Posted on 07/03/2025 5:38:42 PM PDT by Angelino97
I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant.
According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.
Opposed to this, the Catholic Faith teaches that the Old Law — itself good, holy, and of divine origin — was a preparation for the New, and that the New Law superceded and fulfilled the Old.
Indeed, as Dr. Sungenis shows, Pope John Paul II affirmed the traditional teaching in a not-much-quoted passage of Redemptoris Mater: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.”
Years ago, I made an effort at debunking this vogue theology in an article on the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Better Testament. Dr. Sungenis quotes from Hebrews, but he does not limit himself to this, as the pilfered quotations below adequately show.
The following is a series of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial citations from “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?“:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;
Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;
2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;
Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;
Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;
Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;
Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;
Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);
St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);
Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).
When I wrote “Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30: Jesus tells the apostles they will “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” This points to the apostles’ role in the Church, the new Israel, ...Revelation 20:4–6: The “thousand years” is symbolic, not literal.”
You replied “
Absurd. Scripture speak voluminously of the further earthly kingdom of Christ, of which this is part, and cannot be all spiritualized away, of which extensive documentation can be provided. However this is summer, with lots to due, and time is more valuable than to spend much on this issue or anything”
Your response is a puff of hot air, not an argument. Calling the Catholic view “absurd” and claiming Scripture “voluminously” supports a literal earthly kingdom is empty bluster when you provide zero evidence. Ducking the debate because “it’s summer” and “time is valuable” is a lame excuse—if you’re too busy to back your claims, don’t make them. Your dispensationalist obsession with a literal Jewish kingdom distorts the Bible, defies the early Church, and crumbles under scrutiny. Let’s dissect your non-answer and bury your errors with Scriptural truth.
.
1. Your Claim: “Scripture speaks voluminously” of a Literal Kingdom
You assert that Scripture overwhelmingly supports a literal earthly kingdom, with Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30, and Revelation 20:4–6 as part. But you cite nothing specific—just vague bravado about “extensive documentation.” That’s not exegesis; it’s a tantrum. Let’s test your claim against the texts you referenced and the broader biblical witness:
Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30: You imply these verses, where Jesus says the apostles will “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” prove a literal Jewish kingdom. Wrong. The “twelve tribes” symbolize God’s people, fulfilled in the Church, the new Israel (Galatians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9). The apostles’ “judging” refers to their authority in the Church, governing through teaching and sacraments (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:20). James 1:1 addresses the “twelve tribes” as the Christian diaspora, not a future Jewish state. Your literalist reading ignores the New Testament’s redefinition of Israel as all who believe in Christ (Romans 9:6–8).
Revelation 20:4–6: You reject the symbolic interpretation of the “thousand years” as absurd, but your literalism is the real error. Revelation is apocalyptic, packed with symbolic numbers (7 seals, 12 tribes, 144,000) that convey theological truths, not a calendar. The “thousand years” represents the Church age, where Christ reigns through His martyrs and saints (the “beheaded,” v. 4) until His second coming (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 676). Revelation 21:1–4 immediately introduces the eternal new heaven and new earth, with no Jewish interregnum. Your insistence on a literal millennium ignores the genre and contradicts the early Church’s amillennial consensus (Augustine, City of God, Book 20).
Where’s your “voluminous” evidence? You claim Scripture overflows with support for a Jewish kingdom but can’t muster a single verse or argument. If it’s so clear, why dodge? Name the texts, or admit you’re bluffing.
When I wrote “Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30: Jesus tells the apostles they will “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” This points to the apostles’ role in the Church, the new Israel, ...Revelation 20:4–6: The “thousand years” is symbolic, not literal.”
You replied “
Absurd. Scripture speak voluminously of the further earthly kingdom of Christ, of which this is part, and cannot be all spiritualized away, of which extensive documentation can be provided. However this is summer, with lots to due, and time is more valuable than to spend much on this issue or anything”
Your response is a puff of hot air, You sneer at “spiritualizing” the kingdom, as if a non-literal interpretation is unfaithful. This exposes your dispensationalist blind spot. Scripture’s apocalyptic and prophetic texts often use symbolic language to convey spiritual realities, especially in the New Testament’s fulfillment of Old Testament promises. The early Church understood this—your literalism is the outlier.
