Historical Premillennialism

[Carl Smuda]

Historical - of, relating to, or having the character of hisory. based on history. used in the past and reproduced in historical presentations.

premillennialism - the view that Christ's return will precede and usher in a future millennium of Messianic rule mentioned in Revelation.

Premillennial - coming before a millennium. holding or relating to premillennialism.

Chiliasm - Millenarianism. :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

BEFORE there was Dispensationalism, BEFORE there was Postmillennialism, BEFORE there was Amillennialism, THERE WAS.....Classical Premillennialism. or, historical premillennialism. In the late 19th century we called it Millennialism. In the early 17th century we called in Chiliasm. Because the word for "thousand" (as in a thousand years) is, I guess, "chili".

FOR hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, probably a thousand years before Christ was born there was a belief in the DAY OF THE LORD. The DAY OF VENGENCE OF OUR GOD. The WRATH OF GOD. There would be upset of heavy duty proportions and then out from the ashes grow the roses of sucess. :yipee: OOPS, sorry wrong record. No, out from the ashes is the Golden Age of Messianic Rule.

obviously, not a little has changed. Now we get not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR. Yes, that's right you can choose between no less than four different mind-sets for your belief in "Things to Come." Not to mention the wonders of inaugurated eschatology.

Last but not least, as I myself liken to postmillennialism? I believe that the proof cannot be contested: the Lord Jesus Christ was historical premillennial. :idea:

[Hitch]

I believe that the proof cannot be contested: the Lord Jesus Christ was historical premillennial.

What did He say to make you think so?


Take care

H

[efta777]

Yes, evidence must now be provided to back up such a statement.

[Lizard]

efta777:
Yes, evidence must now be provided to back up such a statement.

I am especially interested in evidence that indicates that the "Day of the Lord" is referring to the physical return of Christ.

[Carl Smuda]

When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:10-12).Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last [shall be] first. (Matthew 19:27-30).And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. (Luke 22:15-18). I submit these verses for consideration at this time. What reasons do I have to take these in any way but literal? The reason I’m thinking that the “Day of the Lord” is the “Day of Christ” is because at this time I cannot think of any where else to put it. The Day of the Lord, as I’ve come to understand, is the end of the world. And the several places where we see something to the effect of “Day of Christ” it too, to me anyway, suggests the end of the system of things. The Day-of-Christ is a powerful concept in some of the NT letters. Peter, Philippians, Corinthians. With the Dispensational splicing removed I had no where to put the Parousia but at the end of the world. What do you all see in the those three places from the Gospels? Do they look literal? If not why not if so then as far as Christ was concerned it was a future physical event on earth. Right?

[Carl Smuda]

I just read the "end of the age" thread. I do not ignore the truths presented there. Look at this:Augsburg Confession (A.D.1530)
Article XVII
Of Christ's Return to Judgment
_______________
[cf. Confutatio Pontificia]
Also they teach that at the Consummation of the World Christ will appear for judgment and will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.
They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed. this is to me another dividing line. Even though this was written in A.D.1530 it too has a historical context. First I'm considering the simply discription of Christ's Return to Judgment but then the reference to "Jewish opinions." And then it's further stated that that jewish opinion (which they condemn) is that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world. I am taking this to be Amillennialists rejecting classical premillennialism. And I wish I had some of the works I've read that document this jewish belief back hundreds of years B.C. Give me some time and maybe I can find some.

All of the Lord Jesus Christ's original followers, and Apostles, were Jewish. They believed the Jewish beliefs about the coming wrath and the Day of the Lord and the Messianic Kingdom. So did Christ. But maybe - maybe- Paul didn't .
:read:
Why is it okay for us to re-interpret these things? Do you know what I mean? I have to give credit TO the Lord for the change, because it is His Church. But why didn't He teach it that way? (Amill/PostMill).

[Carl Smuda]

And, my friends, if Hitch can call on everyone to use only the Gospels to show Christ talking about 1,000 year reign, then I can do the same. Ignore history and the rest of canon and find me things in only the four Gospels that call in question classical premillennialism. Maybe start with why the verses I posted cannot be accepted literally. What in what Christ said, or what in the people who heard Him say those things, happened that would give us nonliteral understanding of applicable passages?

e.g. sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Outcasts of the Kingdom weeping and gnashing their teeth. in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel....I suppose "in the regeneratio" opens the door here... "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." He said He wouldn't eat either. Maybe we can allegorize or spiritualize these things, I guess in the same way Origen did.

