The Downfall of the Future Millennium

[joelkaki]

In my mind, these are the two texts that sweep away any anticipation of a future millennium because they teach we are in Christ's Davidic kingdom now.

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

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. Ps. 110.1

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. Ps. 8.6

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

These verses so clearly teach that there is no future millennium Notice the end of verse 23--"...Christ's at his coming, THEN comes the END." At Christ's coming comes the END, not the start of a tribulation or the start of a millennium. When Christ comes, He gives the kingdom TO God. He does not then receive it from the Father. Verse 25 says that he must reign till all his enemies are put under his feet, and verse 23 tells us that WHEN HE COMES BACK, ALL WILL HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN! The only logical conclusion is that He is reigning now. We do not need to wait for an earthly kingdom in which he will put down all rule; he is doing that NOW. When he comes back, it will have been done, accomplished. Now to the next text...


Acts 2

"30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; Ps. 89.3, 4 ; 132.11

31 he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 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.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself,
The LORD said unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my right hand,


35 until I make thy foes thy footstool. Ps. 110.1

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

David knew that he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, and the next verse tells us that HE SPOKE CONCERNING CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. Christ was raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father, receiving his kingdom. (Daniel 7:13-14). We are told that Christ being on David's throne happened in the first century. There is no need to look for a future, earthly, Davidic throne! Christ is already on it. Then verse 32 just caps the whole argument. Verse 30, David knew God would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, and then verse 32: THIS JESUS GOD HAS RAISED UP! Christ has already been raised up to sit on David's throne. How much clearer can it be? He specifically says, THIS JESUS GOD HAS RAISED UP. Christ is on the Davidic throne NOW, and he will continue to reign till his enemies are put under his feet.


Joel

[Darth Xena]

Absolutely. 1 Corinthians 15:24 et al is the death blow. It is the verse that shattered my former premill views and started me on the road to postmill, for I think it is harmful somewhat to amill as well.

[joelkaki]

Yes, it is harmful to amil. If Christ is presently putting his enemies under his feet, and will return when all are under his feet, then that implies that evil will not be as strong as good at his return. Christ will be victorious over all before his return. The kingdom will grow and grow and grow till it fills the whole earth.


Joel

[Lizard]

Not to get too far off topic....

Since I became a preterist, I have been post-mil. as it is the only position that really makes sense to me from a preterist view point. However, I do know that there are some amil. preterist.

Could someone explain the amil. preterist position for me.

(I believe Solly takes that position?)

[Darth Xena]

Solly will come around. Give me time. LOL.

And Faramir you are right.. to me it is the only one consistent with preterism since amill's less optimistic outlook is dependant upon all those nasty icky passages that we as preterists believe are past.

[Hitch]

Joel I've told a 'thousand ' times... the NT must be read backward from the Apocalypse. Other wise you wont come to know DF Truth.

H

[Chuck_D]

Dee Dee (and others) would you mind giving a brief explanation of Rev. 20 from a preterist perspective?

Thanks

Chuck

[Darth Xena]

The words "Dee Dee" and "brief" are antithetical. I am melting!!!

But sure I will.. give me a bit and I put something together. I cannot guarantee it will be brief.

[Chuck_D]

Dee Dee Warren:
The words "Dee Dee" and "brief" are antithetical. I am melting!!!

But sure I will.. give me a bit and I put something together. I cannot guarantee it will be brief.

I should have known better. :dufus:

Far be it for me to dictate to the Princess of Preterism! As the old folks at church say, "take ya time!" :)

[Hitch]

Rev 20 illustrates the great victory of Christ, his embellishments to the church, especially his provision for her protection in history. This is followed with his personal guarenty of aboslute victory in time and perfect judgements in eternity.

Hey you asked for a brief...

take care

H

[Carl Smuda]

This is a nice thread. It's reassuring. May I enquire about something? During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time and proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. On these occasions he talked to them about the Kingdom of God. In one of these meetings as he was eating a meal with them, he told them, "Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you what he promised. Remember, I have told you about this before. John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." When the apostles were with Jesus, they kept asking him, "Lord, are you going to free Israel now and restore our kingdom?" "The Father sets those dates," he replied, "and they are not for you to know. But when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you will receive power and will tell people about me everywhere--in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." It was not long after he said this that he was taken up into the sky while they were watching, and he disappeared into a cloud. (Acts 1:3-9). Our Lord continually taught things about the Kingdom of God. And for forty days after God raised Him from the dead He continued to talk to them about the Kingdom of God. Under 'Future Millennium' teachers I was taught that the Apostles were dummies and weren't paying close enough attention to our Lord which is why they asked that question. When I was introduced to premill teachings about a coming literal earthly restored throne of David I was taught that the Apostles WERE paying attention which is why they asked that question. Now, as a Postmillennialist I'm wondering what was the real thrust behind that question they asked, and why did our Lord answer in the fashion He did?
:read:

[Darth Xena]

Dear Chuck:

Okay you had asked for a brief preterist explanation of Revelation 20, and I was going to post an opus, but I could hear Boom’s voice going, “Egad woman!” and decided to keep it pretty brief and we can expand out as needed.

Let’s break it down into its major components. I am simply going to tell you what a preterist believes, I am not going to extensively defend it…. [I]yet[/]….

Binding of Satan – This began in the earthly ministry of Christ and continues through this day. The binding is accomplished through the proclamation of the Gospel.

The First Resurrection – The first resurrection is the born again experience. We are all participants in this resurrection and are currently participating in Christ’s Messianic reign.

The Thousand Years – The thousand years began in the first century and continue through the present. They will end when Christ returns.

The Second Resurrection – This is the physical resurrection of all who ever lived.

This is the brief explanation. I would be more than glad to expound in painfully specific details about any of it.

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Chuck:

Okay you had asked for a brief preterist explanation of Revelation 20, and I was going to post an opus, but I could hear Boom’s voice going, “Egad woman!” and decided to keep it pretty brief and we can expand out as needed.

Let’s break it down into its major components. I am simply going to tell you what a preterist believes, I am not going to extensively defend it…. [I]yet[/]….

Binding of Satan – This began in the earthly ministry of Christ and continues through this day. The binding is accomplished through the proclamation of the Gospel.

The First Resurrection – The first resurrection is the born again experience. We are all participants in this resurrection and are currently participating in Christ’s Messianic reign.

The Thousand Years – The thousand years began in the first century and continue through the present. They will end when Christ returns.

The Second Resurrection – This is the physical resurrection of all who ever lived.

This is the brief explanation. I would be more than glad to expound in painfully specific details about any of it.

Despite my better judgment ;). I for one would like for you to expound on this. I have yet to dive into a detailed study of the preterits views on Revelation. I am eager to hear more. :yipee:

Just don't tell boom that it was me that asked for it. :x

[Darth Xena]

Eeek!!! Sure. Let me see where Chuck would like to start since I already have you under my spell. It is usually a lot easier for me if a specific narrow question is asked or a challenge than a broad request. And sometimes it helps if you throw in that I am deluded or of the devil or something... LOL.

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Eeek!!! Sure. Let me see where Chuck would like to start since I already have you under my spell. It is usually a lot easier for me if a specific narrow question is asked or a challenge than a broad request. And sometimes it helps if you throw in that I am deluded or of the devil or something... LOL.


Dee Dee :no: You are so delusional. (of course you happen to be right about preterism ;))

[Hitch]

When I was introduced to premill teachings about a coming literal earthly restored throne of David I was taught that the Apostles WERE paying attention which is why they asked that question. Now, as a Postmillennialist I'm wondering what was the real thrust behind that question they asked, and why did our Lord answer in the fashion He did?


Ya mean why did he always change the subject and never did answer that question directly?


I think we have a window to that in Luke's first book..


Luke 18:31
31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
(KJV)


From here we know the cross is in view yet Jesus is explicit saying' and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. They of course didnt have the luxury of hindsight. Jesus just told them personally that everything the prophets taught about the Messiah were about to be accomplished and not a word of temporal kingship or even a nod to nationhood. Appearentlly Jesus thinks the prophets were talking about something else.




Luke 24:23-26
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
(KJV)



Now this is in the period you spoke of. The Resurrected Christ reminds them of what he had said before the cross in his reference to all the prophets have spoken And again anything even an allusion to temporal royalty is nowhere to be seen. Instead Jesus explains what the 'next thing in the order of revelation' really was. His suffering. not any kind of connection with earthly kingship at all. In direct contrast to DF teaching nationalism is never in sight here. And what is the very next item on the calendar? He enters his glory. We know this from his own Word here and from Pete teaching that God had exalted him to his Right Hand. For those who dare contend that Christ is yet to enter his glory let them dignifiy ther claims with an explanation of why the Right Hand of God is less than ultimate glory.

Sowe have our Lord's own version of what was supposed to happen according to the prophets. Messiah would come, suffer execution and be raised up in glory, exalted to the very Throne of Heaven by the Father.

