and I am getting even more excited as I am seeing more and more that connection. Perhaps when this discussion dies down I will post at the end of the discussion thread a revised version adding that Colossians information.

[Daywalker]

When he delivers the kingdom (the kingdom would be the temple destroyed in 70ad. Puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. The end of the old covenant, temple rule, the law of sin and death, the authority of the high priest. The last enemy destroyed is death. Death was conquered in the resurrection. We who have the H.S. have conquered death.

That is absolutely hillarious! For one, you have commented that this is all accomplished at the cross yet this whole thing is written AFTER the cross and looking FORWARD to a future resurrection or else, Paul states "we are of all men most miserable". WOW!


Eph.1:21-22
As a premill, I was taught that this passage describes the reign of Christ in the age in which we are now living (the same age in which Paul was living) and in the “age to come” which is the Millennial Kingdom of Christ.
I would say that even most PreMills are wrong. FIRST-God sets up the kingdom of God which goes THROUGH the 70 weeks of Daniel NEXT-The 1000 yr. reign comes FINALLY-The New Heaven and Earth is made.


Again it is not Christ who would reign. (but the H.S.) v. 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places. The verse does not mention Jesus.
Oh my gosh...you have GOT to be kidding me...
We need to rename Preterism, "Presuppositionism".


The book of Eph. was written to Israelites who knew of a promised Messiah. (Christ) v. 12 The we (Israelites) should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted (faith) in a Messiah (Christ). Read the book of Eph. as an Israelite from Acts 19 who was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then Eph.1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Rm.12:5 So we being many are one body in Christ,-- Paul was confirming the promised Christ (Messiah) to the Israelite.
Hmmm...they were some STRANGE Israelites!
Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Ephesians 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Ephesians 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,


I believe Paul never just addresses the name of Jesus in the book of Ephesians, he says, Christ Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, and very often Just Christ. Read it in this light and may God bless you.
Charles
:eek:


Thank you SH! I am really thinking of adding a significant chunk to the article with the Colossians 1 connection. Responding to Mike earlier solidified me even more and I am getting even more excited as I am seeing more and more that connection. Perhaps when this discussion dies down I will post at the end of the discussion thread a revised version adding that Colossians information.
Yeah, the fact that "nations" are not even mentioned in Col. and Eph. should not matter at all. After all...why not insert your own personal opinions into the text? It is ONLY the word of God....



Really? Only a very low context reading would surmise that (and I am not trying to insult you). With all the "baggage" that comes with what was said in the verse, no other option is available. Verses cannot be read in strict isolationism. I am not suggesting you do that as a total practice, but in this comment you have.
Oh, brother...
The point was that Christ could be on the throne without ruling over nations per se. As a Preterist you come in with the Presupposition that the one necessitates the other...par for the course.

The point that I had also made in other words was that SH's verse ONLY WORKS in Preterist's Presuppositional mindset. Because you have interpreted AD 70 to be the Coming of Christ, then that verse from Rev. MUST be happening now. However, what I have stated is that that is NOT the CURRENT administration of Christ. It will be some day, but not yet.

It is sad, really Dee Dee...that all the Preterists have found what is wrong in so many schools of Futurism and combined things in such a way as to create this creature called "Preterism". Instead of simply improving on a model and moving forward to regain truths that have been lost, Preterism basically throws its hands in the air and says "I quit! The Coming came and went. The tribulation period is PAST!"

Whatever...
-Mike

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh my gosh...you have GOT to be kidding me...
We need to rename Preterism, "Presuppositionism".

Mike, why did you assume Charles was a preterist? Did he say so? He certainly did not say anything at all in his post that made me think so, so why did you jump to that conclusion? I could be wrong and you could have seen something I didn't see, so what is it?



Yeah, the fact that "nations" are not even mentioned in Col. and Eph. should not matter at all. After all...why not insert your own personal opinions into the text? It is ONLY the word of God....


Whether or not you agree with my position, I exegetically laid it out, and it certainly wasn't based on personal opinion or preference.

quote] Instead of simply improving on a model and moving forward to regain truths that have been lost....[/quote]

There is no building of a house on a fundamentally flawed foundation. That would be quite silly. I would say that your system simply creates and divides up the people of God and inserts gaps and delays to prop up prophecies which are already fulfilled because the timing statements have to explained away.

But again this is far afield. My commentary is not unique to preterism but is the belief of many amills and historicists, so this is not a thread about preterism per se, and I would ask that it not be turned into one. It is about the current reality of the reign of Christ which is part of preterism, but not unique to it.

[Daywalker]

Mike, why did you assume Charles was a preterist? Did he say so? He certainly did not say anything at all in his post that made me think so, so why did you jump to that conclusion? I could be wrong and you could have seen something I didn't see, so what is it?

Whether or not you agree with my position, I exegetically laid it out, and it certainly wasn't based on personal opinion or preference.

quote] Instead of simply improving on a model and moving forward to regain truths that have been lost....

There is no building of a house on a fundamentally flawed foundation. That would be quite silly. I would say that your system simply creates and divides up the people of God and inserts gaps and delays to prop up prophecies which are already fulfilled because the timing statements have to explained away.

But again this is far afield. My commentary is not unique to preterism but is the belief of many amills and historicists, so this is not a thread about preterism per se, and I would ask that it not be turned into one. It is about the current reality of the reign of Christ which is part of preterism, but not unique to it.[/QUOTE]
1. Why I thought Charles was a Preterist: We will let Charles ask.
2. When you started off the thread by stating that you were a "FULLY RECOVERED" premill, pretrib, etc etc...you KNOW the message that is brought forth. IT IS a commentary on Preterism whether you choose to call it that or not.
3. Regarding dividing up the people of God: GOD divided up the people of God. It is Israel that would be the head of the nations, not the Gentiles...that is a DIVISION. It is the 12 apostles that would sit upon the 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt.19:28), not just any Israelite-THAT is a division. It is DAVID that will sit upon a throne in the future kingdom to come, not just any old king from time past. Excuse me? DIVISION among the people of God??? Heck, even the saved among Israel will be divided up. sheesh...
4. As far as time gaps go: Then you should be a full preterist. Rev. is not written with gaps in it. Full Preterism is the consistent stand and logical end to preterism. IF you were an Open View Theist you MIGHT be able to insert gaps into that book, but that is the only way to do so honestly.

Here is a timing statement that Preterism must explain away:
Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

This salvation that it is making ref. to deals with governmental authority. That is what is in the context. We see this earlier too.
Romans 8:17-19 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

It is at that time they will be raised from the dead and able to reign in the coming kingdom of God. That time was AT HAND and NEARER then they had believed. My system makes perfect sense. NO TIME GAP AT ALL was to come...but it never happened...

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Satan was NOT bruised under their feet shortly. NOTE: it did not say that God would bruise Satan like the case of the cross, nor does it mention the Antichrist. Rather, Christ would bruise Satan UNDER THEIR feet shortly. BUT, that administration did not come...that is what was at hand.

Here is what was NOT at hand:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

There is only one way to make this work out.
The kingdom of God would be HERE on EARTH first. THEN later the Coming of Christ would be at hand.

So, the reign was at hand, but not the Second Coming. NOTE:they SHOULD have been raised up from the dead like they were in Acts, but it never ran its course.

As far as not building on a flawed model...
What I am talking about is REVAMPING a system. You know this. What is so funny is that it is a Molinist giving instructions to me on this regard.
Question: How did Molinism come into being in the first place? Through a Catholic Jesuit, Luis de Molina.
MOLINA built his theology on a flawed system and revamped it to his liking.

Dee Dee, what you are actually doing is EXACTLY what you said that I was doing. Think about it...

Well, now you can get back to your "chunk" that you wanted to add to this thread. I do not plan on making long comments on this thread. I am sure that you will somehow count it as a victory or something...another win over the futurists. In your own mind you may even feel that you have "beaten me down with doctrine" :lmbo:
Oh, those tshirst that are sold on TWEB that talk about "The tribulation period came and went and all I got was this tshirt"...are they refundable? :ahem:

[geoff]

Here is a timing statement that Preterism must explain away:
Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
No explaining away. Salvation is ultimately, salvation from judgement and the final death. This occurs AT THE END. The process of redeeming creation has begun, but is not complete.