I think that in the whole council of God's matchless Holy Word cases can be made for things fulfilled now and things fulfilled in the future. And things in the future, in the Kingdom, is all that we have about new heavens and earth. Is it all spiritual? then why bother with physical resurrections? Without the physical I think we are all gnostic.

Your thoughts? :bonk:

[Ted]

Carl,

So far, so good. But perhaps you might consider a couple of points. In John 14:1-3 Jesus tells the disciples that he is going to prepare a place for them. He will return to get them. In Acts 1 8-11 we see the ascension, and they are told the Jesus will return. 1 Thes 4:13-18 speaks of rising to meet Jesus in the air.

If Jesus is preparing a heavenly place, returning to receive us on the clouds, and we rise to meet him, isn't our destination Heaven? Further, when Jesus said the disciples would judge the 12 tribes of Israel, isn't that seen in Rev 20:4-6, where this act of judging immediately follows the first resurrection and takes place during the millennium? Should we not therefore see the millennium in heaven, with the descent of the New Jerusalem (the saints) to earth after the millennium?

For related discussion, see http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7261 on Historical Covenant Premillennialism.

Ted

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The parable of the wheat and the tares shows that premillennialism is incompatible with Scripture.

When jesus interprets that parable, he explains that God will allow history to continue despite the existence of wicked men in this world, until the day when God intervenes. And how will He intervene - by removing His people? No, by removing the wicked.

The same is true of those famous "left behind" verses in Matthew 24 and Luke 17. It is the RIGHTEOUS who will be left behind, while the wicked are swept away in God's wrath.

Jesus was not a premillennialist. Following His example, nor am I.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-01-2003 @ 12:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=5084#post5084)
Carl Smuda:
BEFORE there was Dispensationalism, BEFORE there was Postmillennialism, BEFORE there was Amillennialism, THERE WAS.....Classical Premillennialism.

Now that's an easy route to take. Let's see if I can do it too:

Before any Christian taught premilennialism, Jesus and the Apostles taught Amillennialism.

Wow! Hey, that was easy! I wonder if it will work for other views too? Let's see:

Before any Christian taught premilennialism, Jesus and the Apostles taught postmillennialism.

Hey! I'm on a roll! This assertion thing is a piece of cake!

[Jacob]

Today @ 03:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149871#post149871)
Theonomy:

The parable of the wheat and the tares shows that premillennialism is incompatible with Scripture.

When jesus interprets that parable, he explains that God will allow history to continue despite the existence of wicked men in this world, until the day when God intervenes. And how will He intervene - by removing His people? No, by removing the wicked.

The same is true of those famous "left behind" verses in Matthew 24 and Luke 17. It is the RIGHTEOUS who will be left behind, while the wicked are swept away in God's wrath.

Jesus was not a premillennialist. Following His example, nor am I.


Following your hermeneutical example (looking to the details of a parable to define your theology), what do you make of the tares?

Mt 13:38b "and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age

I understand that Christ elects the believers, as shown in v38. Doesn't this passage point to a radical form of double predestination? Don't we see the Devil being the one who determines / elects those who reject Christ?

NO.

It appears that Jesus is making a fairly simple point -- that the kingdom will exist alongside those who reject the kingdom, but that the Kingdom will prevail with those who follow Christ.

Mat 13:43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father.

Don't try to make a parable "walk on all fours"...

Jacob

[Bill the Cat]

Jacob, I can see why I like you. you have one of the most logical thought processes I have seen here. Thanks and keep up the good work.

PEARLS!!!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Today @ 02:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149976#post149976)
Jacob:

Following your hermeneutical example (looking to the details of a parable to define your theology), what do you make of the tares?

If you have anothe rlook at my post, you'll discover that I'm not defining my theology via the details of the parable. nstead, I referred to Jesus' interpretation of the parable. Recall that after telling the parable, Jesus explained its meaning. That's the part I'm drawing my eschatology from.