Why did he asnwer as he did? Because he ahd already taught those very ones who walked with him and he knew their literlaism would die hard and over time, bit by bit as they gained increasing understanding of his accomplishments and unlimited power.

I dont think its any accident that the most learned of the Apostles .excepting perhaps John, spoke of the kingdom for years as he awaited his end. Speaking with the great confidence of one who understands the virtue of 'all power and authority in heaven and earth.'

Take care

H

[Darth Xena]

Great post Hitch ... That's what I'm talking about :yipee:

[Hitch]

somebody is going to slip on those bananas...

[Darth Xena]

Till already has.

[Chuck_D]

Dee Dee Warren:
Let’s break it down into its major components. I am simply going to tell you what a preterist believes, I am not going to extensively defend it…. [I]yet[/]….




Thanks for the initial post Dee Dee. I doubt that you'll have to defend your views against me. I'm not looking to refute you, just trying to evaluate alternatives to the historicism I was raised in. I first encountered "hyper-preterism" about 3 years ago and knew it was no good, but partial preterism at least seems reasonable. So if I ask you a question, it's not in a "what about this, huh?!?!" manner, just seeking info.

But if it helps get your juices flowing, "You foolish preterist, who has bewitched you?" :rofl:

My initial questions are on the Binding and the 1st and 2nd Resurrection.

Binding: If the Gospel accomplishes the binding, what constitutes the end of the 1000 years when Ol' Scratch makes his jailbreak? Will the Gospel no longer be preached, will "the nations" become Gospel-resistant, or what?

2 resurrections: What's the basis for reading one as spiritual and the other as physical, and how do you tell which is which?

Look forward to your response!

[Darth Xena]

Hey Chuck!! Cool.... I will do the binding first later today and the the multi-rezes. Thanks for letting me know that you are coming from a historicist pov because we then already have some common ground that I would not have with a futurist. Preterism, especially postmillennial preterism, has a lot of philosophically common ground with parts of historicisim.

[joelkaki]

2 resurrections: What's the basis for reading one as spiritual and the other as physical, and how do you tell which is which?

Hope you don't mind me taking a stab at this before DeeDee does (I am postmillennial as well).

Obviously, if you are going to have a resurrection, you have to have a death to be resurrected from. Now, what was the first death in the Bible? Go back to the book of Genesis--"In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." God told us what that first death was there in Genesis, which is affirmed in the NT--"...who were dead in trespasses and sins."-Eph 2:1. So this first death is a spiritual death. Adam and Eve did not immediately physically die, rather, they died spiritually, and so did every man to follow them. If this first death is a spiritual death, then what kind of resurrection is the first resurrection? We must conclude spiritual--see first part of Eph 2:1--"And you he made alive..." God made us alive, and that , I believe, is the first resurrection.


Joel

[Chuck_D]

I don''t mind you taking a stab at all Joel. I apprectiate everyone's input. You post was very helpful!

[smilax]

This idea of a "spiritual resurrection (http://www.tektonics.org/physrez.html)" seems a little bizarre. But anyway...

Revelation xx, 4: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

So in the postmillennial view, who are these martyrs?

[Darth Xena]

Dear Smilax:

I will be getting to that when I get to that part. You do have me a bit confused though. I know you are preterist.... where do you and I significantly part ways here? I am sorry if you explained this to me before, I am having a brain drain.

[smilax]

Dee Dee Warren:
where do you and I significantly part ways here?Well, you convinced me on the dating for the seventy weeks. I am currently agnostic when it comes to the Millennium, so I am just playing Devil's advocate. But I do hope you and Solly (and maybe Carl) dish it out well! After all, debates are convincing for the fence-sitters like me.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Smilax:

Cool, can I ask when I did that? (the 70 weeks thing?), but where do you stand on the Discourse and Revelation? I just want to make sure that I am not making incorrect assumptions about our points of agreement.

[smilax]

Dee Dee Warren:
Cool, can I ask when I did that? (the 70 weeks thing?)The debate in "that other forum." I seem to recall now that DeMar holds a similar view, and while it was always in the back of my mind, I just never give it full consideration.but where do you stand on the Discourse and Revelation?The Discourse is completely fulfilled, (though there may be room for typology.) Regarding verses after the time markers, I have to agree with Van Deventer that they sound a lot more universal and are being fulfilled presently. As for Revelation, mostly fulfilled, (again, leaving the possibility open for typology,) although I have not looked at it with too much detail, so for chapter twenty and on, agnostic.

[Darth Xena]

Okay, thank you. I will be back to you soon.

[Darth Xena]

Ahh Smilax!! Forgive me, I remember now about the 70 weeks. In the beginning of that debate you are referring to we had a difference about whether or not there is a gap, okay, sheesh how could I forget.... I am not feeling too well today and have a killer headache, and well, man, a lot has happened since then hasn't it? Okay, I remember now. My bad.

[joelkaki]

No one from the dispy point of view care to contend?


Joel

[Hitch]

smilax:
This idea of a "spiritual resurrection (http://www.tektonics.org/physrez.html)" seems a little bizarre. But anyway...

Revelation xx, 4: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

So in the postmillennial view, who are these martyrs? The fist wave of christians who were 'too good for this world' and are today present with Christ.

Its hard to understand the notion of a spiritual resurrection seeming bizarre when Jesus speaks this way;


John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
(KJV)


And Paul thus


Eph 2:6
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
(KJV)



Eph 2:5
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
(KJV)

Knowing that none of this is news to you only makes for more confusion....

take care

Hitch

[smilax]

Hitch:
Knowing that none of this is news to you only makes for more confusion....Spiritual new life? Yes! Spiritual resurrection? As far as I know, the term "anastasis" is never used to refer to anything but a physical resurrection, and its appearance in Revelation is what makes me wonder about this interpretation.

[Hitch]

smilax:
Spiritual new life? Yes! Spiritual resurrection? As far as I know, the term "anastasis" is never used to refer to anything but a physical resurrection, and its appearance in Revelation is what makes me wonder about this interpretation. Well we know from the NT that believers currentl meet the specifications laid out on 20;6.

Take care


H

[Darth Xena]

Well I guess I will do the binding later and hop on the rez bandwagon. Sigh. What a disobedient Possee :rofl: How are we supposed to effectively swarm if you behave like this?

[smilax]

I am no follower of man-made Jesuit traditions!

[Darth Xena]

See what I mean?? Sheesh. It's like herding cats.

[Darth Xena]

Okay, I guess everyone wants to do the rez thing first.

WARNING! Super long and bombastic Dee Dee Post up ahead!!!

Dear ChuckD:

I am going to make an assumption here that may be in error, but I think it is reasonable. You have said that you are historicist, but since you are questioning my view on Revelation 20 I am going to assume you are premill. The reason I am making this assumption is because if you were amill, I think we would already be in agreement on this passage, since the postmill and amill views are pretty convergent here. So, if I am wrong on that assumption, spit out the irrelevant chaff….

So, we are not actually just dealing with Revelation 20 but with the issue of the timing of the resurrection in general, into which the Revelation passage must fit as part of a coherent whole.

[Darth Xena]

About the first resurrection…. I will go through some of the relevant passages, enough I think to prove the point. After each one, I will hopefully accurately summarize what we have learned and then move on, building on each one, until we have a clear and synoptic picture. What may not be mentioned in one verse may have the details supplied by another. That is very often the case in Scripture as the Synoptic Gospels attest. I will deal with Revelation last, as the proper methodology in interpreting Revelation is to have a grasp of the relevant prior Scriptures first as the whole Book is allusion after allusion to things already taught. Revelation does not radically change or add upon things not already revealed. It is backward thinking to decide what a passage in Revelation means and then go interpret other Books in light of that paradigm. One is to already know what is meant in the other Books and interpret Revelation in that light. Also I am not planning on dealing with the ones that just generally mention the resurrection without any timing issues as we all here agree that believers will be resurrected…. That is not in dispute. Okay, ready?

Premillenialism not only has two resurrections, but very often has more than that. If one is pre-trib, you have the secret coming with a resurrection, another resurrection at the end of the tribulation of the tribulation saints, and another resurrection at the end of the millennium. That’s at least three. Is that in the Bible. No.

One model of postmillennialism sees Christ returning victorious and ending all history. At that time, all the dead will be raised and all the living will be transformed. It will be one event.

What light do the resurrection verses have to shed on these two ideas?


John 5:25:30 - [Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Okay, what do we know from this passage? First, the passage teaches TWO resurrections. This is very important, and it tells us something about the timing of these TWO resurrections. The FIRST resurrection is something that was happening right then and continues….”the hour is coming and now is.” It is a continual event. Other Scripture sheds light on exactly what is meant by this FIRST resurrection:

John 6:47 –[Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

And

John 5:24 – Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

And

Eph 2:4-6 – But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

And

Romans 6:4 – Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

So this FIRST resurrection is the born-again experience. We experience it at conversion. It was going on while Jesus walked the earth and is still going on today.