Dispensationalists like you often cite texts like Ezekiel 40–48 or Zechariah 14 for a restored Jewish kingdom. But the New Testament reinterprets these symbolically. Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezekiel 43:7) is fulfilled in Christ, the true temple (John 2:19–21), and His Church (1 Corinthians 3:16). Zechariah’s vision of nations worshiping in Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:16) points to the gospel’s universal spread (Matthew 28:19–20), not a literal Jewish state. Hebrews 8:13 calls the old covenant “obsolete” because Christ fulfills it (Hebrews 10:9–10).
Jesus explicitly rejects an earthly kingdom: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The apostles, after initial confusion (Acts 1:6), proclaim Christ’s spiritual reign (Acts 28:31; Colossians 1:13). Paul says the kingdom is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17), not a geopolitical regime. Your refusal to “spiritualize” blinds you to Scripture’s own interpretive shift.
Your literalism isn’t fidelity—it’s a refusal to let the New Testament guide Old Testament exegesis. The early Church saw Christ’s kingdom as present in the Church and consummated at His return (1 Corinthians 15:24), not a 1,000-year Jewish prelude. You’re not defending Scripture; you’re shackling it to dispensationalist dogma.
The New Testament Church and post-apostolic Fathers did not uniformly expect a literal earthly kingdom. While a few (e.g., Papias, Justin Martyr) speculated about a millennium, their views were not definitive and were soon rejected as carnal misreadings. The evidence is clear:
Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD): In 1 Clement, he focuses on Christ’s return and eternal kingdom, with no Jewish millennium in sight.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD): His letters emphasize the Church as God’s kingdom, centered on the Eucharist, not a future Jerusalem.
Origen (c. 230 AD): He rejected chiliasm (literal millenarianism), interpreting apocalyptic texts allegorically as spiritual truths.
Augustine (c. 400 AD): In City of God (Book 20), he cemented the amillennial view: the “thousand years” is the Church age, where Christ reigns now. Chiliasm was a minority error, later condemned at Ephesus (431 AD).
Your claim that the New Testament Church “looked for the soon establishment of Christ’s earthly kingdom” is a dispensationalist fantasy. The apostles preached Christ’s risen lordship (Acts 2:36) and expected His final return (2 Peter 3:10–13), not a Jewish regime. You’re projecting John Nelson Darby’s 19th-century invention onto the 1st-century Church.
Show me one apostolic or patristic text explicitly teaching your Jewish earthly Kingdom millennium—or admit you’re wrong.
The “thousand years” represents the Church age, where Christ reigns through His martyrs and saints (the “beheaded,” v. 4) until His second coming
......
There’s a problem with that 1,000 Cronos.
Those alive today are alive about 2,000 years after the Ark left for Heaven.
Not 1,000.
And about 2,000 may not be in the book of Revelation, but it is in Joshua and it is in Mark.
Old Covenant and New Covenant parts of the bible.
Old Covenant Israel was to stay away from the Ark about 2,000 cubits as they passed over into the Promised Land.
New Covenant Israel has experienced about 2,000 away from the Ark.
So, the reign of His believers on earth has been about 2,000.
How about the New Covenant reference to about 2,000?
That one isn’t describing distance or a measurement, but it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement that about 2,000 is a good number for the New Covenant Church.
It’s describing a Legion of Demons (6,000) being driven into about 2,000 swine.
Swine. An unclean animal that Old Covenant Israel was commanded not to eat or even touch.
A symbol of what you describe as the ‘1,000’ years of His
Believers on earth, is in reality about 2,000 years of distance from the Ark in heaven before reaching the Promised Land, and those New Covenant years are also described as demon possessed unclean years, filled with doctrines of demons that shouldn’t be eaten or touched.
It sort of fits the parables that describe a corruption of the Kingdom on earth.
A leavening of the lump
Satan’s demons allowed to hang out in the Kingdom tree..
Until His Kingdom Comes on earth, as it is in Heaven.
For 1,000 years when Satan is literally locked away.
What a day that will be.
But your mileage will obviously vary.
Clocks ticking on Satan’s 6,000 ending. With the last about 2,000 of those reverently called ‘ The Church Age ‘.
I know that that your dispensationalist perspective shapes your interpretation, but I believe it leads to significant misreadings of Scripture that conflict with the New Testament’s teaching, the early Church’s witness, and Catholic theology. Let me address your arguments step-by-step, grounding my response in the Bible, Catholic teaching, and the historical faith, to show that the amillennial view of the Church age is both biblical and Christ-centered, while your numerological connections and portrayal of the Church as “demon-possessed” are unbiblical and misguided.