I understand that Christ elects the believers, as shown in v38. Doesn't this passage point to a radical form of double predestination? Don't we see the Devil being the one who determines / elects those who reject Christ?
No of course not, that particular element of the parable isn't intended to make a major theological point. It would be better to limit one's view of what this parable means to the explanation offered by jesus Hmself. That's why I like this parable as an example, since we don't have to guess what it means - Jesus tells us precisely what it means.

It appears that Jesus is making a fairly simple point -- that the kingdom will exist alongside those who reject the kingdom, but that the Kingdom will prevail with those who follow Christ.

Well the fact is, Jesus explains the parable for us, and tells us how eschatology will unfold. His point is clearly a lot more substantial than this one liner.

This is what the Lord said about His parable:
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
I'm going to make the assumption that Jesus didn't "leave out" the intervening so called "church age." It looks to me like a very simple eschatology. When the lord appears, He will remove the wicked, and not His church.

Note on more time - this teaching is not my interpretation of a parable - it is based on Jesus explanation of His own parable. Jesus was not a premillennialist. Following my master, I reject premillennialism as well.

Don't try to make a parable "walk on all fours"...
I'm just taking Jesus' explanation, rather than trying to create a complex interpretation on my own (as you seem to accuse me of). Since Jesus gave the parable, surely it is wise to trust His interpretation of it.

[Hitch]

02-05-2003 @ 09:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=8834#post8834)
Carl Smuda:

And, my friends, if Hitch can call on everyone to use only the Gospels to show Christ talking about 1,000 year reign, then I can do the same. Ignore history and the rest of canon and find me things in only the four Gospels that call in question classical premillennialism. Maybe start with why the verses I posted cannot be accepted literally. What in what Christ said, or what in the people who heard Him say those things, happened that would give us nonliteral understanding of applicable passages?

e.g. sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Outcasts of the Kingdom weeping and gnashing their teeth. in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel....I suppose "in the regeneratio" opens the door here... "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." He said He wouldn't eat either. Maybe we can allegorize or spiritualize these things, I guess in the same way Origen did.

I think that in the whole council of God's matchless Holy Word cases can be made for things fulfilled now and things fulfilled in the future. And things in the future, in the Kingdom, is all that we have about new heavens and earth. Is it all spiritual? then why bother with physical resurrections? Without the physical I think we are all gnostic.

Your thoughts? :bonk: And, my friends, if Hitch can call on everyone to use only the Gospels to show Christ talking about 1,000 year reign, then I can do the same.


Im pretty familiar with Hitch's posts and it seems I missed that one..


Ignore history and the rest of canon and find me things in only the four Gospels that call in question classical premillennialism.

How about one gospel four times?

John 6; 39,40,44,54.

Allow application to your next question here as well and to your concerns over bodily resurrection inasmuch that all preterist take this passage literally.


Take care

H

[Hitch]

All of the Lord Jesus Christ's original followers, and Apostles, were Jewish. They believed the Jewish beliefs about the coming wrath and the Day of the Lord and the Messianic Kingdom. So did Christ. But maybe - maybe- Paul didn't .

Actually in direct contrast to jewish beliefs of the time the Apostles were personally informed by Christ himself and had a consistant and profoundly christian view of the Scriptures and the future.


.Luke 24:27
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
(KJV)

Take care

H

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 04:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150424#post150424)
Theonomy:

No of course not, that particular element of the parable isn't intended to make a major theological point. It would be better to limit one's view of what this parable means to the explanation offered by jesus Hmself. That's why I like this parable as an example, since we don't have to guess what it means - Jesus tells us precisely what it means.


OK, let's limit our interpretation to what he says about the parable... of course we can never ignore context, which includes the parable, nearby parables, etc....




Well the fact is, Jesus explains the parable for us, and tells us how eschatology will unfold. His point is clearly a lot more substantial than this one liner.


You presume that the main point is eschatology (in general).


This is what the Lord said about His parable:
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

I'm going to make the assumption that Jesus didn't "leave out" the intervening so called "church age." It looks to me like a very simple eschatology. When the lord appears, He will remove the wicked, and not His church.



First, go back & re-read the parable.

Mat 13:30 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

Both the tares and the wheat are gathered. Jesus doesn't include it in His interpretation, but it is clear in the parable.