But our subject resurrection verses also speaks of a SECOND resurrection. What does the verse tells us about that event?

John 5:28-30 - Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

It says first that “the hour is coming.” That is it is yet future to when Christ was talking. It will involved ALL of the dead who are in the graves. The righteous will receive “life” and the wicked will received “condemnation” but they ALL are resurrected, it is just a qualitatively different resurrection. But this resurrection of ALL who are dead and buried is one event. It is not the righteous at point A and the wicked at point B which is at least a thousand years away from point A.

Jesus makes the same point again:

John 6:43 – “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus speaking of the resurrection of the righteous (which we have already seen is the same event as the resurrection of the wicked) which takes place on the last day. There are no days to follow. An argument from silence here will not do, that is, that Jesus has not spoken of the wicked. He already did that in the previous chapter, and He does not exclude the wicked here.

But Jesus again uses “the last day” and does speak of the wicked.

John 12:48 – He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him— the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

So the wicked are judged (which is spoken of in John 5 as occurring when they are resurrected) on the last day which is the same time that the righteous are resurrected. It is one event occurring at the end of time.

Paul also speaks of this in Acts 17:31 –.. because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness.

Paul connects the two events in Acts 24:15 – I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.

Christ makes other comments as to the timing of this event. As you see from the verses above, we already have eternal life now as a present possession. And yet Christ tells us it is something that we also are yet to receive. That is again a reference to the two-fold resurrection that He spoke of in John 5. We are spiritually resurrected now, we have yet to be physically resurrected. This is the same idea that Paul has when he says we have now received the spirit of adoption, yet we are waiting for the adoption (Romans 8).

Mark 10:29-30 – Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life.

Jesus here says that in the age to come we will have eternal life. This is the physical resurrection which will come in the age to come from when Jesus is speaking. The age in which Jesus was speaking ended in AD70 . We are in the “age to come.” If one holds to the pre-trib, pre-mil view, this statement of Christ is impossible to fit in that scheme. Why? Because that would mean that we are still in the age of which Christ spoke…. And it is in this age that we are supposedly resurrected prior to the Tribulation which ends the age. But Christ said it is in the “age to come” in which we received the resurrection. And not only that, but on the last day of that age.

So, we have Christ’s own words to the effect that:

ALL who are dead and buried will be resurrected, though the quality of the resurrection will be different. These will both happen on the last day which is the last day of the age to come. All believers are spiritually resurrected upon conversion, i.e. being born again.

Paul also tells us about the timing of this event.

1 Cor 15:20-28 – But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 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. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 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. 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 (which as we saw with Christ is the last day, the same day that the wicked dead are resurrected) 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. The text makes the Millennium as seen by premills impossible.

Now we are in a position to look at Revelation 20. Remember that most of my quotes have been from the Gospel of John, didactic teachings from the same author. Most of them were direct quotes of Christ. Revelation is a highly figurative book and must be interpreted in light of the clear prior teachings. Okay, here we go:

Rev 20:4-6 - And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.[/I]

John has already shown us in his Gospel what the first resurrection is. It is the spiritual resurrection. The timing verses that I have shown you makes it impossible to interpret it any other way. And Paul, again, sheds light on this.

Eph 2:4-7 - But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

The living believers then were seated with Christ THEN. That is the first spiritual resurrection. We are the ones over whom the second death has no power.

Revelation 20 is a parallel passage with John 5. It is the same author and the same subject. There are not multiple physical resurrection events, it is one event, at the last day, the end, when Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father, when death is destroyed and cast into the lake of fire with Satan, when everyone is judged…. And it happens in this age.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Smilax:

I would agree with you that the phrase anastasis is typically applied to the physcial resurrection of the body, but that is not as strong of a case as it appears at first blush.

First, this appearance is in a highly figurative book, and the phrase anastasis is used as what we have a "part" in... and is referring them primarily to Christ as the "first resurrection" which is in fact a physical resurrection. Second, although the born again experience is not described previously by "anastasis" it is described as a "resurrection" very clearly in other terms.

In other words, it is not necessary for the actually word “resurrection” to be used for there to be a resurrection. Very often in describing Christ’s resurrection, words other than “resurrection” are used, but no one disputes that a resurrection is being referred to. Also, there are ways to describe something without using the actually dictionary term, in other words, if I say so and so never told the truth, that is the same as calling him as liar even though I never used the actual word “liar.” Someone who never tells the truth is a liar by definition. By analogy, the born again experience is a resurrection by definition since the very descriptive words that define resurrection are used of it.

Eph 2:4-6 - But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

This verse says we were dead spiritually. This is the normal word used for dead. But we were made “alive.” This is resurrection by definition The word for made alive is often used indisputably in the gospels for resurrection.

Romans 6:4 - Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

We were “buried” and then “raised,” this is all speaking of a spiritual experience which is the anti-type to the physical resurrection to come.

Col 2:11-12 - In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

1 John 3:14 - We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

And most importantly:

John 5:24-29 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

All of these verses are very clearly describing a “resurrection” regardless of the fact that the exact term is not used.

Also a related word to the Greek “anastasis" is used in spiritual resurrection.....

In Ephesians 5:14 it is said: “Therefore He says: ‘Awake, you who sleep, Arise [anistemi] from the dead, And Christ will give you light.”

It is clear from the concept that the born again experience is being referred to and that a related word for resurrection is used. This really isn’t that radical of a concept.

[Chuck_D]

Thanks for the post Dee Dee. I have begun to evaluate it. I was planning to write up some detailed comments, but some personal stuff came up and I don't really have the energy right now (please pray for me everyone ) :help:.

For now I'll just say that the "resurrection dichotomy" is reasonable, if not totally persuasive on its own. If the rest of the preterist view is convincing, I'd be willing to buy it.

That's all for now. I'll be back with more detailed comments in the next day or two.

[Darth Xena]

Great ChuckD!! I will be praying for you... see you soon.

[joelkaki]

Very convincing arguments, DeeDee. Thank you for them.


Joel

[Carl Smuda]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time and proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. On these occasions he talked to them about the Kingdom of God. In one of these meetings as he was eating a meal with them, he told them, "Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you what he promised. Remember, I have told you about this before. John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." When the apostles were with Jesus, they kept asking him, "Lord, are you going to free Israel now and restore our kingdom?" "The Father sets those dates," he replied, "and they are not for you to know. But when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you will receive power and will tell people about me everywhere--in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." It was not long after he said this that he was taken up into the sky while they were watching, and he disappeared into a cloud. (Acts 1:3-9).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Lord continually taught things about the Kingdom of God. And for forty days after God raised Him from the dead He continued to talk to them about the Kingdom of God. Under 'Future Millennium' teachers I was taught that the Apostles were dummies and weren't paying close enough attention to our Lord which is why they asked that question. When I was introduced to premill teachings about a coming literal earthly restored throne of David I was taught that the Apostles WERE paying attention which is why they asked that question. Now, as a Postmillennialist I'm wondering what was the real thrust behind that question they asked, and why did our Lord answer in the fashion He did?

I respectfully request that if someone would please address this question? The downfall of the Future Millennium would include this passage, right? Thank you.
:read:

[Hitch]

Post# 11059

[Darth Xena]

Can you provide a link Hitch? Or is it in this thread??

[Hitch]

Post# 11059 I was thinking the numbers wwere in sequence,,,DOH!

When I was introduced to premill teachings about a coming literal earthly restored throne of David I was taught that the Apostles WERE paying attention which is why they asked that question. Now, as a Postmillennialist I'm wondering what was the real thrust behind that question they asked, and why did our Lord answer in the fashion He did?


Ya mean why did he always change the subject and never did answer that question directly?


I think we have a window to that in Luke's first book..


Luke 18:31
31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
(KJV)


From here we know the cross is in view yet Jesus is explicit saying' and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. They of course didnt have the luxury of hindsight. Jesus just told them personally that everything the prophets taught about the Messiah were about to be accomplished and not a word of temporal kingship or even a nod to nationhood. Appearentlly Jesus thinks the prophets were talking about something else.




Luke 24:23-26
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
(KJV)



Now this is in the period you spoke of. The Resurrected Christ reminds them of what he had said before the cross in his reference to all the prophets have spoken And again anything even an allusion to temporal royalty is nowhere to be seen. Instead Jesus explains what the 'next thing in the order of revelation' really was. His suffering. not any kind of connection with earthly kingship at all. In direct contrast to DF teaching nationalism is never in sight here. And what is the very next item on the calendar? He enters his glory. We know this from his own Word here and from Pete teaching that God had exalted him to his Right Hand. For those who dare contend that Christ is yet to enter his glory let them dignifiy ther claims with an explanation of why the Right Hand of God is less than ultimate glory.

Sowe have our Lord's own version of what was supposed to happen according to the prophets. Messiah would come, suffer execution and be raised up in glory, exalted to the very Throne of Heaven by the Father.