This salvation that it is making ref. to deals with governmental authority. That is what is in the context. We see this earlier too.
Romans 8:17-19 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

It is at that time they will be raised from the dead and able to reign in the coming kingdom of God. That time was AT HAND and NEARER then they had believed. My system makes perfect sense. NO TIME GAP AT ALL was to come...but it never happened...
Sorry, that makes about as much sense as G W Bush. Governmental authority salvation? What?


Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Satan was NOT bruised under their feet shortly. NOTE: it did not say that God would bruise Satan like the case of the cross, nor does it mention the Antichrist. Rather, Christ would bruise Satan UNDER THEIR feet shortly. BUT, that administration did not come...that is what was at hand.
He certainly was bruised. However this again refers to "the end". The end being when evil and all its proponents are finally removed.


Here is what was NOT at hand:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

There is only one way to make this work out.
The kingdom of God would be HERE on EARTH first. THEN later the Coming of Christ would be at hand.
err, really? Thats a leap of logic that I am afraid is impossible to make. This verse speaks clearly of the second coming and judgement day.


So, the reign was at hand, but not the Second Coming. NOTE:they SHOULD have been raised up from the dead like they were in Acts, but it never ran its course.
The reign and the second coming are clearly one and the same. Any attempt to separate them forces meaning into Scripture which it can not support,

[Daywalker]

No explaining away. Salvation is ultimately, salvation from judgement and the final death. This occurs AT THE END. The process of redeeming creation has begun, but is not complete.


Sorry, that makes about as much sense as G W Bush. Governmental authority salvation? What?


He certainly was bruised. However this again refers to "the end". The end being when evil and all its proponents are finally removed.


err, really? Thats a leap of logic that I am afraid is impossible to make. This verse speaks clearly of the second coming and judgement day.


The reign and the second coming are clearly one and the same. Any attempt to separate them forces meaning into Scripture which it can not support,
Might I suggest writing your own bible if you can't believe the simple English on the page?
Salvation is tied to a HOPE there hope was a REIGN...it was AT HAND, the second Coming WAS NOT at hand.

[geoff]

Might I suggest writing your own bible if you can't believe the simple English on the page?
Salvation is tied to a HOPE there hope was a REIGN...it was AT HAND, the second Coming WAS NOT at hand.
I dont believe your english, which is not simple, but rather convoluted. I do believe the bible, which tells us that our HOPE is salvation, salvation from the judgement of God, which is at hand, and will coincide with the return of Christ.

As we are told in Matt 24:36 "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. 41 Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.

Who was swept away in the Flood? The wicked. Why? Judgement. When the Lord comes again, it is not to reign, but to judge. As it was in the days of Noah. That is the "plain english" of Scripture.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Might I suggest writing your own bible if you can't believe the simple English on the page?


:no:

[Daywalker]

I dont believe your english, which is not simple, but rather convoluted. I do believe the bible, which tells us that our HOPE is salvation, salvation from the judgement of God, which is at hand, and will coincide with the return of Christ.

As we are told in Matt 24:36 "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. 41 Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.

Who was swept away in the Flood? The wicked. Why? Judgement. When the Lord comes again, it is not to reign, but to judge. As it was in the days of Noah. That is the "plain english" of Scripture.
Well, DRUNKS go bar hopping, Preterists go scripture hopping. You sure left Romans in a HURRY. You said that their salvation had to do with the COMING of Christ. You missed it. There is no coming of Christ to be found in Rom.13, yet they would have a salvation. The coming of Christ was NOT at hand in 2 Thess. 2. Things that differ are never equal. The hope of the Romans started with a resurrection (Rom. 8) where they would be, through Abrahamic Covt' HEIRS OF THE WORLD (Rom.4). This was AT HAND. Christ's coming was NOT AT HAND. Christ would resurrect the Body of Christ and they would begin a reign on this earth...that would come first. The other would come later for it was NOT AT HAND. DUH!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Geoff is not a preterist either. Why do you keep assuming that everyone who disagrees with you and may agree on some points with me is? Like I had earlier stated, the argument I presented is one that would be agreed to across a variety of views, not just my own particular subset.

[geoff]

Correct, I am not a preterist. I think daywalker has got in over his head, and is grasping at straws.

[studyhound]

I would say that your system simply creates and divides up the people of God and inserts gaps and delays to prop up prophecies which are already fulfilled because the timing statements have to explained away.
Wait isn't that what we say of dispensationalists? :fight:



:studyhound:

[Dee Dee Warren]

SH, there was a formatting mistake. Mike was quoting me, that was not something he was saying.

[studyhound]

:doh:

[Dee Dee Warren]

No problem, just wanted to clear that up.

[studyhound]

Just typifies the day I have had! :b_lame: :lol:

[Daywalker]

Correct, I am not a preterist. I think daywalker has got in over his head, and is grasping at straws.
Hey, I can only point people to the truth, only God can change them. Again, you never stayed with Rom. 13 because you COULDN'T. I am sure that the Pharisess of Christ's day said the same things about his doctrine, so I have no reason to assume that you folks would be any different.
Again, in Rom. 13 the night was FAR SPENT, the DAY was AT HAND...it was nearer than they had believed.

Those that reject OSAS will say that a man had to endure to the end to remain a child of God. Obviously, that was not the issue of the salvation spoken of in Rom. 13 because it was AT HAND and NEARER than they had believed. The coming of Christ was NOT at hand. Still nobody has dealt with my verses-only gone AROUND THEM.

Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It can't be their salvation because Paul and the Romans were already COMPLETELY saved from sins. Romans is clear. The only thing left was their hope to come. It would begin with a reign. Romans 4 and 8 was clear on that. The reason you folks can't see it is because you won't keep an open mind.

It is like I tell everyone:
When a man wants the truth, there is nothing that you can do to STOP them from getting it.

When a man does NOT want the truth, there is nothing that you can do to give it to them.

As far as me :haha: "me getting in over my head" goes, give me a break. :lmbo: :lol:
The only thing that you folks have done for me is just to give me some sermon illustrations on "failure in the Christian life".

[Dee Dee Warren]

The only thing that you folks have done for me is just to give me some sermon illustrations on "failure in the Christian life".

:no:

[geoff]

Hey, I can only point people to the truth, only God can change them. Again, you never stayed with Rom. 13 because you COULDN'T. I am sure that the Pharisess of Christ's day said the same things about his doctrine, so I have no reason to assume that you folks would be any different.
Again, in Rom. 13 the night was FAR SPENT, the DAY was AT HAND...it was nearer than they had believed.Calling me a pharisee doesnt advance your argument any more than anything you have just written. Obviously you havent studied Pauline theology very well.


Those that reject OSAS will say that a man had to endure to the end to remain a child of God. Obviously, that was not the issue of the salvation spoken of in Rom. 13 because it was AT HAND and NEARER than they had believed. The coming of Christ was NOT at hand. Still nobody has dealt with my verses-only gone AROUND THEM.
So now I reject OSAS? Huh? Rom 13 doesnt support your view. The coming of Christ is the end of the beginning of the end. Then end has begun with his death and ressurrection. The end will finally come when He returns in judgement. There is nothing else.


Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It can't be their salvation because Paul and the Romans were already COMPLETELY saved from sins. Romans is clear. The only thing left was their hope to come. It would begin with a reign. Romans 4 and 8 was clear on that. The reason you folks can't see it is because you won't keep an open mind.Why would it begin with a reign? There is no proof. Surely the perfection of humanity begins with the removal of Sin once and for all. Something that is also necessary for the "reign". You cant have one and not the other. You should read 1 Cor 15.


It is like I tell everyone:
When a man wants the truth, there is nothing that you can do to STOP them from getting it.

When a man does NOT want the truth, there is nothing that you can do to give it to them.

As far as me :haha: "me getting in over my head" goes, give me a break. :lmbo: :lol:
The only thing that you folks have done for me is just to give me some sermon illustrations on "failure in the Christian life".
No, we have told you what Scripture says. You have given us what you would LIKE Scripture to say, in order for it to fit your indoctrinated belief system.
I think Toby Mac was wrong when he sang "if you seek the truth, you dont have to look far, cuz its gonna find you". Obviously you have some seeking to do.