Second, Jesus says nothing about His appearing ... ... evidently Jesus isn't going to return or appear -- His angels will come instead, at least according to His interpretation of this parable...

Are you sure you want to pursue the idea that this parable is an outline for eschatology and not primarily an explanation for why evil men continue with us in this world? According to this parable He's not coming back. Evidently, if this is an outline for eschatology, Jesus isn't a premillenialist -- and neither is He an a-millenialist or a post-millenialist. He's actually not coming back at all -- it's a job His angels can take care of! :uhoh:


Jacob

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Today @ 01:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150859#post150859)
Jacob:
First, go back & re-read the parable.

....

Both the tares and the wheat are gathered. Jesus doesn't include it in His interpretation, but it is clear in the parable.

There's our point of difference in approach. It looks to me like you're wanting to go back to the unexplained parable and autonomously interpret it regardles of how Jesus interprets it. But Jesus DID interpret it. You're trying to find meaning in one aspect of the parable that Jesus placed no relevance on when He explained the meaning. That's why I find it so useful that Jesus offered the divine interpretation of the parable, so we don't have to get creative like this.

Second, Jesus says nothing about His appearing ... ... evidently Jesus isn't going to return or appear -- His angels will come instead, at least according to His interpretation of this parable...
With respect, I think that's a mere diversion from the obvious. Exactly HOW Jesus will return and what role His angels will play in the event is not important for whether the righteous or the wicked will be removed. It's a red herring.

Are you sure you want to pursue the idea that this parable is an outline for eschatology and not primarily an explanation for why evil men continue with us in this world? According to this parable He's not coming back.
That's false. Even if the parable says what the angels will do (which it does), it does not deny that Jesus will return. So your comment doesn't follow.

Evidently, if this is an outline for eschatology, Jesus isn't a premillenialist -- and neither is He an a-millenialist or a post-millenialist. He's actually not coming back at all -- it's a job His angels can take care of!
Please, don't take this the wrong way, but that's no way to engage a serious Christian discussion, it's just trivialising the topic. Once more, the fact that God's angels are the ones who will gather out the wicked does not show that Jesus will not return. It's just bad logic.

My point was (and is) that Jesus taught that the wicked, and not the righteous, will be removed. This means that Jesus was not a premillennialist. This is not unduly complicated or speculative. It is big, plain and simple.

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 10:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=151656#post151656)
Theonomy:

There's our point of difference in approach. It looks to me like you're wanting to go back to the unexplained parable and autonomously interpret it regardles of how Jesus interprets it.

So you don't interpret parables that Jesus did not explain? You dismiss the parable because an explanation of it follows? I wonder why the evangelist included the parable in the Gospel if it's not God's word, useful for teaching, correction, etc...


But Jesus DID interpret it. You're trying to find meaning in one aspect of the parable that Jesus placed no relevance on when He explained the meaning. That's why I find it so useful that Jesus offered the divine interpretation of the parable, so we don't have to get creative like this.

How creative I am, that I don't dismiss the parable when reading the interpretation... :uhoh:


With respect, I think that's a mere diversion from the obvious. Exactly HOW Jesus will return and what role His angels will play in the event is not important for whether the righteous or the wicked will be removed. It's a red herring.

No, it's not a red herring. You claim this parable is an outline for eschatology, in particular, for determining the timing of the return of Jesus in respect to the millennium. But the parable says NOTHING about Jesus returning and NOTHING about the millennium. That's eisegesis, pure & simple.


That's false. Even if the parable says what the angels will do (which it does), it does not deny that Jesus will return. So your comment doesn't follow.


See previous comment... It does not deny that Jesus will return, so how does it thereby predict that He won't return until after the millenium?


Please, don't take this the wrong way, but that's no way to engage a serious Christian discussion, it's just trivialising the topic. Once more, the fact that God's angels are the ones who will gather out the wicked does not show that Jesus will not return. It's just bad logic.

It is not good logic. But it has an exegetical basis, unlike your interpretation which is pure eisegesis.



My point was (and is) that Jesus taught that the wicked, and not the righteous, will be removed. This means that Jesus was not a premillennialist. This is not unduly complicated or speculative. It is big, plain and simple.