Why did he asnwer as he did? Because he ahd already taught those very ones who walked with him and he knew their literlaism would die hard and over time, bit by bit as they gained increasing understanding of his accomplishments and unlimited power.

I dont think its any accident that the most learned of the Apostles .excepting perhaps John, spoke of the kingdom for years as he awaited his end. Speaking with the great confidence of one who understands the virtue of 'all power and authority in heaven and earth.'

Take care

H

[Darth Xena]

Thanks!! Yeah, those numbers jump all over the place.... made it kind hard to find. Do you know about the link function?? It is really cool... if you hit the link button at the bottom of any post, it copies the URL unto your clipboard to spit back up into your post by hitting control+V. I use that all the time.

[Carl Smuda]

:blush: Thank you Hitch. I apologize for missing it the first time. I take knowledge from your response. I better do some more thinking on it today. Your answer was important to me and I'm truly grateful Bro. And those four points that Dee Dee posted were also a refreshing succinct thing to grip. God Bless you all in the precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ. sincerely,

[Solly]

Posted by joelkaki on 02-06-2003 03:44 PM:
The Downfall of the Future Millennium
In my mind, these are the two texts that sweep away any anticipation of a future millennium because they teach we are in Christ's Davidic kingdom now.
1 Corinthians 15
"23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. Ps. 110.1
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. Ps. 8.6
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

These verses so clearly teach that there is no future millennium Notice the end of verse 23--"...Christ's at his coming, THEN comes the END." At Christ's coming comes the END, not the start of a tribulation or the start of a millennium. When Christ comes, He gives the kingdom TO God. He does not then receive it from the Father. Verse 25 says that he must reign till all his enemies are put under his feet, and verse 23 tells us that WHEN HE COMES BACK, ALL WILL HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN! The only logical conclusion is that He is reigning now. We do not need to wait for an earthly kingdom in which he will put down all rule; he is doing that NOW. When he comes back, it will have been done, accomplished.

Posted by Dee Dee Warren on 02-06-2003 04:21 PM:
Absolutely. 1 Corinthians 15:24 et al is the death blow. It is the verse that shattered my former premill views and started me on the road to postmill, for I think it is harmful somewhat to amill as well.

Posted by joelkaki on 02-06-2003 05:01 PM:
Yes, it is harmful to amil. If Christ is presently putting his enemies under his feet, and will return when all are under his feet, then that implies that evil will not be as strong as good at his return. Christ will be victorious over all before his return. The kingdom will grow and grow and grow till it fills the whole earth.

Posted by Faramir on 02-06-2003 07:06 PM:
Not to get too far off topic....

Since I became a preterist, I have been post-mil. as it is the only position that really makes sense to me from a preterist view point. However, I do know that there are some amil. preterist.
Could someone explain the amil. preterist position for me.

(I believe Solly takes that position?)

Hmmm, as the apparently sole representative of amill something or other, I suppose I had better make a comment here. Sorry I didn't see this thread sooner.

There seems to be some confusion in the use of these verses. On the one hand it is recognised that Christ reigns now, the millennium is here. As an amill, I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Then there is talk about Christ putting his enemies under his feet, that somehow these will have been gradually put down by the time he comes back, that in fact they must be put down before he comes back. And those enemies are? I would suggest the Usual Suspects of sin, satan, death/grave, rebellious humanity (and you will see that in naming the enemies how I could not accept the idea that they will progressively subdued).

But from my pov, his coming IS the final putting down; see the end of Rev. There is a forgetting of the implications of the now/not yet schema. Christ was enthroned at God's right hand. He IS king. There is no chance that he will be overthrown; but the enemies continue for a season, down to the end of the age; though the rightful king is on his throne, yet rebellious elements await their final judgment.

One should not put too much force on the word "until" in 1 Cor 15, as if it implies a gradual extension of Christ's power, or an end to his power:
"Till" in verse 25 does not indicate that at that moment the reign of Christ comes to an end, anymore than the same word in Rom. 11:25 indicates that when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in blindness in part for Israel comes to an end. The word simply indicates a goal of some reality or activity. I Cor. 15:25 teaches that the risen Christ at God's right hand must and will reign until He has achieved the goal that all enemies are under His feet. There is no implication that when this finally happens, Christ will no longer rule. Personal communication from David Engelsma
What happens at the end of the age is the consumation of what was begun in Christ's death, and proclaimed in the Gospel. What happens is part of the final events in the drama of this age. The final putting down is as swift as the resurrection; it is not gradual.

Re this age: The world is not getting any better - sin is still here, satan is still at work, death still present, rebellious humanity up to its old tricks. Part of the amill view is that, just as the other periods in salvation history have ended badly: ante-diluvian, Kingdom, Second Temple; so the Church age will end badly as the forces of evil work once again, prior to his coming - just as the demons broke forth before his at his first coming. Christ comes back with salvation to those who look for his coming, to those who keep on until the end, not to dish out rosettes for best garden in the community, and say Oh what a lovely world. Remember, it's going to be burned with fire, rolled up like a carpet: that means judgement.
My problem with post mill is: What is going to get better? The Church? Recent events show that Christians are sinners just like everyone else; they don't get better; in fact when they get in charge, they are usually worse. The world? To what purpose? If this world was to achieve something, creation would not groan, and await the new heavens and new earth.

Well, there's something to think about.

[Darth Xena]

Hey Solly.. I am hoping to get some responses to you coming... We are in agreement on the major contours (thus your objection to the end of age not happening is yet even more puzzling, I respectfully submit you are being somewhat inconsistent), so the differences in the details will be interesting to discuss. Postmill and amill have a great deal in common... and I know some optistimic amills who are pretty indistinguishable from a more pessimistic postmill.

[joelkaki]

Solly, if all we had was 1 Corinthians 15, I believe you could make that case and defend it. But I believe there are other passages to support the gradual increase of the kingdom, namely, many of Christ's own parables. About the argument that the world is getting worse, I need to say this: The Bible is our guide, not the newspaper. Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. It will continue to increase. Then the last phrase is what caps it all: The Zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this. It isn't dependent on man or the newspaper. it is dependent on the zeal of the Lord, and thus we can expect its fulfillment.

I believe the enemies will continue to be gradually subdued in this age, which is consummated with the return of Christ. The last enemy destroyed is death, and that occurs at Christ's coming. So yes, I agree, all the enemies will be subdued at Christ's coming, for that is when the defeat of death is consummated.


Joel

[Athanasius]

Hi Joel,

You emailed me and asked me to take a premil stab at your post. I don't have much time right now, but just a few quick notes...

Regarding "then cometh the end" in 1 Cor. 15:24: The Greek word eita always means "afterward" in the NT, but does not always mean the very next event to occur in succession. See Mark 4:17, for example. There may be intervening events in between. So this verse does not indicate that Christ's coming marks the end, but rather that the end occurs after His coming.

Verse 24 indicates that the end will happen "when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power."

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet," further elaborates that the end will not come until every enemy, including death, has been destroyed.

The placing of all things under His feet is spoken of in a fulfilled sense in verse 27, and refers, I think, to the authority that has already been granted to Christ. But in verse 25, it is spoken of in a to-be-fulfilled-after-His-coming sense, and refers to His exercise of the authority that has already been granted to Him.

So, to my possibly deluded mind, premillenialism fits into this passage like a puzzle piece sliding into the place in the picture that it was cut from! Where some other pieces go, I'm still wondering... unlike the author of that NASA press release today, which so dogmatically proclaimed that the universe is "precisely" 13.7 billion years old, I am not under the illusion that I have all of this figured out! :)

[Darth Xena]

Hey Rusty.. adding this one to the list!! I will talk to ya soon. This week is a killer for me... between professional meetings for work, Board of Directors meeting for a parachurch ministry, a hockey game for Valentine's day (yeah!!), and a wedding to attend... and all this in addition to having keep Boom in line is giving me a LOT to do and keeping me my from passion.... eschatology discussions... but... there is life outside of the Matrix I suppose.

[Hitch]

Well, no other time began with the destruction of the works of the devil.


But honestly if you were a space alien resting on the moon watching event unfld twothousand years a go and had just now returned on patrol I doubt things would be as you has guessed.

The Legions are memories and the Pharisees are disapeared. But that tiny sect has spread to every nation and land on the earth.

H

[Solly]

joelkaki:
I believe there are other passages to support the gradual increase of the kingdom, namely, many of Christ's own parables. About the argument that the world is getting worse, I need to say this: The Bible is our guide, not the newspaper. Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. It will continue to increase. Then the last phrase is what caps it all: The Zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this. It isn't dependent on man or the newspaper. it is dependent on the zeal of the Lord, and thus we can expect its fulfillment.