[Daywalker]

So now I reject OSAS? Huh? Rom 13 doesnt support your view. The coming of Christ is the end of the beginning of the end. Then end has begun with his death and ressurrection. The end will finally come when He returns in judgement. There is nothing else.

Why would it begin with a reign? There is no proof. Surely the perfection of humanity begins with the removal of Sin once and for all. Something that is also necessary for the "reign". You cant have one and not the other. You should read 1 Cor 15.


No explaining away. Salvation is ultimately, salvation from judgement and the final death. This occurs AT THE END. The process of redeeming creation has begun, but is not complete.
Okay, Geoff...then explain this...
How in the world could there salvation be at hand when you interpret that to be the removal of sin, etc when the Second Coming would come LATER and was NOT at hand????
Is the removal of sin taken care of before the second coming?
If you say yes, then we have a HUGE and major problem STILL.
How in the world do you get around "at hand" when in fact it would be "at hand" for over 2000 years!?!? SIN is still here. I am waiting for your answer on this...it should be good one!
Remember, the salvation of Rom. 13 was NEARER than they believed. Is 2000 plus years NEARER than they believed!?!?

AND if it was the removal of sin, par for the course...because the temple being destroyed in AD 70 was centered around sin and it was scheduled to come later.

:lol:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Why would it begin with a reign? There is no proof. Surely the perfection of humanity begins with the removal of Sin once and for all. Something that is also necessary for the "reign". You cant have one and not the other. You should read 1 Cor 15.

Though I have a different take on Romans 13 this is spot on Geoff. And has been a very prevalent position of the Church who have not been preterists. This is not some odd minority view.

[geoff]

Okay, Geoff...then explain this...
How in the world could there salvation be at hand when you interpret that to be the removal of sin, etc when the Second Coming would come LATER and was NOT at hand????
Is the removal of sin taken care of before the second coming?
If you say yes, then we have a HUGE and major problem STILL.
How in the world do you get around "at hand" when in fact it would be "at hand" for over 2000 years!?!? SIN is still here. I am waiting for your answer on this...it should be good one!
Remember, the salvation of Rom. 13 was NEARER than they believed. Is 2000 plus years NEARER than they believed!?!?

AND if it was the removal of sin, par for the course...because the temple being destroyed in AD 70 was centered around sin and it was scheduled to come later.

:lol:
Do I really need to explain?
I guess so.

At the basis of Paul's theology is an "already - not yet" soteriological tension.
The Kingdom of God has been inaugerated, that is, begun. It began when Christ rose from the dead.
In the sense of salvation, it means that through Christ we are saved. We will be saved ultimately from judgement. But at this time, it means we are reborn, and in the process of sanctification, becoming Holy.
God views us through the work Christ has done (imputed righteousness).
But that is not to say we are sinless (1 John 1:8). We will not and can not be "actually" sinless until we are resurrected in a new sinless (spiritual) body, as opposed to the evil (fleshly, soulish) body we live in.

Our hope is in the return of Christ, whom, when he comes, will destroy evil eternally, restore us and creation to a sinless perfected state. This is when the Kingdom "comes".

Of course salvation is nearer when you believe. When you dont believe, there is no salvation.

Salvation is "at hand", because salvation is salvation from the penality of Sin. The penalty of Sin is death (ultimately in the lake of Fire). As believers, we know, and God knows that we will not see this judgement, and are exhorted to live as though we are already on the otherside of this judgement.

This is all really just basic Soteriology. Although most sects of Christianity have a slightly different take, the general consensus would be "this is fairly accurate"
(just saw Dee Dee's comment... thanks <G>)

[geoff]

This is not some odd minority view.
I am an odd minority though :)

[Daywalker]

But at this time, it means we are reborn, and in the process of sanctification, becoming Holy.

Our hope is in the return of Christ, whom, when he comes, will destroy evil eternally, restore us and creation to a sinless perfected state. This is when the Kingdom "comes".

Of course salvation is nearer when you believe. When you dont believe, there is no salvation.

Salvation is "at hand", because salvation is salvation from the penality of Sin. The penalty of Sin is death (ultimately in the lake of Fire). As believers, we know, and God knows that we will not see this judgement, and are exhorted to live as though we are already on the otherside of this judgement.

This is all really just basic Soteriology. Although most sects of Christianity have a slightly different take, the general consensus would be "this is fairly accurate"
(just saw Dee Dee's comment... thanks <G>)
And something else that I should have mentioned. Satan was to be bruised under their feet shortly...never happened. What does it mean to be bruised UNDER ONE'S FEET?
To be under one's feet means to have authority over. They did not have it yet, but they would have it SHORTLY. Again, that is how the reign would have been possible. Under the kingdom of God that was to be soon manifest they would have had a reign in which case God's government would have RULED. They would have been IN God's government. Hence, the God of Peace would bruise Satan under their feet shortly.

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Geoff, your view of Rom.13 is a FARCE. If salvation was AT HAND then it did not matter if they believed it OR NOT. Rom.13 tells them to cast off the works of darkness NOT so that their salvation COULD BE at hand, but because it WAS LITERALLY AT HAND. Period. DOn't add words to the word of God.

You go on to say that salvation at hand was being saved from the lake of fire ultimately-never mind the fact that THAT is no where in the text.

Geoff, what you said was TOTALLY incoherant...

[Daywalker]

Though I have a different take on Romans 13 this is spot on Geoff. And has been a very prevalent position of the Church who have not been preterists. This is not some odd minority view.
I don't care who accepted it. I don't base my doctrine on how many hold to a view, just whether or not the bible says it or not.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I don't care who accepted it. I don't base my doctrine on how many hold to a view, just whether or not the bible says it or not.

You need to reread my statement and not take it as an attack. Here is what I was saying in other words. My point was that this is not a view peculiar to preterists who are a minority view. My comment about a minority view was about my own, not about yours. I was not even speaking to you directly though of course you are free to comment, but my point was not directed at you. My comment was intended to convey that this insight is not exclusive to those of my particular persuasion, an admitted minority but this view has been a majority one.

And though you have insinuated otherwise multiple times throughout this thread, those that disagree with you also love the Bible, and we are not speaking of errors on anyone's part that deny an essential of the faith.

[studyhound]

And that verse states what about Christ's "current" reign? Nothing...
Ya well, a King sitting on the throne Does means nothing. :ahem: :lol:

:studyhound:

[Dee Dee Warren]

You think?

[Daywalker]

Ya well, a King sitting on the throne Does means nothing. :ahem: :lol:

:studyhound:
Believe what you wish. But if Christ reigns over the earth today, what need did this planet ever have of an antichrist? God does NOT work through George Bush or any other authority figure. He rules the heaven-he works IN us, that is all for now...

And dee dee, I did not take the comment as being directed at me at all...I am simply giving my opinion...but about my comments and apparent rudeness...it is NOTHING compared to how you talked to me on paltalk last year. THIS here is business, what you did was personal. Calling me a heretic is fine...I have no problem with that. That is what they call "life". But you insulted my character VERBALLY in front of your whole room. So, save the false piety.

[Daywalker]

Believe what you wish. But if Christ reigns over the earth today, what need did this planet ever have of an antichrist? God does NOT work through George Bush or any other authority figure. He rules the heaven-he works IN us, that is all for now...

And dee dee, I did not take the comment as being directed at me at all...I am simply giving my opinion...but about my comments and apparent rudeness...it is NOTHING compared to how you talked to me on paltalk last year. THIS here is business, what you did was personal. Calling me a heretic is fine...I have no problem with that. That is what they call "life". But you insulted my character VERBALLY in front of your whole room. So, save the false piety.
NOTE: Calling me a heretic is fine. Whatever, that at least would be doctrinal. You did not call me that though. What you did is to get up in the room after I had answered someone regarding a paticular issue and comment on how you thought I was full of pride and THEN went on to state that you don't just normally say that. THEN you went ON TO ASK the room if THEY PICKED THAT UP TO. The heck of it is, I was not even TRYING to cause trouble and you are NOT my God, so that means you can't judge my motives so easily either. But, that did not stop you. Whatever.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And dee dee, I did not take the comment as being directed at me at all...I am simply giving my opinion...but about my comments and apparent rudeness...it is NOTHING compared to how you talked to me on paltalk last year. THIS here is business, what you did was personal. Calling me a heretic is fine...I have no problem with that. That is what they call "life". But you insulted my character VERBALLY in front of your whole room. So, save the false piety.