Do you recognize that at the end of the millenium there will be a rebellion. This parable fits either pre or post - millennialism. The pre-millennialist might interpret this passage as pointing to the rebellion at the end of the future millennium (Rev 20). The pre-millennialist says it points to the end of the current "millennium". Your case is not plain & simple, unless you've already proven your point. Your interpretation is just a case of begging the argument.

The reason I don't use this passage to support my eschatology is because it supports both viewpoints. Parables have a main point, and little else is relevant. Jesus' "interpretation" was simple an explanation of "who's who" in the parable.

Jacob

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Today @ 01:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=152001#post152001)
Jacob:
The reason I don't use this passage to support my eschatology is because it supports both viewpoints. Parables have a main point, and little else is relevant. Jesus' "interpretation" was simple an explanation of "who's who" in the parable.

Jacob

Jacob, I'm wasting my time. You're preferring your interpretation of the parable to that of Christ, so it will do me no further good trying to direct you to how Jesus interpreted His own parable.

Of course I interpret the other parabkes that Jesus did not interpret, but where Jesus interprets Himself (as He does here), I submit to His interpretation. This difference ebwteen us, sadly, will prevent us from discussing the matter.

[RevSteve45]

Theonomy,

There is nothing in the interpretation that Jesus gave of this parable that contradicts Pre-Millenialism. Here is what He said:

Matt 13:36-43, Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (KJV)

Let us start with verse 42, shall we? That will give us a good, solid foundation on which to base the TIMING of the event: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." The only judgment where God does this is the Great White Throne Judgment.

Now we know the timing of this separation. It is immediately prior to the Great White Throne Judgment. Now then, what event happens just BEFORE the Great White Throne Judgment? The final rebellion of Satan, where he deceives the nations, and they rebel against God, and He destroys them with fire out of Heaven! In other words, for a thousand years, ALL have had to submit to the Millenial rule of Christ. The wheat (righteous) and the tares (wicked) look very much alike, for who can rebel against the rule of Christ, without losing his/her life?

But, with this final rebellion of Satan & his followers, it becomes obvious who is wicked & who is righteous. Now the angels can EASILY separate one from the other, and God judges the wicked. Nothing is said about the Second Coming of Christ, because that took place 1,000 years ago. He has been RULING the whole time, and righteous & wicked alike had to submit to His rule. But at last, the tares are revealed for what they are: wicked.

See how easy that was? Pre-Millenialism makes perfect sense.

In His Service,
Steve

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=159995#post159995)
RevSteve45:

Theonomy,

There is nothing in the interpretation that Jesus gave of this parable that contradicts Pre-Millenialism. Here is what He said:

Matt 13:36-43, Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (KJV)

Let us start with verse 42, shall we? That will give us a good, solid foundation on which to base the TIMING of the event: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." The only judgment where God does this is the Great White Throne Judgment.

Now we know the timing of this separation. It is immediately prior to the Great White Throne Judgment. Now then, what event happens just BEFORE the Great White Throne Judgment? The final rebellion of Satan, where he deceives the nations, and they rebel against God, and He destroys them with fire out of Heaven! In other words, for a thousand years, ALL have had to submit to the Millenial rule of Christ. The wheat (righteous) and the tares (wicked) look very much alike, for who can rebel against the rule of Christ, without losing his/her life?

But, with this final rebellion of Satan & his followers, it becomes obvious who is wicked & who is righteous. Now the angels can EASILY separate one from the other, and God judges the wicked. Nothing is said about the Second Coming of Christ, because that took place 1,000 years ago. He has been RULING the whole time, and righteous & wicked alike had to submit to His rule. But at last, the tares are revealed for what they are: wicked.

See how easy that was? Pre-Millenialism makes perfect sense.

In His Service,
Steve Wow Steve I read that hundreds of times and ya know I still dont see anything about a Millennium and you built your whole answer on its presence.
Now please which verse speaks to that issue?O have you incerted something you need?

But nevermind wrt this 'forced righteousness' nonsense. That is foul and contrart to every precept I know not the least of which is
Zech 4:6
6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
(KJV)


take care

Hitch

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Today @ 04:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=159995#post159995)
RevSteve45:
Let us start with verse 42, shall we? That will give us a good, solid foundation on which to base the TIMING of the event: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." The only judgment where God does this is the Great White Throne Judgment.