I believe the enemies will continue to be gradually subdued in this age, which is consummated with the return of Christ. The last enemy destroyed is death, and that occurs at Christ's coming. So yes, I agree, all the enemies will be subdued at Christ's coming, for that is when the defeat of death is consummated.
Joel

Joel
It would appear that the post mill position places as much emphasis on a literal this world fulfillment of OT prophecies, in their own right, as the DFers do. But for myself, the Kingdom of Christ is set up in men's hearts, "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven". That may result in changes in this world, but his kingdom is not of this world, it is a spiritual kingdom. The Church is the visible sign of the kingdom, where Christ's reign increases.
My mention of what this world is like is not dependant on the newspapers - a charge that can be thrown at DFers, but not me; I don't happen to think the end is nigh. It is dependant upon my knowledge of what is operating in this world: God's enemies.
You did not address my mention of who the enemies are: sin, satan, death, rebellious humanity: are these gradually subdued in time? Is sin any the less, or satan, or death? Once one gets down to brass tacks, instead of generalities about "God's enemies" then one cannot hold to the idea that they are being subdued.

This is what sets amillers apart from premillers & postmillers; we don't look for an earthly kingdom "conquering" this world in some way. There may be crossovers, so that some premillers are more like post millers, esp if they are a certain bunch of Acts 9 dispies who are into theonomy, but a strict amiller would not speak of a fulfilled millennium before the end.

Hitch, I am not sure of the direction of your comment. With the greatest extension of the Church in the 20th century, we also saw two world wars, the holocaust, the killing fields, Stalin's massacre of his people, Mao's similar abandonment of millions to starvation, 20 million killed in the 1918 flu epidemic, the rise of militant nationalism, boom and bust on a world affecting scale, abortion rates thru the roof. Are you implying the world is getting better? More "civilised", perhaps; more technologically advanced, obviously; but the kingdom of God? No.

The Legions are still here; the Pharisees go by different names; the devil appears as an angel of light, and his servants ministers of righteousness.

[Athanasius]

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

Solly,

As far as this present age goes, I think that a mills like you and pre mills like me find much agreement.

Jesus answered the demands of the Pharisees by pointing out that during that present time, the kingdom advanced not by outward physical force, but within the hearts of men. The word "cometh" in verse 20 is in the present tense, indicating how the kingdom of God was CURRENTLY advancing. However, He further clarified to his disciples in verse 24, "For as the lightning that lighteneth one part under heaven shineth unto the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of Man be in His day." The word "be" here is in the future tense, indicating how the kingdom will come at a future time. At that time it will be visible. If lightening lighting up the whole sky doesn't indicate extreme visibility, I don't know what does. That's how the Son of Man will be in His day. "Every eye shall see Him".

I think that you would agree with me that at the time of Christ's return, his kingdom will advance visibly (if you are orthodox). Our primary point of disagreement would be whether or not there is an intervening millennial reign before the final age.

As a pre mill, I also agree with you on the point you made that things aren't getting much better, if at all. They say that more Christians are being persecuted now than ever before in history. Satan does not appear to be bound yet at all, and that presents some tough problems to the post mill position. You post mill'ers out there, how do you explain the fact that during the present age, evil seems to be growing concurrently with the spread of Christ's kingdom in the hearts of men? To me, it simply looks as though two harvests are maturing side-by-side. I wrote a song once with a few lines about that:

For when the grapes of wrath turn dark
and the fields of wheat grow white
He will return when the harvest is ripe,
just like a thief in the night.

Wake Up, Night Watchman

[Solly]

This is getting crazy!!

On the one hand I agree with some of the post mill stuff, on the other with historic premillers like Athanasius.

Just to clarify one point; I believe Satan is bound. Though active, I see that verse as fulfilling the same thing as "the gates of hell shall not prevail". Though things look bad, yet the Christian has every hope: because Christ is the King, and he is on the throne already. A laurel of victory awaits those who persevere. Christ promised us tribulation, but also that he would be with us until the end of the age.

It is interesting that in my own circles those who are doctrinally amill border on historic premill of the Grattan Guiness variety.

[Darth Xena]

Sigh. My posse has gone awol. :whip: I will post soon and set all of ya'll straight. LOLOLOL!!!!

[Darth Xena]

Thanks Rusty for coming over and participating on this thread.

[Athanasius]

You're welcome, Dee Dee. I haven't had this much fun with eschatology in some time. Because of our website, many of my eschatological discussions are spent fighting heresy, which can get you down. It's refreshing to toss eschatological ideas around with orthodox brethren!

Rusty :yipee:

[joelkaki]

I'll try to get back on some of the posts here, but I got a couple of threads on the dispy page I am working on, as well as some other stuff I got to do.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Hi Joel,

You emailed me and asked me to take a premil stab at your post. I don't have much time right now, but just a few quick notes...

Regarding "then cometh the end" in 1 Cor. 15:24: The Greek word eita always means "afterward" in the NT, but does not always mean the very next event to occur in succession. See Mark 4:17, for example. There may be intervening events in between. So this verse does not indicate that Christ's coming marks the end, but rather that the end occurs after His coming.

I'm not sure how Mark 4:17 is supposed to prove that point. Vine's Expository dictionary of New Testament Words would not seem to support that idea.


Verse 24 indicates that the end will happen "when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power."

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet," further elaborates that the end will not come until every enemy, including death, has been destroyed.

The placing of all things under His feet is spoken of in a fulfilled sense in verse 27, and refers, I think, to the authority that has already been granted to Christ. But in verse 25, it is spoken of in a to-be-fulfilled-after-His-coming sense, and refers to His exercise of the authority that has already been granted to Him.

Hebrews 10:13 tells us that Christ is now waiting for his enemies to be put under his feet. There is no need of a future millennium for that.


So, to my possibly deluded mind, premillenialism fits into this passage like a puzzle piece sliding into the place in the picture that it was cut from! Where some other pieces go, I'm still wondering... unlike the author of that NASA press release today, which so dogmatically proclaimed that the universe is "precisely" 13.7 billion years old, I am not under the illusion that I have all of this figured out! :)

I don't think what you are saying is the way the passage is meant. However, maybe if we only had this passage, we might not be able to prove it. But I also gave Acts 2, which clearly shows that Christ has already been raised up to sit on the throne of David, which shows us that your interpretation of this passage cannot be correct.

Joel

[Athanasius]

I don't think what you are saying is the way the passage is meant. However, maybe if we only had this passage, we might not be able to prove it. But I also gave Acts 2, which clearly shows that Christ has already been raised up to sit on the throne of David, which shows us that your interpretation of this passage cannot be correct.

Does it? Acts 2:34 says, "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." Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father following his ascension. He is to sit at the Father's right hand until His enemies are made a footstool for his feet. Premillenialism recognizes that there are enemies left for Christ to subjugate, including death, so how is this verse inconsistent with it?


Rusty

[Hitch]

Athanasius:


Does it? Acts 2:34 says, "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." Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father following his ascension. He is to sit at the Father's right hand until His enemies are made a footstool for his feet. Premillenialism recognizes that there are enemies left for Christ to subjugate, including death, so how is this verse inconsistent with it?


Rusty Well iether you have a era measured by time in which there is no death or you have the risen glorified Christ on earth before the 'last enemy' is finally dealt with.


take care

Hitch

[joelkaki]

Does it? Acts 2:34 says, "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." Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father following his ascension. He is to sit at the Father's right hand until His enemies are made a footstool for his feet. Premillenialism recognizes that there are enemies left for Christ to subjugate, including death, so how is this verse inconsistent with it?


Rusty


It wasn't necessarily that particular verse that caps it. check out my first post on this thread to see it in more detail.

It tells us that David knew that the Christ would be raised up to sit on his throne, then it makes the astounding statement: "This Jesus God has raised up." Christ has been raised up to sit on David's throne already. No need for a future millennial reign.

Joel

[Athanasius]

To be sure, He has received His kingdom already, but his rule has not been enforced yet throughout the earth. In the parable of the talents, the nobleman went away on a long journey to be made king, and told his servants, "occupy till I come." AFTER having been made king, he came back to enforce his rule.

Luke 19:12-15, 27

12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading....
...27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

joelkaki:
Yes, it is harmful to amil. If Christ is presently putting his enemies under his feet, and will return when all are under his feet, then that implies that evil will not be as strong as good at his return. Christ will be victorious over all before his return. The kingdom will grow and grow and grow till it fills the whole earth.
Joel

The truth is, this does not conflict with an amillennial view, if we are speaking precisely. Amillennialism is a view of the thousand years of Revelation 20. It is not a statement about the success of the Gospel in this age- although most seem to want to make it mean this. Check out an essay of mine where I address this at http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/theonomy/dominion.html

Glenn

[Darth Xena]

Dear Glenn:

I will print that paper out and read it. I did scan it and note one thing in the definition of postmill as the belief in a golden age just prior to Christ's return. That is one branch of posmill, but I do not think many postmills today would identify themselves with such, but would in a lot of ways, you are right, be similar to amills. I will read your paper to see if you see some of the same distinctions that I do between amill and postmill as far as the optimism factor, but one thing does factor in, and that is this....