Hold off a minute here Mike... it would have been nice if you came to me personally before each of your posts to me recently have been oozing with a hostility that I have no idea of what you are talking about. And I still have no idea what you are talking about. Not in this thread as it is not what it is for, I ask you to PM me about exactly what I did to offend you for I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. And if what is said here is "business" I ask you to stop bringing personal hostility into it as you have just admited your are doing. I await your PM for I am without a clue about what you are talking about.

On another note, if you do not think both of us who are very confident of our positions can come off as prideful, you are fooling yourself. I honestly do not remember the comment, but I can see that accusation being lobbed at both of us, and probably legitimately so in quite a few cases.

If you cannot respond to my thread though without personal hostility (doctrinal aggressiveness is fine) then please do not post here, and I will pay you the same favor. However, I would prefer to resolve the issue privately between us.

[Daywalker]

And if what is said here is "business" I ask you to stop bringing personal hostility into it as you have just admited your are doing.
I did not admit that I was being that way...but I do know that is how it is taken. This is not meant as personal hostility.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay it is coming across that way. Doctrinal disputes are fine. I still am inviting your PM to resolve personal issues, I have no desire to fued with you and had no knowledge of your grievance of last year. And I do ask no matter how you mean it to calm down on the apparent rudeness in this thread.

[geoff]

And something else that I should have mentioned. Satan was to be bruised under their feet shortly...never happened. What does it mean to be bruised UNDER ONE'S FEET?
To be under one's feet means to have authority over. They did not have it yet, but they would have it SHORTLY. Again, that is how the reign would have been possible. Under the kingdom of God that was to be soon manifest they would have had a reign in which case God's government would have RULED. They would have been IN God's government. Hence, the God of Peace would bruise Satan under their feet shortly.

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Geoff, your view of Rom.13 is a FARCE. If salvation was AT HAND then it did not matter if they believed it OR NOT. Rom.13 tells them to cast off the works of darkness NOT so that their salvation COULD BE at hand, but because it WAS LITERALLY AT HAND. Period. DOn't add words to the word of God.

You go on to say that salvation at hand was being saved from the lake of fire ultimately-never mind the fact that THAT is no where in the text.

Geoff, what you said was TOTALLY incoherant...
daywalker, everything i said is in Scripture somewhere. For example, the lake of fire is in Revelations, the passage on ressurection is 1 Cor 15.

So far, you have just made some claims, which force understanding on this passage. For example:

If salvation was AT HAND then it did not matter if they believed it OR NOT How on earth can one be saved withOUT believing you're going to be saved?
I'm incoherent?

om.13 tells them to cast off the works of darkness NOT so that their salvation COULD BE at hand, but because it WAS LITERALLY AT HAND. Poor people. obviously it WASNT literally at hand, because Christ hasnt come yet (your view), neither were they raised again in a spiritual body (1 Cor 15).
Perhaps Paul was mistaken. Either He was, or you are. I think I'll throw my bible and and believe you.

Let me help you.
I am just doing my final paper for my BA, and I have a neat little summary of Pauls eschatology in Corinthians for it. It should suffice to give you a decent outline of Pauls eschatology generally (including Romans).


The essentially eschatological framework of Paul’s thought stands out nowhere more clearly than in this letter. Against the over-realised eschatology of the Corinthians, Paul stresses that Christian existence stands under an “already...but not yet” tension. The future age has already begun (1:26-28; 7:29-31; 10:11). Christ’s resurrection marked the turning of the ages and the gift of the eschatological Spirit is certain evidence that the End has dawned. The believer’s present existence is entirely determined by the future which has already been set in motion. This is why ethical obedience is not optional; the life of God’s future has already commenced. God’s people are to live therefore as if the old order, which is passing away, no longer conditions their lives. And “the paradigm of present ethical life is our crucified Messiah (4:10-13).” But the future still awaits its final consummation (2:9; 6:14; 13:9f; 15:1-28). Believers look forward to the parousia of Christ (1:4-8;11:26; 15:23), the resurrection of the dead (15:24-28, 54-57) and final judgment (4:5).

[Dee Dee Warren]

The essentially eschatological framework of Paul’s thought stands out nowhere more clearly than in this letter. Against the over-realised eschatology of the Corinthians, Paul stresses that Christian existence stands under an “already...but not yet” tension. The future age has already begun (1:26-28; 7:29-31; 10:11). Christ’s resurrection marked the turning of the ages and the gift of the eschatological Spirit is certain evidence that the End has dawned. The believer’s present existence is entirely determined by the future which has already been set in motion. This is why ethical obedience is not optional; the life of God’s future has already commenced. God’s people are to live therefore as if the old order, which is passing away, no longer conditions their lives. And “the paradigm of present ethical life is our crucified Messiah (4:10-13).” But the future still awaits its final consummation (2:9; 6:14; 13:9f; 15:1-28). Believers look forward to the parousia of Christ (1:4-8;11:26; 15:23), the resurrection of the dead (15:24-28, 54-57) and final judgment (4:5)

Hey Geoff, in some ways we agree tremendously. I wholeheartedly agree with that now/not yet tension.

[hnoii]

Dee Dee,

Very nice - and true.

[geoff]

Hey Geoff, in some ways we agree tremendously. I wholeheartedly agree with that now/not yet tension.
Thanks.

I know that there are some people who dont believe it. :eek:
But I think they are few and far between. Inaugerated Eschatology is most common these days, even if peoples particular theological bent twists the rest of their theology, generally its accepted that the Kingdom has begun, but not yet fulfilled.

[Daywalker]

daywalker, everything i said is in Scripture somewhere. For example, the lake of fire is in Revelations, the passage on ressurection is 1 Cor 15.

So far, you have just made some claims, which force understanding on this passage. For example:
How on earth can one be saved withOUT believing you're going to be saved?
I'm incoherent?
Poor people. obviously it WASNT literally at hand, because Christ hasnt come yet (your view), neither were they raised again in a spiritual body (1 Cor 15).
Perhaps Paul was mistaken. Either He was, or you are. I think I'll throw my bible and and believe you.

Let me help you.
I am just doing my final paper for my BA, and I have a neat little summary of Pauls eschatology in Corinthians for it. It should suffice to give you a decent outline of Pauls eschatology generally (including Romans).

[/font]
No, Geoff, let me help YOU. You pushed everything in that text aside just to jump to I.Cor. What a shame.
These people were SAINTS and these saints were about to receive THEIR SALVATION. FROM HELL? No, that is NOT the issue. Grab a concordance and look up SAVED and SAVE and SALVATION. Take a good look. MOST of the time it does not mean to be saved from sins, per se. What is going on is that the kingdom of GOd was going to be made physically manifest and they would then rule BEFORE Christ even comes back. I. Cor. is AFTER Christ returns. You are looking at Sorry that almost all the commentators are off on this, but YES, th different administrations in Rom. at is what was supposed to happen no matter what your bible school taught you. and I.Cor. 15

You know what...I am done wasting my time.

[geoff]

No, Geoff, let me help YOU. You pushed everything in that text aside just to jump to I.Cor. What a shame.
These people were SAINTS and these saints were about to receive THEIR SALVATION. FROM HELL? No, that is NOT the issue. Grab a concordance and look up SAVED and SAVE and SALVATION. Take a good look. MOST of the time it does not mean to be saved from sins, per se. What is going on is that the kingdom of GOd was going to be made physically manifest and they would then rule BEFORE Christ even comes back. I. Cor. is AFTER Christ returns. You are looking at Sorry that almost all the commentators are off on this, but YES, th different administrations in Rom. at is what was supposed to happen no matter what your bible school taught you. and I.Cor. 15

You know what...I am done wasting my time.
NOWHERE in Rom 13 does it say, or even by the widest extrapolation, that Christians would be sinless, perfected rulers of creation prior to Christ coming back. The kingdom of God IS manifest, but only in part, in believers. The totality of the Kingdom does not exist, and can not exist while there is still sin, and sinners, and the Prince of this world to prevent it.

