Millennial Series: Part 11: The Theological Context of Premillennialism

Hey Raven,

Those parables of the kingdom can hint at not only three groups entering the kingdom (30,60,100) but also three different ages where the mustard seed of each believer grows into a 100fold perfected, spiritually matured, Bride for Him.

Those parables teach about separations: Wheat and tares, sheep and goats, 5/2/1 talents, 30,60,100 from the wayside,rock and thorns..

The beauty of the Promise of the Coming Kingdom and His Will be done on earth in our Lord’s prayer, is that we will have a promise of 1000 years here with no enemy to lead us astray...
With this Kingdom age of today( this 6000 years we live in now), there is still an enemy who can mislead us,

When He reigns, it will be His rules:
Torah

There may be some that would prefer He reign and rule using the US Constitution or their denominational doctrines of faith or catechisms instead..

I think I see what you mean, and it would be much better than a constitutional government reign, the problem I might have is if it don`t happen right away I may be gone to a better place,.

but then some people would tell me that I would come back in reincarnation and so still be able to live in Gods kingdom.

Pretty deep for me, I just think god for the time and place.

As the preacher on The Alamo said, a time to live and a place to die.

You do make some good points.

That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

The above scripture alone is enough to convince me that the kingdom of God has been with us since that time and there is more.

Acts 1:8
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The power came on the day of Pentecost was something no one since the time of Moses had ever seen.

The kingdom of God came with power.

Thanks for the response. I fail to see how Rev. 20 can be all that difficult for you. Verse four makes an absolute case for a future millennial kingdom. How so? I’ll try to break this down as simplistic as I can. Here goes:

1. Martyrs of the tribulaion, who refused to worship the beast nor his image, nor take the mark of the beast, are described taking part in the event that BEGINS the thousand years, the first resurrection.

2. The first resurrection, then, is the defining event on the millennial kingdom issue. Put simply, according to this verse, the tribulation has to occur BEFORE the thousand years.

3. The martyrs are martyrs of the tribulation that begins the thousand years, are they not? And we know from chapters 6-19 preceding chapter 20, that this is when the worship of the beast, his image, and his mark, takes place.

4. Since the worship of the besst, his image, and mark of the beast haven’t happened yet, nor has the first resurrection which resurrects those who did not worship the beast, his image, nor take his mark,

5. Unless you are a preterist amill or a historicist amill, I’m sure you must agree the worship of the beast, his image, nor mark of the beast have obviously NOT happened yet. And neither has the first resurrection that resurrects these martyrs. And since the first resurrection begins the thousand years, NEITHER HAS THE THOUSAND YEARS.

6. Which means the events of chapters 6-19 have to PRECEDE the events described in 20:1-6. Which makes 20:4 the key verse proving chapters 6-20 to be chronological. If is proven to be chronological, then it is virtually impossible for us to have been in the millennial kingdom for the last two thousand years.

7. These things being so, this also means the binding of the devil for a thousand years is not the extremely strained interpretation amills have made of it.

Numbers 3 & 4 should have said:

3. The martyrs are martyrs of the tribulation that has to precede the thousand years, are they not? And we know from chapters 6-19 preceding chapter 20, that this is when the worship of the beast, his image, and his mark, takes place.

4. The worship of the besst, his image, and mark of the beast haven’t happened yet, then neither has the first resurrection which resurrects those who did not worship the beast, his image, nor take his mark,

Thanks for the response. I fail to see how Rev. 20 can be all that difficult for you.

I did not say that it was difficult, just your assumption.

Your assessment of the 1000 year reign can only make any kind of sense if you make it independent from the kingdom of God.

If you say like many that the kingdom of god and the thousand year reign are the same thing then you would have to admit that the 1000 year reign started at the same time as the kingdom of God which came in power at Pentecost.

Jesus plainly said that so I do not see how it could be hard for any one to understand that the kingdom of God came at that time and is not a visible kingdom but is with in you.

Other wise I could be in agreement with you but we can not have it both ways.

Of course we are most likely in disagreement on about every thing else, the first resurrection for instance, you say that it has not happened.

1Cor 15
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. Past tense it has already happened.

“I did not say that it was difficult, just your assumption.”

Seeing you had nothing to say about the very obvious chronology of: tribulation, first resurrection, then the millennial kingdom - the first resurrection closing out the tribulation while initiating the millennial kingdom in one event - I must have assumed right.