Postmill, at least to me, HAS to go hand in hand with preterism. Once one is a preterist, the optism factor goes up tenfold because the passages depicting really icky stuff are in our past. Now... the majority of amills today are NOT preterist (though amill is certainly compatible with preterism and then would not differ much from postmill) and thus, the majority of amills are indeed pessimistic for they are operating from the assumption of the historic outworking of the icky passages (historicism) or the future outworking (futurism).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Dee Dee Warren:
Now... the majority of amills today are NOT preterist (though amill is certainly compatible with preterism and then would not differ much from postmill) and thus, the majority of amills are indeed pessimistic for they are operating from the assumption of the historic outworking of the icky passages (historicism) or the future outworking (futurism).

They might be pessimistic, but they need not be. In fact, in light of some clear Biblical statements of optimism, they SHOULD not be, and as we agree, they could remain amil and be optimistic. I'd call myself Amillennialist if we want to be technical, but to others I say I'm postmil since then that label has become theological shorthand for "optimistic." I think that's sloppy, but I generally can;'t be bothered explaining all the distinctions, so postmill will have to do lol.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Glenn:

Excuse me if I missed it... (on your site or here) - it is very early right now, and not enough caffeine in my system... but are you preterist too?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Dee Dee Warren:
Excuse me if I missed it... (on your site or here) - it is very early right now, and not enough caffeine in my system... but are you preterist too?

I don't think I've mentioned it on the site. Yes, I accept the preterist method (e.g. the Great tribulation). Mind you, I also accept the idealist method. Goodness, there are even times when I accept a futurist reading (e.g. 1 Thes 5).

But yes, I am a preterist.

[Darth Xena]

Okay, Glenn I was meaning primarily the Great Tribulation. Okay cool. Did you take our eschatology and millennial polls in this forum?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'll take the poll now!

[Solly]

Dee Dee Warren:
Postmill, at least to me, HAS to go hand in hand with preterism. Once one is a preterist, the optism factor goes up tenfold because the passages depicting really icky stuff are in our past. Now... the majority of amills today are NOT preterist (though amill is certainly compatible with preterism and then would not differ much from postmill) and thus, the majority of amills are indeed pessimistic for they are operating from the assumption of the historic outworking of the icky passages (historicism) or the future outworking (futurism).

Well said. And on that basis I am currently drawing back from calling myself praeterist in the sense DD means. I know my response is a long time coming, but that is because, pace Jaltus and Pilgrim, I have found that eschatology is very important, since it affects my understanding of the nature of the Kingdom, the Church, and the Witness. I would also say that praeterism as presented here leads inevitably to post millennialism, which leads to Theonomy and/or reconstructionism. That is not a view I find compatible with being a New Covenant Baptist. There is not an easy slide over from amill to post mill, despite some similarities.

Btw, amills are not pessimistic about the victory of Christ. The pessimism is usually characterised as: oh well, it's all going to get so bad in the end. But only for sinful humanity. That is what Revelation is for. To stop us being pessimistic, and make us optimistic that the big day is coming.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Solly:

I would disagree that postmill leads inevitably to theonomy or reconstructionism (though you know at this point I am sympathetic to both), for there are a great many postmills who are not. In fact the owner of www.postmillennialism.com is distinctly nontheonomic.

But hey Solly, I would be happy with you being an amill preterist. LOL. And I still say historicist amill is chronologically incoherent... and in fact, of course, any chronology that is not primarily preteristic is chronologically incoherent in a systematic theology. And that is the problem... very few nonpreterists (sorry for the broad brush, there are exceptions) have really dealt with the systematic chronological issues that I have found. When you do tackle it head-on, you will be one of the first... But I fear you will not be successful.... but again, I am happy with amill preterists. On a lot of days I am simply an optimistic amill......

[Solly]

Again, that is why it is taking so long, because a) to my mind it is not simply a matter of lining up some chronolgical texts, and b) I haven't found much that deals with it, although I am reading Vos and Ridderbos at the moment. I mentioned before that it represented an earthquake in my thinking, and now even more so when I realise what happens to texts out of Thessalonians etc. Be assured, it is an ongoing labour.

[Darth Xena]

Hey Solly... I was sure it was an ongoing labor.... and I hope you don't think that I simply line up chronological texts.. but the concepts have to line up within the chronology as well, and not trump it. That is what I meant by systematizing it. For instance, premillennialism is a conceptual kingdom run amok without any biblical chronological fetters.

[Solly]

DD, (we're on the wrong thread here, but never mind). The chronological notes you gave, which I quoted on the End of the Age thread, are a very specific interpretation, unlike anything in post millenialism before. Post mills previously looked to a golden age, perhaps of 1000 yrs, followed by the release of Satan, the arrival of Antichrist, and Armageddon. For instance, John Gill gives a praeterist interpretation of Matt 24, but is otherwise a historic post millennialist. Neo post millennialism puts most of that stuff in the past (70ad).

It all hangs on the idea that there are three ages, not two. I am convinced that this view is wrong. My spiritual antenna are twitching; there is something that I can't properly put my finger on yet because I had not spent a lot of time on eschatology, so i am building from the basement up. But in all charity, as I look into it I do believe that interpretation is wrong.

[Darth Xena]

Solly:
DD, (we're on the wrong thread here, but never mind). The chronological notes you gave, which I quoted on the End of the Age thread, are a very specific interpretation, unlike anything in post millenialism before.

Hey Solly, actually this is a related thread, and I do not think that Joel minds, and if he does, I am sure he will speak up..... I do think though that you are not entirely correct.... what I have advocated is not unique to me or even that recent. I hold the same sort of chronological postmill as Gentry or DeMar or Seraiah or Matteison of Chilton (before he apostasized).

Post mills previously looked to a golden age, perhaps of 1000 yrs, followed by the release of Satan, the arrival of Antichrist, and Armageddon.

That may have been one flavor of historic postmill thought but I do not know of one major postmill scholar that holds that, and I certainly do not hold that. This would be for postmills that are not preteristic... which as I have said it key to having a chronologically coherent eschatology. I would solidly affirm with you that that postmill you just described is in error, and is not the postmill that I hold to.

For instance, John Gill gives a praeterist interpretation of Matt 24, but is otherwise a historic post millennialist. Neo post millennialism puts most of that stuff in the past (70ad).

Then call me a neo-postmill LOL

It all hangs on the idea that there are three ages, not two.

I am not sure what you mean here... if you mean, the end that ended in 70ad, the present age, and then the eternal state, then yes I hold to "three ages." If you mean the age that ended in 70ad, some transition age right now, and then a thousand years of Gospel bliss... then no I do not hold to three ages.

I am convinced that this view is wrong. My spiritual antenna are twitching; there is something that I can't properly put my finger on yet because I had not spent a lot of time on eschatology, so i am building from the basement up. But in all charity, as I look into it I do believe that interpretation is wrong. :smile:

Don't worry I'll straighten you out.

[Solly]

Dee Dee Warren:
what I have advocated is not unique to me or even that recent. I hold the same sort of chronological postmill as Gentry or DeMar or Seraiah or Matteison of Chilton (before he apostasized).

Yes, i knew it wasn't your own idea, but came out of the modern circle.

That may have been one flavor of historic postmill thought but I do not know of one major postmill scholar that holds that, and I certainly do not hold that.

This is old style post mill, before liberalism gave it the grip of death. Its classic rendition is in John Brown's Self Interpreting Bible, where he has a chart plotting it all out. It is to some extent indistinguishable from classical post trib pre millenialism, and I think a lot went over when Darby came along, esp as the post mills forsaw the millenium starting around 1860!! (Too much emphasis on the Pope being Antichrist)

This would be for postmills that are not preteristic... which as I have said it key to having a chronologically coherent eschatology. I would solidly affirm with you that that postmill you just described is in error, and is not the postmill that I hold to.

I think the only place you would find the old sort today is in books like Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope.

I am not sure what you mean here... if you mean, the end that ended in 70ad, the present age, and then the eternal state, then yes I hold to "three ages."

Yes, I mean that.

:cheers:

[Solly]

But seriously, there is not that MUCH of a necessary difference between the postmill I hold and amill..... it is not the millennial positions by [i]themselves[i] that are the brass tacks but the tribulational position....ie historicism, preterism, futurism....

That is the real driving force.....

Hope you don't mind that i posted this here.

You are right, and wrong. Of course.

As to millennial positions, we are the same if we don't see a particular period defined as millennium apart from the church age. I think we are in agreement there, though the character of the millenial age is somewhat different.

The tribulational aspect, to call it that, is probably the root of the matter. I agree that the "tribulation great" in matt 24 is passed. i don't agree that matt 24 (down to the accepted verse 34) is all 70ad. I don't agree that the Eschatological Antagonist has gone, or that there is not a tribulational time before the end. I believe that the fall of Jersualem marked the beginning of the end, but not the end of anything in itself, except of the Jewish administration (which had technically ended when Christ died and rose again anyway). If it did mark the end of an age, it was of an age within an age, the age of this present evil world.
I do not agree that we are living in a separate age to Jesus and Paul.