You can SAY the commentators are off, but you have demonstrated no reason for us to believe you, and definately no reason to believe you know more about it than me, DeeDee, my professor, or any of the scholars I have read about it.

Since when, by the way, does salvation in Scripture, have nothing to do with salvation?

You are more than welcome to give up. I'd prefer that you actually gave me some reason to think I was wrong. Dont worry... I can handle it, all my biblical beliefs have been challenged over and over again.

[Daywalker]

NOWHERE in Rom 13 does it say, or even by the widest extrapolation, that Christians would be sinless, perfected rulers of creation prior to Christ coming back. The kingdom of God IS manifest, but only in part, in believers. The totality of the Kingdom does not exist, and can not exist while there is still sin, and sinners, and the Prince of this world to prevent it.

You can SAY the commentators are off, but you have demonstrated no reason for us to believe you, and definately no reason to believe you know more about it than me, DeeDee, my professor, or any of the scholars I have read about it.

Since when, by the way, does salvation in Scripture, have nothing to do with salvation?

You are more than welcome to give up. I'd prefer that you actually gave me some reason to think I was wrong. Dont worry... I can handle it, all my biblical beliefs have been challenged over and over again.
First off, I never said SINLESS. That was your petty nonesense...but there you go...if you have to add words to what I said just to defend your position, go ahead...
If you read my initial reply to this thread there was MORE than enough reason to answer your problems...but that would require admitting that you JUST MIGHT NOT HAVE IT ALL DOWN PAT.

[Yog^sothoth]

what is this guys problem?
Daywalker,

While I realize the anger that can be felt when someone who doesn't see things your way, it seems a bit unrealistic that getting angry and attacking another will actually do any good. Each person interpret's things differently and if there is anything that is true in the world these days, it is that people can always be relied on for interpreting things in strange and mysterious ways. I'm not saying that Geoff here is being weird and is wrong, that is not for me to judge, but I am saying that while we may see things one way, another may see things in another. This in no way makes them wrong just as much as it does not make you wrong. Coming to a conclusion about a matter is something that must be done in order for progress to be made in the personal philosophy of one's life. With that being said, no one gets anywhere by attacking another's views by calling someone names; that is just rude.

Consider this a warning and if I find myself reading another personal attack from you toward anyone it will be edited.

Thank you!

Nick

[geoff]

Ok,

So you can quite complaining, less just look at what you said.


Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It can't be their salvation because Paul and the Romans were already COMPLETELY saved from sins. Romans is clear. The only thing left was their hope to come. It would begin with a reign. Romans 4 and 8 was clear on that. The reason you folks can't see it is because you won't keep an open mind.
Answer me this, what is the hope to come?
Let me answer for you - "the millienial reign of Christ".

Unless of course you are talking about some other kind of reign.

I have already demonstrated from Matthew why it can not be a millenial reign of Christ. Because in Matt 24 we are CLEARLY told that when the Christ returns next, it will be to sweep away and destroy evil, just as it was in the days of Noah.

In thessalonians we are told that when Christ comes, it is to gather believers to Him (not to reign for a thousand years).

Just as a note, the verses in Romans are an exhortation to right living. Now that we have come out of the Night (darkness), and knowing that Christ could return anything, living in obedience to God. We the fortunate grow ever closer to God and thus our salvation is, figuratively, nearer. Not only is it figuratively nearer, but it is literally nearer, because ultimately we will avoid judgement and the second death, which is why, and what we entrust ourselves to Jesus for.

Remember, to be truly saved is to be made like Christ, the firstfruits of the promise, resurrected from the dead in a sinless, perfect body. THAT is our hope.
1 Cor 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain. 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures

1 Cor 15:42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

It seems to me that your understanding of Romans 13 makes Paul double minded. How can he say one thing and then another?

[Daywalker]

Ok,

So you can quite complaining, less just look at what you said.


Answer me this, what is the hope to come?
Let me answer for you - "the millienial reign of Christ".

Unless of course you are talking about some other kind of reign.

I have already demonstrated from Matthew why it can not be a millenial reign of Christ. Because in Matt 24 we are CLEARLY told that when the Christ returns next, it will be to sweep away and destroy evil, just as it was in the days of Noah.

In thessalonians we are told that when Christ comes, it is to gather believers to Him (not to reign for a thousand years).

Just as a note, the verses in Romans are an exhortation to right living. Now that we have come out of the Night (darkness), and knowing that Christ could return anything, living in obedience to God. We the fortunate grow ever closer to God and thus our salvation is, figuratively, nearer. Not only is it figuratively nearer, but it is literally nearer, because ultimately we will avoid judgement and the second death, which is why, and what we entrust ourselves to Jesus for.

Remember, to be truly saved is to be made like Christ, the firstfruits of the promise, resurrected from the dead in a sinless, perfect body. THAT is our hope.
1 Cor 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain. 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures

1 Cor 15:42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

It seems to me that your understanding of Romans 13 makes Paul double minded. How can he say one thing and then another?


Geoff, its over. I am not going to spend forever trying to persuade and reason with you. Honestly, I did not even read your response. I just glanced and moved on.

[geoff]

Geoff, its over. I am not going to spend forever trying to persuade and reason with you. Honestly, I did not even read your response. I just glanced and moved on.
I dont know how you expect to dialogue with people then...

Perhaps you are afraid you might learn something from someone?

ah well. your loss not mine. I can go back to studying 1st Corinthians again, and exegeting the whole flippin thing :/
(sigh the things they make us do)

[Daywalker]

I dont know how you expect to dialogue with people then...

Perhaps you are afraid you might learn something from someone?

ah well. your loss not mine. I can go back to studying 1st Corinthians again, and exegeting the whole flippin thing :/
(sigh the things they make us do)
Dialogue with people is just fine. As far as learning something from you goes yes, I have learned how to apply this verse in view of our conversations. No more casting of the pearls of scripture to you...
Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[Dee Dee Warren]

That was unnecessary Mike. I did request that the rudeness in this thread be curbed, please honor that request.

[Daywalker]

That was unnecessary Mike. I did request that the rudeness in this thread be curbed, please honor that request.
Well, Dee Dee...what about HIS rudeness? I simply applied the doctrinal aggressiveness that you had mentioned and said that you allowed. What he said was just as sarcastic as what I said. I simply chalked it up under "oh, well-thats life". You on the other hand have singled my post out to make no mention of his obvious sarcasm...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Perhaps it is just me, which is why we have noninvolved moderators (notice I am not a moderator in this thread) but I have not found Geoff rude to you. In your last statement you used a verse that applies in its context to foul nonbelievers and applied it to Geoff. You don't think that is over the line? I do in the context of this conversation. You can zealously defend your beliefs for sure but you have done so very belittlingly and arrogantly in this thread. Before you say I have done the same before, you are right. And as I participate in threads where I am not and see how it comes across I am learning to adjust my own behaviour, thus my apology to you (unaccepted as of this date) in the other thread.

So please respect my wishes on this thread and tone down the rudeness a bit. I do want to interact with you some more and don't want to see you quite the thread entirely, but I would like to keep it a bit more pleasant and respectful.

[Daywalker]

my apology to you (unaccepted as of this date) in the other thread.
Apology accepted. Have a good day.
-Mike

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you and you too Mike. It is much appreciated.

[geoff]

I however, amd still quite offended...


If you read my initial reply to this thread there was MORE than enough reason to answer your problems...but that would require admitting that you JUST MIGHT NOT HAVE IT ALL DOWN PAT. My response in the post that daywalker "ignored" - was a second (or 3rd) response to his "original" post. I had tried to make it a clear and direct response to him, so he would no longer be albe to complain and would actually respond with decency.

[Yog^sothoth]

What is with this guy?
Daywalker said, at some point, this phrase:


Hey, I can only point people to the truth

Now, while I appreciate any good truth telling, you arrived at your truth the same way as everyone else may have, through reading the scriptures and arriving at a judgement based on what you knew and have learned since that time. In the beginning of this thread you were very studious and polite in your wording and while I admire your depth and clarity of vision regarding the truth as you see it, you must also realize that you have become quite defensive in the later parts of these threads.

