I would like to know what premillenialists make of 1 Corinthians 15 and Paul's claim that at the resurrection of the saints, then the saying will be brought to brought to pass that says "where oh death is your victory? Where oh death is your sting?"

Here's how it looks to me: Paul says that a time will come when the saints will rise, and in that event, death will be defeated. That much seems beyond any dispute from any Christian with any millennial view. But the problem for premillennialism - or at least those versions I am aware of - is that the premillennial view places this event prior to the millennium.

But notice that Paul says that death is the last enemy that will be defeated. How does the pemillennialists construct an eschatology to accomodate this fact? The way I understand premillennialism, Christ's enemies will be subdued in the millennium, followed by a last rebellion of evil, and then the resurrection of the rest of humanity and the judgement. In this view, the resurrection of the saints occured at least a thousand years prior to all of Christ's enemies being subdued. But 1 Corinthians 15 says that at the time the saints are raised, all Christ's other enemies will be subdued already, death being the last one.

So it seems to me that Premillennialism says that Christ's enemies will be subdued a whole millennium after the resurrection of the saints, but in the New Testament, Christ's enemies will have all been subdued by the time the saints are raised.

Can any premillennialist explain this problem for me on the basis of the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15?

dang, i didn't even think about that pathway. ain't 1Cor. 15 a great passage, Theo?

Heck Sheepdog, that is the exact reasoning that I abandoned premill, and that was before I was a committed preterist.

Originally posted by Sheepdog

dang, i didn't even think about that pathway. ain't 1Cor. 15 a great passage, Theo?

It is a great passage for a number of reasons. It defends so many important doctrines!

I'm just hoping a premil believer can explain to me how they reconcile it with their eschatology.

Here's the explanation I've heard.

The last enemy to be destroyed is death, but this is the last enemy for the believers, not the rest of the world which must still face the reign of terror of the antichrist and all that. I suppose this is just like when Paul says all must be judged by their works, and he's talking to believer's, it really means it's a rewards judgment and not a real judgment by works. Something along that line of reasoning.

Originally posted by L

Here's the explanation I've heard.

The last enemy to be destroyed is death, but this is the last enemy for the believers, not the rest of the world which must still face the reign of terror of the antichrist and all that. I suppose this is just like when Paul says all must be judged by their works, and he's talking to believer's, it really means it's a rewards judgment and not a real judgment by works. Something along that line of reasoning.

That's peachy, but it's nothing like what Paul says.

Scripture Verse:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

It is so clear that the enemies here consists of all other kingdoms, dominion and power in the world. These are not merely enemies for believers, but enemies for GOD.

Originally posted by Theonomy

That's peachy, but it's nothing like what Paul says.

Scripture Verse:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

It is so clear that the enemies here consists of all other kingdoms, dominion and power in the world. These are not merely enemies for believers, but enemies for GOD.

I know. That passage is also interesting 'cause it states that Christ's reign is now.

This frustrated me today at church. We sang "Joy to the World", 'cause the person leading the singing said that this song isn't really about the first coming, but about the second, as we long for Christ to begin his reign or something like that. I think this runs straight against the actual lyrics of the song, and of Paul, who can claim that Christ's reign is now in passages like 1 Cor 15, and who can say that he preaches "another king", Jesus.

Of course I respect the song leader and he is a good friend of mine, but this robbing of Christ's kingship bothers me.

Originally posted by L

This frustrated me today at church. We sang "Joy to the World", 'cause the person leading the singing said that this song isn't really about the first coming, but about the second, as we long for Christ to begin his reign or something like that. I think this runs straight against the actual lyrics of the song, and of Paul, who can claim that Christ's reign is now in passages like 1 Cor 15, and who can say that he preaches "another king", Jesus.

Of course I respect the song leader and he is a good friend of mine, but this robbing of Christ's kingship bothers me.

I think that is a totally WICKED thing to say! You really should confront this guy for saying that.

A lot of the older songs speak of the present reign of Christ. I love "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name" which not only speaks of His present reign but the identity of Israel

So, are there any premils who would be willing to share their explanation with me in this thread?

I have seen several of you reading this thread. Please, help me out.

Originally posted by Theonomy

The way I understand premillennialism, Christ's enemies will be subdued in the millennium, followed by a last rebellion of evil, and then the resurrection of the rest of humanity and the judgement.

You really do not have much of an understading of premillennialism.

The enemies of Christ will be taken out of the world during the "end of the age",that age before the kingdom age:

"The field is the world...the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity" (Mt.13:28-41).

"All things that offend" in the world will be gathered out in the age preceding the kingdom age,not during,as you seem to think.And this proves that we are not now in the kingdom because there has not yet been a world wide harvest where all that offend are taken out of the world.

The subduing of Christ's enemies is not "followed" by a last rebellion of evil,as you seem to think,but instead that rebellion will occur at the end of the kingdom (Rev20:7-9).

The resurrection of the rest of humanity happens on the "last day" of the age that occurs before the kingdom age.

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn.6:40).

So you really have very little understanding of premillennialism.

In Christ,
Mickey

Mickey, am I right in understanding, then, that your version of premillennialism has no final rebellion at the end of the millennium, no battle of armageddon and all that?

Every version of premillennialism that I have come across does teach those things. If I lack understanding of your version, it's just because you're the only one who holds it.

Originally posted by Darth Xena

A lot of the older songs speak of the present reign of Christ.

So which are we going to believe,songs or the Scriptures?

If we were in the kingdom now then the Lord Jesus would be sitting in His own throne,and not the throne of the Father:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).

During the reign of the Lord Jesus Christians will sit with Him in His throne,and all will reign on the earth:

"And hast made us unto our God a kingdom of priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev.5:10).

If Christians are going to be reigning on earth,and they are going to be sitting in the throne of the Lord Jesus,that means that His throne will be on earth.

Since that obviously happened yet then the preterists are in error when they say that we are now in the kingdom.

In Christ,
Mickey

Mickey, you may not post any more posts like #13 in this thread.

All I want from premillennialists is an attempt to explain what was requested in post #1. Anything else that I don't want here, I will request to have deleted.

Thanks for co-operating.

Originally posted by Theonomy

Mickey, am I right in understanding, then, that your version of premillennialism has no final rebellion at the end of the millennium...

Did you not read what I said?Here it is again:

The subduing of Christ's enemies is not "followed" by a last rebellion of evil,as you seem to think,but instead that rebellion will occur at the end of the kingdom (Rev20:7-9).

I said that the rebellion will occur at the end of the kingdom (i.e. 1000 year reign) and you say that my "version of premillennialism has no final rebellion at the end of the millennium".

...no battle of armageddon and all that?

That takes place before the kingdom is put in place.

Every version of premillennialism that I have come across does teach those things. If I lack understanding of your version, it's just because you're the only one who holds it.

If you would read what I said you would realize that every single event of which you spoke was put at the wrong time according to pre-mil.

Not only that,but then you misrepresented what I said.Again,I said that the final rebellion will be at the end of the kingdom.

But you said:

Mickey, am I right in understanding, then, that your version of premillennialism has no final rebellion at the end of the millennium...

No,you are not right.

In Christ,
Mickey

Originally posted by Theonomy

Mickey, you may not post any more posts like #13 in this thread.

And this from the one who continually refer to some as "zombies"?

What is wrong with what I said in that post?

In Christ,
Mickey