[Darth Xena]

The tribulational aspect, to call it that, is probably the root of the matter. I agree that the "tribulation great" in matt 24 is passed. i don't agree that matt 24 (down to the accepted verse 34) is all 70ad.

Ah, and that is where you will get into trouble.


I don't agree that the Eschatological Antagonist has gone, or that there is not a tribulational time before the end. I believe that the fall of Jersualem marked the beginning of the end, but not the end of anything in itself, except of the Jewish administration (which had technically ended when Christ died and rose again anyway).

Judicial and practical are two different concepts as I know you are aware.. but we will surely get into this... in addition to the idea that Jewish thought was not as pendantically linear as we are, ie. there can be a "block" event, not a large black dividing line in the calendar.

I do not agree that we are living in a separate age to Jesus and Paul.

And this is where we wil find our sharp disagreement, and where I will have to straighten you out. LOL.. I like you too much to hurt you too badly. Gah!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.... you gotta love me.

[Darth Xena]

As to millennial positions, we are the same if we don't see a particular period defined as millennium apart from the church age. I think we are in agreement there, though the character of the millenial age is somewhat different.


We have always been in agreement there, which is why I don't fuss too much over the millennial issue between postmill and amill. The tribuational issue is the key... I find it the key in most discussions, and is certainly the key to defeating the Acts 9 error.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Dee Dee Warren:
That may have been one flavor of historic postmill thought but I do not know of one major postmill scholar that holds that, and I certainly do not hold that. This would be for postmills that are not preteristic... which as I have said it key to having a chronologically coherent eschatology. I would solidly affirm with you that that postmill you just described is in error, and is not the postmill that I hold to.


That's because they're all just optimistic amil now - even Gary North, who has the audacity to pour scorn on the amil view! If only they could have kept to a more historical use of their terms, we would all understand them so much better.

[Darth Xena]

I don't read too much of Gary North, in fact the most I have read of North is his introductions to other books by the likes of Gentry etc.

[Bill K.]

I'm an amil, and so I have a question (for Dee Dee? et al.).

Why do you (anyone) think that I Cor 15 is a problem for the amil position? Is it because you interpret Paul's words to the effect that "Christ will reign until all His enemies are beneath His feet" as implying some kind of improvement?

Paul is using wartime language (reign, enemies, rule, authority and power). Battlefields can hardly be called "improved" except in so far as one group is defeated. I see Paul saying that the end of all things will have all of mankind laid low. All our ideas will have come to nought, with our systems - whether philosophical or practical - having failed us.

Christ will prove Himself to be the victor, and all our ideologies to be vanities. This is an "improvement," but hardly the postmil type.

His Kingdom - being hidden in all this - will be revealed (out of the ashes, as it were) as the only foundation with substance.

This kingdom will still merit the epithet that there are "few who will find it." The cross will remain unattractive to the end. Those who cling to it do not do so for its beauty but for its hope, promise, and unearthly wisdom.

In Christ,
Bill

[Darth Xena]

Dear Bill:

Hey there, I am working on a detailed response on another thread, but I wanted to acknowledge your question and let you know I would come back to it. But for a short answer, it is not 1 Cor 15 standing alone that I see as a problem for amill at all, but 1 Cor 15 in tandem with other passages, but I will explain futher. 1 Cor 15 though certainly is fatal to premill.

[Bill K.]

Dee Dee,
Looking forward to your post on amil "fatality"!!!

I'll start working on a counter proposal.

Totally agree, though, that it is wholly fatal for the premils.
But then isn't just about everything from Church history to the actual texts fatal for these poor souls?

I recently took a high school sunday school class through LaHays "Left Behind" series showing them how the biblical context is disregarded in these books. Their response reflected deep concern over how they could so easily have been misled.
When I asked them how many have read their Bibles all the way through, not one hand was raised. There is the answer.
The following week everyone showed up with smiles over how different the Bible was from what they had expected...they had begun to read!!!

"Beware of men..."

In Christ,
Bill

[Lizard]

02-21-2003 @ 05:02 AM
Bill K.:

Dee Dee,
Looking forward to your post on amil "fatality"!!!

I'll start working on a counter proposal.

Totally agree, though, that it is wholly fatal for the premils.
But then isn't just about everything from Church history to the actual texts fatal for these poor souls?

I recently took a high school sunday school class through LaHays "Left Behind" series showing them how the biblical context is disregarded in these books. Their response reflected deep concern over how they could so easily have been misled.
When I asked them how many have read their Bibles all the way through, not one hand was raised. There is the answer.
The following week everyone showed up with smiles over how different the Bible was from what they had expected...they had begun to read!!!

"Beware of men..."

In Christ,
Bill

Great point Bill. I do not think that it is an accident that the year that I became a preterist is the year I read the OT through for the first time.




Cool Color Bar

[Etcetera]

Solly:

Greetings in the shared love of the Lord.

I hope that you do not mind my barging in. I appreciated this comment of yours:

It all hangs on the idea that there are three ages, not two. I am convinced that this view is wrong. My spiritual antenna are twitching; there is something that I can't properly put my finger on yet because I had not spent a lot of time on eschatology, so I am building from the basement up. But in all charity, as I look into it I do believe that interpretation is wrong.

I think that you are dead right to question the three ages presupposed by postmillennialism. I have been looking into the ages myself for some time now, and am convinced both from the scriptures themselves and from how they fit into, and answer, the Jewish expectations of the time (derived and deduced from the intertestamental literature, the first-century Jewish literature, and the later Rabbinical writings) that there are only two ages mentioned in the Bible.

If it did mark the end of an age, it was of an age within an age, the age of this present evil world.

"An age within an age." That is very close to my current position. I am interested in how you arrived at that (admittedly tentative) conclusion. I myself, I must confess, would never have thought of it until I stumbled upon a few key passages in the Talmud. If you simply deduced this notion from your reading of the scriptures, I just might commit the sin of jealousy.

I can be very slow sometimes. :dunce:

I mentioned before that it represented an earthquake in my thinking, and now even more so when I realise what happens to texts out of Thessalonians etc.

The Thessalonian epistles, yes. I am likewise convinced that the coming described in them is the very same coming described throughout Olivet. 1 Thessalonians 4:11-5:13 was one of the passages that kept me from fully embracing the postmillennial preterist view as it is normally presented.

I look forward to your thoughts on the ages, and hope to be offering a few of my own scattered ramblings on the subject sometime in the (near?) future.

Yahweh bless and keep you.

Etcetera.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Etcetera and Solly,

Can either of you point to any Postmillennialists who believe that the Bible teaches "three ages"?

My experience with Postmillennialists is that they believe in two ages, this age and the age to come, and that history AD shows us the age to come breaking into history. It will be fully consummated when the Lord returns. I may, however, have utterly read Postmillennialism wrong, so if you can show us that Postmillennialists see what they call "three ages" in the Bible, please do share.

Glenn

[Darth Xena]

Dear Glenn:

As a postmillennialist this is where they are seeing three ages in what I have said. We have the Old Covenant age which practically ended in 70AD (age number one), we have the Church age which is giong on right now (age number two), and then we have the eternal state (age number three). However, I think part of the problem is dealing with fluidity in the use of the phrase "age" (which can mean several different things in Scripture) and the possibly improper categorizing of the eternal state as an "age."

[Darth Xena]

Dear Etc and everyone:

The more I have studied this since our earlier conversations the more I am convinced that it is impossible in a systematic theology for the coming in Olivet and the one in Thess/Cor to be the same. Of course both Etc and Solly are very well aware of this..... It is difficult to traverse, but it is not impossible. Now as far as an "age within an age" ... I would say that there are still then the same number the means to group them has just changed. The fact still remains that the apostles (Paul and the writer of Hebrews) declared their time an end of an "age" (age number one) which then of course inevitably means that we are now in a different age (age number two), after which is the eternal state (age number three). Now I put this simply witout even bringing the Discourse into it, meaning, I can substanitally prove the three ages without even bringing preterism up.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I can substantially prove the three ages without even bringing preterism up.

You mean primarily, I presume, your treatment of 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 and Ephesians 1:20-21.

Those passages just do not prove what you want them to prove. It is a matter, again, of your interpretation as it stands being possible, but not probative.

You do insist that your analysis is probative. This is no best-fit argument for you:

1 Corinthians 15:24 et al is the death blow.

But your argument absolutely depends on a certain verse meaning without a shadow of a doubt that the powers are completely done away with, never to surface again, at the resurrection spoken of throughout 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Corinthians 15:24: ...then comes the end, when he delivers up the kingdom to the God and father, when he has abolished [katargeo] all rule and authority and power.

If all rule and authority and power are abolished, destroyed, annihilated at this future coming, you reason, then this future coming must inaugurate a third age, since in both this (first) age, in which Paul lived, and the next (second) age Jesus is reigning high above rule and authority and power:

Ephesians 1:20-21: ...which he brought about in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenlies, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come.