Sure, OK.

Now we know the timing of this separation. It is immediately prior to the Great White Throne Judgment. Now then, what event happens just BEFORE the Great White Throne Judgment? The final rebellion of Satan, where he deceives the nations, and they rebel against God, and He destroys them with fire out of Heaven! In other words, for a thousand years, ALL have had to submit to the Millenial rule of Christ.

Well you aren't allowed to import a theological view INTO passages, are you? That's eisegesis, not exegesis.

You've assumed that Jesus deliberately left out the resurrection of the righteous prior to the millennium, as well as the millennium itself. But of course there is no need to assume this unless we come to the text with the agenda of making it to conform to premillennial theology. What the text actually presents us with is the fact that the next time Jesus shows up (i.e. His return), the wicked will be removed and punished. There's no prior rapture or eartly reign of Christ from Jerusalem or anything like that, or else Jesus would ALREADY have returned, and the wicked wpould ALREADY have been taken away.

It looks to me like you're doing exegetical backflips, while I'm just opening the passage and receiving what the Lord says there. Jesus was not a premillennialist so I 'm trying to follow suit.

[RevSteve45]

Theonomy,

You said,

You've assumed that Jesus deliberately left out the resurrection of the righteous prior to the millennium, as well as the millennium itself. But of course there is no need to assume this unless we come to the text with the agenda of making it to conform to premillennial theology. What the text actually presents us with is the fact that the next time Jesus shows up (i.e. His return), the wicked will be removed and punished. There's no prior rapture or eartly reign of Christ from Jerusalem or anything like that, or else Jesus would ALREADY have returned, and the wicked would ALREADY have been taken away.

Actually, I am not making any assumptions at all. All that Jesus is teaching here, is that there WILL be a time when the righteous & the wicked are BOTH existing alongside one another. Jesus declined to say whether this is the Church Age, when this is true, or the Millenium, wjen it ALSO is true. During both periods, both righteous & wicked are present together, and the only "separation" going on is when they die.

Therefore, this separation by the angels could take place at a NUMBER of different places. It could take place at Armageddon, OR it could take place at the end of the Millenium. I chose the Millenium, ONLY because this is the last recorded instance of Scripture, where the righteous & the wicked are BOTH together on Earth.

Therefore, it stands to reason, that this is when the separation takes place. The First Resurrection took place at the BEGINNING of the Millenium:

Rev 20:4-5, And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. THIS IS THE FIRST RESURRECTION. (KJV)

Yet we know that the wicked are alive at the END of the Millenium, for they follow Satan in his rebellion:

Rev 20:7-9, And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. (KJV)

Therefore, if we are talking about the LAST POSSIBLE separation of the righteous from the wicked, it would have to take place at this time. After this, we find NO MORE mention of wicked people being alive.

In His Service,
Steve

[Hitch]

Today @ 08:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160547#post160547)
RevSteve45:

Theonomy,

You said,



Actually, I am not making any assumptions at all. All that Jesus is teaching here, is that there WILL be a time when the righteous & the wicked are BOTH existing alongside one another. Jesus declined to say whether this is the Church Age, when this is true, or the Millenium, wjen it ALSO is true. During both periods, both righteous & wicked are present together, and the only "separation" going on is when they die.

Therefore, this separation by the angels could take place at a NUMBER of different places. It could take place at Armageddon, OR it could take place at the end of the Millenium. I chose the Millenium, ONLY because this is the last recorded instance of Scripture, where the righteous & the wicked are BOTH together on Earth.


Hardly Steve it can only take place when Jesus said it would;


Matt 13:30
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
(KJV)

Matt 13:39
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
(KJV)





Therefore, it stands to reason, that this is when the separation takes place. The First Resurrection took place at the BEGINNING of the Millenium:

Rev 20:4-5, And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. THIS IS THE FIRST RESURRECTION. (KJV) Steve we dont run to the Apocalypse to set the context for the Gospels. The information you base this conclusion on did not exist at the time Jesus spoke. This would render our Lord's own word false, since none of the things you list were mentioned in the Scriptures at that time ,so the hearer must take the word at face value knowing nothing of qualificatiions coming decades later.. The context of the Apocalypse is set by what came before, just as in a novel chapter one sets the context for chapter two and so on. The latter must conform to the former not the other way around. Second, the literalization of R 20 is far from universelly accpted in fact in Jesus said the believer is allready passed from death unti life.