1. The “Thousand Years” in Revelation 20: Biblical and Symbolic
You argue that the “thousand years” in Revelation 20:4–6 cannot represent the Church age because we’re about 2,000 years from Christ’s ascension, not 1,000. This assumes a literal interpretation of the number, which misunderstands the apocalyptic genre of Revelation and the broader scriptural context.
- Apocalyptic Symbolism: Revelation is filled with symbolic numbers—7 (perfection), 12 (God’s people), 144,000 (completeness)—that convey theological truths, not literal timelines. The “thousand years” (Revelation 20:4–6) symbolizes the fullness of the Church age, from Christ’s resurrection to His second coming, during which He reigns through His martyrs and saints (the “beheaded,” v. 4) who “came to life” in a spiritual sense (John 5:24: “Whoever hears my word… has passed from death to life”). The Catechism affirms this amillennial view: “The Church… will not be perfected until the final victory of Christ” (CCC 676). The number 1,000 isn’t a calendar but a sign of God’s complete reign (Psalm 90:4: “A thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday”).
- Historical Context: The early Church, including Augustine (City of God 20.7–9), rejected chiliasm (a literal 1,000-year reign) as a carnal misreading. By the 3rd century, amillennialism—seeing the millennium as the Church’s present reign with Christ—was the consensus, as Origen (On First Principles 2.11) and others taught. Your literal 1,000-year kingdom, tied to a Jewish-led reign, is a 19th-century dispensationalist invention, not apostolic faith.
- tying that to your Unbiblical objections.
You note that 2,000 years have passed since Christ’s ascension, not 1,000, as if this disproves the Church age interpretation. But the “thousand years” isn’t a precise duration—it’s symbolic of the entire period of the Church’s mission, whether 2,000 years or more. Revelation 20 transitions directly to the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1–4), with no literal Jewish kingdom in between. Your insistence on a literal 1,000 years ignores the text’s genre and imposes a modern framework foreign to Scripture.
I know that that your dispensationalist perspective shapes your interpretation, but I believe it leads to significant misreadings of Scripture that conflict with the New Testament’s teaching, the early Church’s witness, and Catholic theology.
2. The 2,000 Cubits in Joshua 3:4: A Misapplied Symbol that you are using
You connect the 2,000 cubits distance from the Ark in Joshua 3:4 (as Israel crosses into the Promised Land) to the 2,000 years since Christ’s ascension, suggesting the Church age is a period of separation from the “Ark in heaven.” This is a speculative leap that distorts the text.
— Joshua 3:4 in Context: The instruction to stay “about 2,000 cubits” from the Ark ensured reverence for God’s presence as the Israelites crossed the Jordan (Joshua 3:3–4). The distance was practical, allowing the multitude to see the Ark and follow safely, not a prophetic code for 2,000 years. The Ark symbolized God’s covenant presence, fulfilled in Christ, the true Ark (Hebrews 9:11–12), who is now accessible to all through the Church (Ephesians 2:18). There’s no biblical link to a 2,000-year Church age.
— No New Testament Connection: You admit “2,000 may not be in the book of Revelation,” but try to tie Joshua’s 2,000 cubits to the New Covenant. This is eisegesis—reading a modern idea into an Old Testament text. The New Testament never references Joshua 3:4 as a prophecy of the Church age. Instead, it presents Christ’s ascension as His enthronement (Acts 2:33; Ephesians 1:20–22), with the Church as His Body, not a people distant from Him (1 Corinthians 12:27).
The Church age is not a time of separation but of union with Christ through the Holy Spirit (John 14:16–18). The Ark’s role is fulfilled in Christ’s priesthood (Hebrews 8:1–2) and, secondarily, in Mary as the new ark, bearing the Word made flesh (Luke 1:35; Revelation 11:19–12:1). Your 2,000-cubit analogy lacks any scriptural warrant and contradicts the New Testament’s emphasis on Christ’s present reign (Colossians 1:13).
I know that that your dispensationalist perspective shapes your interpretation, but I believe it leads to significant misreadings of Scripture that conflict with the New Testament’s teaching, the early Church’s witness, and Catholic theology.