Instead, you want me to deal with your arguments. I can, I do have answers for them, none of which you are going to like. My answers do not contradict what I have tried to bring out in Revelation, however, yours does.

You do realize, what you see in these other books, and the obvious chronology in Revelation, cannot contradict? The Revelation, being the last word on prophecy, the last book of the Bible, says your interpretation in these other books must not be right.

Now, if you want to turn that around on me, and say your interpretation in these other books is the last word on prophecy, and my interpretation of the chronology of Revelation cannot possibly be right, then at least do me the courtesy of telling me just how the chronology in Revelation is wrong. Please exegete Rev. 20:4 for me.

I can save you the time, it is impossible for it to be any other way than the way the Revelation has it. Unless you can somehow get the tribulation to have already have happened, that is. The preterists claim to do that very thing.

Seeing you had nothing to say about the very obvious chronology of: tribulation, first resurrection,

One of my reasons for not saying anything about what you call the obvious chronology is that it is not that obvious to me, I don`t know.

I can also see contradictions in my own views of the 1000 year reign in rev 20, I have said many times that I do not know, I can only say I believe what makes the most sense to me.

If we can not come to some agreement on what Jesus meant when he plainly said.

Mathew 16
28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus said the kingdom was coming then.

I can see no point in going farther if we can not see what Jesus said in plain words the same way.

But does our salvation depend on if we agree or not? I think not.

I have been fighting the battle for “a more sure word of prophecy,” 2 Pet. 1:19, for some 40 years now. I run into all types, many preterist amills and postmills, for instance, I have found to be downright sneaky, hiding what they really believe. The worst. Like pulling teeth to get them to admit what they really are. I usually don’t waste much time with such.

Not so with you, from what you have posted, I believe you are for the most part up pretty transparent. (“For the most part” = I do wonder why so evasive on the tribulation-first resurrection-millennial kingdom chronology, Revelation chapters 6-20? You have yet to tell us your interpretation of Rev. 20:1-6.)

In my search for truth on the kingdom issue, I came across this book by George Ladd some 30 years ago, “The Gospel of the Kingdom.” He dealt with the apparent contradiction between “The Kingdom is Today” (the name of one of his chapters), i.e., the points you have been continually making, and “The Kingdom is Tomorrow,” the points I have been making. It helped me a great deal.

Ladd is one of the few I have seen tackle the apparent contradictive subject…and, in my opinion, done in a non-abrasive sort of way, he does a very good job.

I could quote at length on how the book deals with the points you have made, I will if you want, but probably better if you would get the book for yourself. It’s wise not to be too closed minded on such critical issues as this, the kingdom, we should see what others have to say on it.

As I have said, I see contradictions in my own view of rev 20 the same as I see it in any one else`s, as you pointed out the mark of the beast is thought to be much later in time so if that be true then my interpretation could not be right.

But I do not know that the mark of the beast was just for the later days.

Also you pointed out that the first resurrection had not happened, I disagree with that, it happened or Jesus could not have risen.

So based on my belief that the first resurrection did happen
and not knowing what to do with the mark of the beast I believe the people who were in the first resurrection did come back and were kings and priests and have reigned a thousand years with Christ, reincarnation .

I have explained it as far as I know how.

I have ask a question several times also that I can not get an answer on from you included.

Do you believe the Kingdom of God is the same or even corresponds time wise with the thousand year reign?

I came across this book by George Ladd some 30 years ago,>>>>>

I can see things that I agree with and do not agree with in almost any book but I might just look into it.

“But I do not know that the mark of the beast was just for the later days.”

If not the latter days, then when?

As to the other things you said about the first resurrection and those reigning as kings and priest in the millennial kingdom, they are dependent on the worship of the beast, his image, and the mark of the beast...described in Rev. chapters 6-19, i.e., the tribulation. If these things haven’t happened yet, then neither has the first resurrection, and neither has the millennial kingdom.

“Do you believe the Kingdom of God is the same or even corresponds time wise with the thousand year reign?”

The book I recommended has a chapter on “The Kingdom is Today,” another on “The Kingdom is Tomorrow.” That is what I believe.

Not because the book says so, because I had already seen clearly the chronology in Revelation, I reasoned that passages from other books in the Bible that seem to contradict, could not be. George Ladd’s book merely confirmed what I had already been seeing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.