So the age in which there is no rule and authority and power over which Christ may be reigning (for how can he reign over what no longer exists?) must be a third age beyond the "age to come" of Ephesians 1:21.

It all depends, in other words, on katargeo necessarily meaning the absolute and universal annihilation of all rule and authority and power, never to come to light again. Yet we know that the word katargeo does not have to have that meaning:

1 Corinthians 15:26: The last enemy that will be abolished [katargeo] is death.

2 Timothy 1:10: ...but now has been revealed by the appearing of our savior Jesus Christ, who abolished [katargeo, past tense!] death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

If katargeo just has to mean utter annihilation, then death was utterly annihilated at Jesus' first coming, and no one in Paul's day (or in ours, for that matter) ever died.

When I pointed this out to you in our e-mail exchange, you responded by noting that, if death has been abolished at Jesus' first coming, then when it is abolished again at his second it must be a different order of abolition. The stakes will have been raised, so to speak.

I completely agree with you to that point.

But you went on to assume that the first abolition was a legal one, and the second will be the actual, final, utter destruction of death. To which I reply: Maybe. But why? Why does the second time have to be the charm?

There is no reason to assume that the first abolition was in a legal sense and the second in a literal sense. There are those, for instance, who point out that, at the first abolition, there was exactly one person who would never, ever die again: Jesus Christ. At the second there will be many, many more: His followers. Hence the interchange in 1 Corinthians 15 between Jesus' own resurrection and that of his followers (see verse 15, for instance). That, on this view, is the difference. Every time someone is raised to eternal life, never to die again, death is abolished, nullified, defeated, one might even say cheated. It is not necessarily wiped from existence.

Your interpretation needs that Greek word katargeo to mean universal destruction. 2 Timothy 1:10, for one, denies you that necessary meaning.

So, with regard to the powers, they need not be erased from reality at the coming of Christ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. They will be "abolished," but not necessarily universally destroyed.

I am curious, by the way, as to your treatment of the apocalypse on this matter: If all rule and authority and power are at some point supposed to be completely removed, what are they doing in the final state?

Revelation 21:24-26: And the nations shall walk by its light, and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it. And in the daytime, for there shall be no night there, its gates shall never be closed, and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it....

Surely kings and nations imply rule and authority and power. The gates are to be left open all day every day (whatever that means in a nightless situation) so that the kings of the earth might bring their national glory into the new Jerusalem.

Or do you regard Revelation 21:1-22:5 as the "age to come," but not the final state?

Cheers.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

By the way, with regard to that phrase "age within an age," I myself would phrase it differently, but I know exactly what Solly is trying to say (I think).

In him.

Etcetera.

:smile:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-22-2003 @ 04:16 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear Glenn:

As a postmillennialist this is where they are seeing three ages in what I have said

Yes, I can see why they think you believe in three ages. I'm just challenging them to show any examples of Postmils who teach that there are three ages. When they attempt to look for such examples, and then see that the Postmils teach only two, I'm hoping that these guys will change their minds.

Glenn

[Etcetera]

Theonomy:

Greetings in the name.

You posted:

I'm just challenging them to show any examples of Postmils who teach that there are three ages....

:huh:

[Looking around for an example....]

:idea:

Dee Dee is an example of a postmillennialist who teaches that there are three ages.

She has written:

...if you mean, the end that ended in 70ad, the present age, and then the eternal state, then yes I hold to "three ages."

The fact still remains that the apostles (Paul and the writer of Hebrews) declared their time an end of an "age" (age number one) which then of course inevitably means that we are now in a different age (age number two), after which is the eternal state (age number three).

...I can substantially prove the three ages without even bringing preterism up.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-22-2003 @ 06:43 PM
Etcetera:
Dee Dee is an example of a postmillennialist who teaches that there are three ages.


Yeah, but she's on her own on that one! :smile: I've never seen the claim thatthere are three ages in any published work from a postmillennialist.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Theonomy and Etcetara:

02-22-2003 @ 01:49 AM
Theonomy:



Yeah, but she's on her own on that one! :smile: I've never seen the claim thatthere are three ages in any published work from a postmillennialist.

Really? I think we are getting semantical here in using the term "ages" for what I expressed is in fact the positoin of every postmill that I have read.

Are you suggesting that Gentry, for example, does not believe in an age that ended in 70AD (age one), the age that we are now in that will end at the Final Advent of Christ (age two), and the eternal state (age three)? I do not think you are suggesting that, for if so, you would be incorrect, and that is all I am advocating. This same position is held by Gary DeMar, Keith Mathison, pre-apostate David Chilton, Chori Seraiah, and every other postmill that I know.

I think where the problem is may be in calling the final state an "age" and I would agree that may not be the most appropriate terminology. In mortal, sinful human history, there are just two ages followed by the eternal state. This is not that controversial of an idea. The premills believe the same thing, they just project a mortal age into the future.

This is where nonpreteristic amills are chronologically deficit, an the premills at least have that part right over them. Preteristic amills are the same chronologically speaking as preteristic postmllls, and I would not have an issue with them there.

Etcetera... I will work on those further points. Thank you.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-23-2003 @ 01:35 AM
Dee Dee Warren:
I think where the problem is may be in calling the final state an "age" and I would agree that may not be the most appropriate terminology.

I agree that the problem is one of terminology. I got the impression that the normal usage was that of two ages. This age and the age to ome (eternal). The time A.D. represents the age to come breaking into history, so it is like the dawn of the next age, rather than an age on its own.

Glenn

[Darth Xena]

So see?? I am not novel, I am a pretty non-novel postmill preterist. It is just semantics. So now that I have explained myself, what I am saying is not strange or bizarre.

[Theolog]

02-06-2003 @ 08:21 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Absolutely. 1 Corinthians 15:24 et al is the death blow. It is the verse that shattered my former premill views and started me on the road to postmill, for I think it is harmful somewhat to amill as well.

Ach! You were pre-mil? The spell is broken.

Perhaps you were under a spell, oh well good reading skills pay off.

[Darth Xena]

02-23-2003 @ 01:55 AM
Theolog:



Ach! You were pre-mil? The spell is broken.

Perhaps you were under a spell, oh well good reading skills pay off.

I was as premill as they come. 1 Corinthians 15 fixed that one.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Bill:

I am back for your question….


I'm an amil, and so I have a question (for Dee Dee? et al.).

Why do you (anyone) think that I Cor 15 is a problem for the amil position? Is it because you interpret Paul's words to the effect that "Christ will reign until all His enemies are beneath His feet" as implying some kind of improvement?

Paul is using wartime language (reign, enemies, rule, authority and power). Battlefields can hardly be called "improved" except in so far as one group is defeated. I see Paul saying that the end of all things will have all of mankind laid low. All our ideas will have come to nought, with our systems - whether philosophical or practical - having failed us.

Christ will prove Himself to be the victor, and all our ideologies to be vanities. This is an "improvement," but hardly the postmil type.

His Kingdom - being hidden in all this - will be revealed (out of the ashes, as it were) as the only foundation with substance.

This kingdom will still merit the epithet that there are "few who will find it." The cross will remain unattractive to the end. Those who cling to it do not do so for its beauty but for its hope, promise, and unearthly wisdom.

As I had stated before it is not simply 1 Cor. 15 that I find challenging to amill, but a combination of passages. There are numerous passages which teach that the Kingdom will grow to fill the earth… some examples are….

Daniel 2:35 – And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

Matthew 12:31-32 – “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

Matthew 12:33 – “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.”

Isaiah 65:17-23 – “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people a joy. I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, nor the voice of crying. “No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, but the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, and My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.”

I could multiply passages but I think these are sufficient for my point. This is then coupled with the various passages that speak of Christ conquering and subjugating His foes which must be something that is progressively accomplished if these above verses are to take place in time and history, i.e. this subjugation cannot be one history-ending cataclysm.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Rusty:

Does it? Acts 2:34 says, "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." Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father following his ascension. He is to sit at the Father's right hand until His enemies are made a footstool for his feet. Premillennialism recognizes that there are enemies left for Christ to subjugate, including death, so how is this verse inconsistent with it?

To be sure, He has received His kingdom already, but his rule has not been enforced yet throughout the earth. In the parable of the talents, the nobleman went away on a long journey to be made king, and told his servants, "occupy till I come." AFTER having been made king, he came back to enforce his rule.


How can a nonKing receive His Kingdom? The fact is that Christ was made King at His ascension and began judicially enforcing His judgments with the destruction of the apostate Jews in 70AD. The Acts passage clearly indicates that the Davidic Messianic rule had already began…. But let’s couple that with the most-quoted/alluded to OT passage in the entire NT….

Psalm 110 – The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, ‘till I make Your enemies Your footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!”

This passage kills premill thought if carefully examined. First of all, the NT clearly t