It is only natural for someone and perhaps even many someones to disagree with what you have to say. It is the very nature of a relationship with our faith's that provide us this furor to defend what we believe. While we may have a very violent urge to defend our beliefs in a cantankerous way, it will only make us look like a person who cannot believe that anyone could be so stupid as to believe something you did not. This creates a mountain around our scope of vision through which we can only see what we know and blocks from view everything else. As we grow, our thoughts grow with us, our beliefs change and refomulate themselves as time passes.

Daywalker, you are correct in saying that Geoff is becoming a little defensive in his posts but look at yours. How can someone who out and out attacks another expect anything but the same in return? Humility is a virtue that will help us in prideful times such as these. What i've said here also goes for everyone in this thread. No name calling has gotten out of hand yet. I am still watching to see if you fine people can control yourselves.

I'll be watching! :lol:

Nick

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey there Mike. It was a pleasure fellowshipping with you in Paltalk Sat night and that we have repaired any breach between us.

I would like to respond to your response to my last substantive post.


Not the point!?! Really? Are you suggesting that Christ *is not in fact ruling over the nations now*?


Yep. That is *exactly* what I am saying. He is _not reigning now, man is_. Christ always has had an influence in this world, but that is not
the same a governmental order and /control/. If Christ is reigning now,
then we are in trouble, because it is the worse reign that this world
has ever seen.

The Scripture teaches otherwise in many of the verses I raised before. Man has never ruled the earth, and God always has.

For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with understanding. God reigns over the nations; God sits on His holy throne.

Do you know what abominations were going on in the nations at the time that was written? What fornication, idolatry, murders, blasphemies? By the logic expressed above God was a lousy King. This should give a great clue that the reign of God and Christ does not require utopia, and it is exactly because of the freedom he as King has deigned to give us.

If this reign is not what we expected, then it our expectations and understandings that are in error. Thus we can see this objection cannot hold any weight.

I find it needful to reiterate some things said in my earlier post.

I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for Your inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces likes a potter's vessel.

This once again is describing the current reign of Christ. Over the nations. Over ALL. It is not speaking of a Millennium of peace, but of violence in which Christ conquers the disobedient, of which there are plenty. Notice in Psalm 110:2 a "rod" is also mentioned. It is the rod of the present rule of Christ. The Book of Hebrews chapter 1 tells us that the Psalm 2 event started in the first century. He was then ruling over ALL, in fact upholding ALL things by the word of His power. All things would include the nations, in fact, it is the governance of the universe.



Revelation 11:15 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.

What else would "are become" mean if it "always was"? Without even
getting into the /whole/ Preterism vs. Futurism thing here, the fact
remains that when Christ ascended to heaven he did not simply have his
rule in this world. I imagine that a Preterist would say that this verse
was fulfilled in AD 70ish? Even so...that would still place it after the
ascension and the Acts period.

This does not take into consideration the “now/not yet” reality of Scripture. Mike and I would agree that the destruction of death is a future event (1 Cor 15:26), yet the Scripture just as clearly teaches that it is a past event as well (2 Tim 1:10). Preterists see the period of time from the earthly ministry of Christ until the fall of Jerusalem as one block of time, a generational block. Ancient cultures did not think in such a strictly linear fashion as we do, but viewed events very typically as a totality. The entire span of time was one event culminating in the fall of Jerusalem. If that point of view is correct, there is no difficulty with that verse at all. Christ was judicially given the Kingdoms at his Ascension as taught by numerous Scriptures that I provided in my last post, and it was publicly shown and vindicated in the Fall of the apostates and their city (and you shall see the sign of the Son of Man in heaven)(Matt 24:30). The sign that the Son of Man was enthroned and exercising his rod of rulership was “the days of vengeance” (Luke 21:22)against those who “crucified the Lord of Glory.” (1 Cor 2:8)


For the record, I stated principalities and powers...

Then you need to explain what principalities and powers are if you did not intend to mean angels and demons. I did not mean to misrepresent you but that was a very logical way to take your words, but I will let you define your own.


Again, a person will be hard pressed to prove that the body of knowledge "handed to the Ephesians" emphatically declared that Christ rules the
nations.

Really? I have to repeat what I pointed out before…


... far above all principality and power and might and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come.[/b]

This is not limited. Paul goes out of his way to be unlimited. Is there a name to be named? Christ is ruling over it and subjugating it. Is that "name" a nation? Is it the "nations"? It is included. Paul is universal. Additionally Paul states that the extent of Christ's reign remains the same spanning two ages. If anyone is positing a future reign over the nations in some "millennium" - if He is not ruling over the nations now, He won't be then either.

Let's look at the extent that Paul gives (and remember just in case he missed anything, Paul adds "and every name that is named" - kind of like how Psalm 8:6 goes so far as to say even the animals are included).


Remember too, we can not speak for them and demand that they
could cross reference like us. They would have just read Eph. and
believed what was stated. If God wanted to show them that Christ was now
ruling the nations, Paul could have written it. Who rules the world? LFW.


The passage in question emphatically stated that Christ was, and it is certainly not necessary to think that the only teaching given to the Ephesians was what is contained in the epistle. If Paul taught elsewhere (which we know additionally by cross-referencing and not just in the NT) that Christ ruled the nations (and no need as he taught it in Ephesians anyways), then there is every reason to believe that was part of the common body of knowledge that he taught to all the churches he taught. This would be like stating that the Ephesians had no knowledge of the Second Coming since that doctrine does not appear in that epistle. And I would further note that the OT teaches the coming of the Messiah began His reign. The idea of a Second Coming to force a Kingdom that Christ rejected is patently unbiblical, and unfortunately most of the Church today is guilty of the same error of the first century Jews who craved a carnal Kingdom and not the fuller reality that Christ offered. It is like looking to the earthly Temple and earthly Jerusalem when we are told these are just types and shadows of the heavenly reality. (Hebrews 8:5)

And again, I am finding it pretty simple to turn those arguments to devour themselves. LFW is not destroyed at the Second Coming in a premill scenario and thus would still be the de facto “ruler” of the world. We give way too much power to man. LFW explains how Christ is in fact ruling and yet it is not utopia.



Psalms 110:3 Thy people shall be *willing in the day of thy power*, in
the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew
of thy youth.
Do we really believe that the nations are /WILLING/ right now?

The text doesn’t say they would be. It is “His people” that would be, a group that will expand as He reigns and subjugates.




Just ask the United Nations... Just because he sits on the throne does not mean
that that is the current state of his administration. Again, it stated
"in the day" of his power. Evidently, that day has yet to come. I would
HATE to think that this is as good as it gets. Thankfully, it isn't.

The whole throne imagery IS speaking of His reign. To not acknowledge that again is a low context reading of Scripture. The “throne” is a synecdoche for the rule and kingdom.

This is seen in many passages

And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Your seed I will establish forever, and build up your throne to all generations.

It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne is established by righteousness.

The examples could be multiplied.




And as a matter of fact, it is clearly stated what His throne means again:

I watched till thrones were put into place…..[/b] I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! [b]He came to the Ancient of Days[b], and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.


And without personal disrespect the Jews of the first century rejected the Kingdom for the same reasons. It didn’t meet their expectations. Our expectations must conform to God. Jesus plainly said that His Kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36) and resisted any attempts to make him an earthly King.

Now back a sec on the “nations” thing – this is very interesting in that in a dispie view, the church IS made up of the “nations” due to a false disjunction between the Church and Israel, so even there Christ is ruling over the “nations.”



Preterism is built under the notion that the judgment in AD 70 was *NOT*
over the whole of the planet, but rather localized.

The entire context of Matthew 24 (ironically enough as must be admitted in your own construct unless you think the American Indians were in for it in the second century and that running to the mountains would offer safety from the stars careening to the earth) screams local judgment.


Ironic. When this
text listed above comes to pass, it will have the rebellious nations
unto the ends of the earth in shambles exactly as the verse states.