Yet we know that the wicked are alive at the END of the Millenium, for they follow Satan in his rebellion:

Rev 20:7-9, And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. (KJV)

Therefore, if we are talking about the LAST POSSIBLE separation of the righteous from the wicked, it would have to take place at this time. After this, we find NO MORE mention of wicked people being alive. If you were to apply this same reasoning to all the texts you would have no need to add separations and resurrections, and you could let the text speak for itself. the conclusion would be that this seperation taks place at the end of time.



In His Service,
Steve Since it is obvious you require multiplied bodily resurrections ,as all premills do, I challenge every one I come across to support the idea of more than a single general bodily resurrection based on any and all our Lord actually said.


Take care


Hitch

[RevSteve45]

Hitch,

Sorry, but I interpret Scripture, WITH Scripture. It does not matter to me that the Revelation was written about 95 A.D., while Jesus spoke around 32 A.D. Both accounts are equally inspired.

2 Tim 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

Also, I have NO PROBLEM with more than one resurrection.

In His Service,
Steve

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 09:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160580#post160580)
RevSteve45:

Hitch,

Sorry, but I interpret Scripture, WITH Scripture. It does not matter to me that the Revelation was written about 95 A.D., while Jesus spoke around 32 A.D. Both accounts are equally inspired. You must be confused I hadnt mentioned anything wrt 'inspiration'. Or more likely its just a ruse to avoid answering the objection I raised regarding context. Perhaps that is the reason you changed the subject from context to inspiration. And every one has noticed the great wieght you put on the order of events,, when its suits you. Out side the context of satan being bound satan being loosed is meaningless. Just as conclusions from back to front are meaningless.

2 Tim 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV) Imagine that a guy calling himself Reverend useing the word of God to avoid answering a direct question... tsk tsk That tactic is a poor as it is common Steve.

Also, I have NO PROBLEM with more than one resurrection.

In His Service, Ok, then please present a case for many resurrections starting with what our Lord had to say about the matter, or do you have a problem with what Jesus actually said? $100 says Jesus NEVER speaks of resurrectionin the plural.
Take care

Hitch

[Jacob]

07-18-2003 @ 10:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=152824#post152824)
Theonomy:



Jacob, I'm wasting my time. You're preferring your interpretation of the parable to that of Christ, so it will do me no further good trying to direct you to how Jesus interpreted His own parable.

Of course I interpret the other parabkes that Jesus did not interpret, but where Jesus interprets Himself (as He does here), I submit to His interpretation. This difference ebwteen us, sadly, will prevent us from discussing the matter.

You're wasting your time if you're trying to convince anyone that this parable is intended to set up an outline for eschatology. As I said above, "You claim this parable is an outline for eschatology, in particular, for determining the timing of the return of Jesus in respect to the millennium. But the parable says NOTHING about Jesus returning and NOTHING about the millennium. That's eisegesis, pure & simple."

If that's the way you desire to understand this parable & Jesus' interpretation, then we'll have to disagree. But to suggest that I'm rejecting Jesus' interpretation because I won't read into the parable some timing about the millennium and Jesus' return is a baseless accusation.

Jacob

[Jacob]

07-26-2003 @ 10:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160059#post160059)
Theonomy:

It looks to me like you're doing exegetical backflips, while I'm just opening the passage and receiving what the Lord says there. Jesus was not a premillennialist so I 'm trying to follow suit.

As I said above, you read into the passage "something" that allows you to say that it's about the millennium and Jesus' return and how they're timed. That's a pretty good "exegetical backflip" if I ever saw one.

Jacob

[Ted]

Jacob,

Please be careful about saying that Jesus isn't going to appear. The word epiphaneia used frequently in the NT of Jesus' return literally means "appearing." Rev 1:7 says that "every eye shall see him."

Jesus didn't include every point in the parable because that wasn't his purpose at that point. He had a key concept to get through. It wasn't possible to separate the righteous and the wicked until the harvest. Of course, we see that harvest in slightly different language in Rev 14:14-20.

Jesus will appear (Matt 24:23-27).

Ted