For the clarification of the readers, the text in question is Psalm 2. The objection here presupposes that Psalm 2 is speaking of the same event as Matthew 24. It is not, it is speaking of the progressive spread of Christ’s Kingdom, not a single event which the NT tells us began in the first century (and this was mentioned in Hebrews long after God allegedly aborted His original plan). The context of Psalm 2 speaks of a time of subjugation of active enemies, not a Millennium of peace.



Then we have a real problem, because you have just stated that this
reign, in accordance with Ps. 110 points to his PRESENT REIGN in the
earth. Again, if this is his reign, his government is already defeated.
Sin rules the world now. Paul would agree with my comments:
Galatians 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us
from this *present evil world*, according to the will of God and our Father:

First I would note that this did not address the point of the real exegetical problems for futurism of Daniel 7, but merely said, “yeah but what about this.” One must not only raise some kind of apparent contradiction (it is not one, I will demonstrate) but the harmonize the issue. Daniel 7 is difficult chestnut for the futurist position.

The same “present evil world” existed when the OT clearly said God was reigning. Sin only reigns to the extent that God allows, thus God is still the ruler. The fact is that 1 Cor 15 is the death knell to any variation of premill thought. The last enemy to be defeated is death. That means that all other enemies are defeated prior to that, or concurrent with death’s defeat, which Paul clearly defines as the resurrection. If we all believe that we are living in the time prior to the rez and Christ’s Second Coming brings in that event, there is no way around the fact that it is the end of His reign as He consummates His Kingdom and presents it perfect to the Father. I went through this in detail in my opening post.





Again, what does it mean to RULE in the midst of your enemies. When
David reigned, there were enemies around him, but he controlled Israel.
When Christ rules then he too will rule his area-the world.

Christ is greater than David, with His throne located in the heavens making his area the world, and yes he rules over His enemies just as God did in the OT. In fact, Psalm 110 specifically shows that the rule is generating OUTWARD from “Zion” (no matter how you interpret “Zion”) showing that it is in fact His reign over the nations – the rod of His strength. He judges during THAT time (not at the end of Millennium) AMONG the nations. One cannot judge that one did not have authority over. Psalm 110 is unavoidably fatal to dispensationalism and futurism.





Here is the bottom line on this whole thing without answering every
single argument in detail...
Yes, he has a name above all names...that would mean that he is the most
honorable. It never stated anything more.

Actually I showed something completely different above. His present rule is above every thing that is named.





BUT...One day, the world will
be instructed by God to *BOW * to that name...but the fact that the
nations do not submit proves that this administration of the physical
reign in this world has not started yet. It will someday, but not yet.

Here is the great mistake! The presumption is that the subjugation makes the beginning of His Reign, but every passage I produced shows the opposite. The complete subjugation marks the end of His rule.



4. As far as time gaps go: …. Rev. is
not written with gaps in it.

Sure it is (using the word "gaps" very loosely to mean indicia of a great span of time). This is really simple to prove. If I were to say to you soon I will be coming over to your house and I will live with you for twenty years. What part of my statement is “soon”? The end of the twenty years? Of course not. By definition that part of my statement is AT LEAST twenty years away. Thus when Revelation speaks of things soon to come to pass, and yet one of those things is a “thousand year” time period, the end of the time period is by definition at least “one thousand” (no matter how you define it) years away.

[Lee1023]

WOW, This one got a little too heated :pray:

I tried to read through all the posts, but wow they were long.

I was just curious, how does the fact that Jesus said that he will no longer be known by his physical body fit into a physical or earthly reign?

I read that we are His body, and He is the head. Could it be that we are to be who he rules through? Just thinking.....

Also, I see alot about the "coming of Christ." The word "Christ" is the Greek word for the "The Annointed." This is different from "Jesus." Does the "annointing" have to return? Th scriptures teaches we are the "annointed" so how could that annointing have to return? Also, the word for "coming" is the Greek word which means presence, and in most uses does not have the verb tense that means to come from another place to here. Rather, it mean to become known. A good example would be like a dimmer switch for lights; the power is already there but it not visible until you turn the knob and bring it up to a visible level. As we decrease, the annointing increases.

I do know that post the first advent, scriptures do not teach a "coming of Jesus," but a "coming of Christ." I know some that are looking for "Jesus" to come back.

Just some ideas.

In the Love of Christ,

Lee1023

[Daywalker]

Well, you can enjoy reading Dee Dee's post, but the fact of the matter to me is this...
IF a person were sincere about the truth in searching for answers they WOULD not ,and COULD not ever come to believe even PARTIAL Preterism for more than a very, very short period and then they would realize it was a farce. (sorry, Dee Dee).

I mean, what you are doing, dee dee is taking verses about God ruling over the world that were PROPHETIC and forcing them NOW into the sceme of things. That just won't do.

Basically, I have no interest in trying to persuade you because I just feel that it is a waste of dialog as you may feel about me. That is fine. It is not personal, it is just life.
Hey, I don't go to every Catholic priest in my hometown trying to tell them to not let people confess their sins to them. If I know when I speak to them that others have tried and that there is no persuading them, then it is time to move on. And now Dee Dee, I have talked with you and it is time to move on.

Also If you want to continue to teach that it was really the Law and the Prophets that were sybolically caught up to heaven in Rev. 11, then have at. It is just a shame that they had to get killed in the story, but hey-details, details, details...

IF however, dear readers, you are looking for some sound commentary of eschatology I recommend the website listed in my profile. The author rocks!
Good day.
-Mike
Dee Dee, again, nothing personal...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Greetings Mike


Well, you can enjoy reading Dee Dee's post, but the fact of the matter to me is this...
IF a person were sincere about the truth in searching for answers they WOULD not ,and COULD not ever come to believe even PARTIAL Preterism for more than a very, very short period and then they would realize it was a farce. (sorry, Dee Dee).

Well Christ is my judge of love of the Scriptures and truth, but I appreciate your concern.



I mean, what you are doing, dee dee is taking verses about God ruling over the world that were PROPHETIC and forcing them NOW into the sceme of things. That just won't do.

Easy to say. I exegeticallly proved my case.


Basically, I have no interest in trying to persuade you because I just feel that it is a waste of dialog as you may feel about me. That is fine. It is not personal, it is just life.

Nope I don't feel that way but that is your choice of course, and no I don't take it personal. I took several hours yesterday to respond to you as I promised I would do. I walk away each time being even further edified by the solidity of my position, and I know my posts have been helpful to at least a few which is enough for me.

Some of whom have been edified by the article are not preterists as again, the article is not an apologetic for preterism though it fits well with what paradigm but also with several others.



Also If you want to continue to teach that it was really the Law and the Prophets that were sybolically caught up to heaven in Rev. 11, then have at. It is just a shame that they had to get killed in the story, but hey-details, details, details...

Sarcasm doesn't make certain issues in the text go away. I sure wish it would, cause generally as you know, I am pretty good at sarcasm. The apostates of that day did "kill" the Law and the Prophets. Jesus laid those very charges at their feet in Matthew 23 so I have no issue with taking Jesus' lead on these things.



Dee Dee, again, nothing personal...

Nope, nothing personal taken. I believe you and I are arriving at an understanding of one another where we can "trash talk" a bit and not get our respective feelings hurt.

[geoff]

George, I suspect that was just a weeee touch obscure :)


I wonder how daywalker responds to this:


1 Cor 1 8He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
*IF* we are blameless now why do we need to be "kept strong until the end".

And if Christ's return is NOT for judgement, why would we need to be kept blameless on that day, because surely, according to daywalker, we are already blameless and therefore its a pointless comment from Paul.

I am afraid, and nothing personal, but daywalkers approach flies in the face of what scripture says the truth really is.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

geoff:

"George, I suspect that was just a weeee touch obscure :)"

geo to geoff

Not obscure enough!

So I deleted it into utter obscurity!

There are times...

When silence is blessed...

geo

[geoff]

Ahh... well I am sorry you deleted it, it was still a post full of wisdom.. I am glad I got to read it :)

[Dee Dee Warren]

I promised that I was going to revise this article to add the additional information I fleshed out here and to make it much longer otherwise no one will believe that I wrote it. I also changed the first sentence to make it clear that I have not abandoned preterism as several people were confused by the way I worded it before. So here it goes:

ANGELS WE HAVE HEARD ON HIGH: The Location of Christ’s Reign

Dee Dee Warren

I am a fully recovered former premillennial, pretribulational, futurist. It is now amazing to me how easily I see the wealth of passages that utterly defeat those earlier much-cherished eschatological doctrines. That being said, I do not believe for a second that other people hold them because they are unintelligent and do not love the Word of God because I once zealously held them myself….. but I do remember that once I started taking a look at certain passages without the grid I was so carefully taught, the scaffolding just fell away. Now while I didn’t receive the particular insight that I am now going to share in those earlier days, I am hoping that this may be used to open the eyes of others to consider the possibility that the idea that Jesus is going to return to set up a thousand year Kingdom and rule from a physical throne in physical Jerusalem is simply not Biblical.

The primary text under consideration is:

….Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Paul is beautifully describing a current reality for him in the first century, the reign of Christ. It is a heavenly reign with Christ seated in the heavenlies not on the earth. It is a reign at the right hand of the Father. Most Christians can look at this passage and not grasp the implications. As a premill, I was taught that this passage describes the reign of Christ in the age in which we are now living (the same age in which Paul was living) and in the “age to come” which is the Millennial Kingdom of Christ. However…. Paul in describing the nature and location of the reality of Christ’s first century, also states that this reality continues throughout the “age to come.” That is, even if we futurize the Millennium, which can chronologically be dismantled through numerous other means, the location (in heaven) and the nature (spiritual) of Christ’s reign does not change. He was “physically” located in heaven for Paul enjoying a spiritual rule, and He will remain so throughout “the age to come.”

This comports with this passage’s reference to Psalm 110 which arguably is the most important OT passage to the NT authors as it is referenced and/or alluded to more than any other. Psalm 110 states that Christ is to sit at the right hand of the Father (He is fixed there) UNTIL His enemies are made His footstool. Now since this already happened judicially at the Cross, this cannot be what is being referred to here, but rather the actual practical subjugation of Christ’s enemies during the ages. The writer of Hebrews recognizes this tension:

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.

There will come a day when we will see all things put under Him practically, and He remains at the Father’s right hand until that happens and will physically return concurrent with the destruction of the LAST enemy, death (1 Cor. 15:26). When He returns there will be no enemies left to vanquish, the Kingdom is complete, consummated, and handed over to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). So… He cannot leave the heavenly throne and position to come to rule from the earth, which is merely His footstool (Isaiah 66:1), for in the Premill paradigm, satan is still not in the Lake of Fire, sin is still alive and kicking, and death is still a reality for the saved, and there are enough enemies to provoke a final eschatological showdown at the end of the Millennium. This is utterly contrary to Scripture. What is that sound? It is the tumblers falling into place. The "age to come" and the Kingdom are now present in His New Covenant people, the Church. Scripture offers no alternative.

ADDENDUM 4/7/04: Now in presenting this idea for debate I have come across two noteworthy objections. First, it was rightly objected that the Ephesians text is not speaking of geography but rather of position. For example, the passage says that we are also seated in the heavenlies, and we obviously are not physically there, but positionally. On its face the objector is completely right that the focus of the passage is not geography, however, I submit that the objection answers itself. How? We are positionally in heaven through the concept of representative agency through Christ who is actually in heaven. His “position” is not simply positional, it is actual. Part and parcel of the position of Christ is His location. He reigns from where YHWH reigns: from heaven. Looking again at the passage…

…which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places.

The rest of the New Testament teaches the raising was literal/physical and He literally/physically was taken up into Heaven (Acts 1:8). This is not merely positional for Christ. The position is subsumed by the actual. What others can only have by virtue of vicarious position (ie Psalm 110 applies as well to past Hebrew rulers yet ultimately to Christ); Christ in reality possesses. Further…

Luke makes it a point to say that the LOCATION was key in the Psalm 110
passage (which is the clear referent for the Ephesians passage) as follows:

For David himself did not ascend into the heavens but he says himself: The Lord said to my Lord, sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.

Luke’s point is that David could not have fully-filled that passage for
though David may have positionally been at YHWH's right hand, he did not really get seated by LOCATION in the heavens but Christ DID.

Moving on, the second objection was that this same passage is limited to Christ’s reign over the church as the “nations” were not specifically mentioned. I do not grant this objection the weight that I did the first, but feel it needs to be addressed as this is the more common dispensationalist apologetic. Now let’s look at some other passages and then come back to Ephesians 1 to tie it all down.

Rule in the midst of your enemies!

As stated, Psalm 110 is describing the current state of Christ and His current position (including location). He is currently reigning from the right hand of YHWH, and is currently reigning over His enemies. Unless the Church is His enemy, His present rule is NOT restricted to simply the Church and angels (good or bad). Now it may be objected that this passage does not say that He is ruling over His enemies, but merely in the midst of them, so let’s address that.

I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for Your inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your
possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces likes a potter's vessel.

This once again is describing the current reign of Christ. Over the nations. Over ALL. It is not speaking of a Millennium of peace, but of violence in which Christ conquers the disobedient, of which there are plenty. Notice in Psalm 110:2 a "rod" is also mentioned. It is the rod of the present rule of Christ. The Book of Hebrews chapter 1 tells us that the Psalm 2 event started in the first century. He was then ruling over ALL, in fact He was “upholding ALL things by the word of His power.”

I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.

This is not speaking of a descent to earth. Notice the directionof the coming. It is UP to the Father. This is not speaking of His return DOWN to the earth, but of His vindication over death and ascension to the Father.... the very same event spoken of by the Ephesians passage. This is quite obvious.

Now let's look once again at that primary text for discussion breaking
it apart a bit....

... and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places....

Pause. He was raised and was seated. That is exactly what is being spoken of in Daniel 7. God raised up Christ to Him and seated Him with Him (“thrones” were put in place - Daniel 7:9). This is also what is being spoken of in Psalm 110. What was Christ to do? RULE in the midst of His enemies would includes the nationswhich are explicitly mentioned in Daniel 7 and Psalm 2.

To continue ...

... far above all principality and power and might and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

Pause. This scope of authority is not limited. Paul goes out of his way to be unlimited. Is there a name to be named? Christ is ruling over it and subjugating it. Is that "name" a nation? Is that name the "nations"? It is included. Paul is universal in his scope. Additionally Paul states that the extent of Christ's reign
remains the same spanning two ages. If one is pushing off the beginning of the “age to come” to some future Millennium, the scope and character of that reign cannot be fundamentally different then the scope and character of His current reign, ie., if He is not ruling over the
nations now, He won't be then either.

Let's look at the extent that Paul gives (and remember just in case he
missed anything, Paul adds "and every name that is named" – similar to how Psalm 8:6 goes so far as to say even the animals are included in this dominion).

Principality- arche (Strong's 746) - this word primarily means
beginning, thus signifying authority, but it is used of human rulers
and authorities such as magistrates (Luke 12:11), governors (Luke
20:20), as well as Christ Himself (Col1:18; Rev 22:13); and most likely
the Father (Rev 1:8).

Power - exousia (Strong's 1849) - the word primarily means authority, it is used of humans very often as in governing power or authority (Luke 23:7 is a good example). It is not limited.

Might - dunamis (Strong's 1411) - from which we get the word dynamite - mighty works or power. Human or otherwise.

Dominion - Kuriotes (Strong's 2963) - government, lordship. It
unequivocally is referring to human government in Jude 8 and 2 Pet 2:10.

This are the words used to encompass the scope of Christ’s Lordship. Now let’s look at a related passage…

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions (kuriotes) or principalities (arche) or powers (dunamis). All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all
things, and in Him all things consist.

The verse is speaking of the supremacy of Christ over all things and
uses the very same words. One cannot limit the range of meanings here or in Ephesians. The nations are not some rogue entities outside the primacy of Christ. The connection is tight. One cannot examine the
Ephesians passage while not taking into consideration this one as well.


Thus any attempt to limit the Ephesians verse does not work. The same rule Christ was enjoying when Paul wrote, is the same rule He will/is enjoying in the age to come. Nothing is added. Not the nations. Nothing.