3. The 2,000 Swine in Mark 5:13. This is so utterly wrong on your part it is incredible
Your most troubling claim is linking the 2,000 swine in Mark 5:13, into which demons were cast, to the 2,000 years of the Church age, describing it as “demon-possessed unclean years” filled with “doctrines of demons.” This is not only unbiblical but a slanderous attack
— Mark 5:13 in Context: Jesus casts a “Legion” of demons into about 2,000 swine, which drown in the sea (Mark 5:1–13). This demonstrates His authority over evil (Mark 5:15) and fulfills the Old Testament law’s view of swine as unclean (Leviticus 11:7), symbolizing the expulsion of demonic forces. The number 2,000 is incidental, describing the herd’s size, not a prophecy of the Church age. No New Testament writer or early Church Father connects this to a 2,000-year period of corruption.
You equate the Church age with these “unclean” swine, suggesting it’s corrupted by “doctrines of demons” (a phrase from 1 Timothy 4:1, misapplied here). This contradicts Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” His Church (Matthew 16:18). The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), not a demon-possessed entity. Your dispensationalist pessimism about the Church age—expecting a future Jewish kingdom—distorts the New Testament’s view of the Church as Christ’s Bride (Ephesians 5:25–27).
You portray the Church age as a corrupted “leavening of the lump” and a “Kingdom tree” with Satan’s demons, awaiting a literal 1,000-year reign “when Satan is literally locked away.” This misreads Jesus’ parables and Revelation, undermining the Church’s divine mission.
— You reference the parable of the leaven (Matthew 13:33) and the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31–32), claiming they show corruption. In context, Jesus uses leaven to depict the Kingdom’s growth, permeating the world positively (Luke 13:20–21), not negatively. The mustard seed grows into a tree where “birds” (not demons) rest, symbolizing the Kingdom’s expansion to all nations (Ezekiel 17:23). The “tares” parable (Matthew 13:24–30) acknowledges evil within the Kingdom, but Christ protects His Church until the harvest (His return), not a millennial kingdom.
— Revelation 20:2–3 says Satan is “bound” during the thousand years. Catholics interpret this as his restricted power in the Church age, where Christ’s victory limits his ability to deceive (John 12:31: “Now the ruler of this world will be cast out”). The gospel’s spread (Acts 1:8) fulfills this binding, though Satan remains active until Christ’s return (1 Peter 5:8). Your literal “locking away” awaits a future millennium, but Scripture shows Christ reigning now (Ephesians 1:20–22).
The Church age is not a demonic failure but Christ’s active reign through His Body (1 Corinthians 12:27). The Catechism calls the Church “the seed and beginning” of the Kingdom (CCC 669), imperfect yet guided by the Spirit. Your dispensationalist view, expecting a future Jewish kingdom, diminishes Christ’s present lordship (Revelation 11:15: “He shall reign forever and ever”).
Your connection of 2,000 cubits (Joshua 3:4) and 2,000 swine (Mark 5:13) to a 2,000-year Church age, followed by a literal 1,000-year reign, is pure speculation, not exegesis. Scripture never links these numbers prophetically.
There is no biblical basis for Joshua’s 2,000 cubits is a practical distance, not a timeline. Mark’s 2,000 swine illustrate Christ’s power, not a Church-age prophecy. Your “6,000 years of Satan” ending with 2,000 “unclean” years is a dispensationalist construct, not found in the Bible. The New Testament focuses on Christ’s return, not numerical schemas (Mark 13:32: “No one knows the day or hour”).
The early Christians rejected your flawed point of view as they rejected such numerological readings, seeing the millennium as symbolic (CCC 676). Your 2,000-year theory echoes dispensationalist timelines (e.g., John Nelson Darby’s seven dispensations), which lack apostolic precedent. The early Church expected Christ’s return, not a calculated Jewish millennium (2 Peter 3:10–13)
Scripture unites Jew and Gentile in one Church (Ephesians 2:14–16; Galatians 3:28).
Your 2,000-year theory echoes dispensationalist timelines (e.g., John Nelson Darby’s seven dispensations), which lack apostolic precedent. The early Church expected Christ’s return, not a calculated Jewish millennium (2 Peter 3:10–13).
Christ is the Passover Lamb
Christ is the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth
Christ is the First Fruits of Those Fallen Asleep
Satan and his Demons allowed in the Church have corrupted that plain First importance of the Gospel according to scriptures..
That is the best example of the 3 measures of leaven in the lump.
That is the best example of about 2,000 years of demon possessed unclean doctrines of demons
That is the best example of Demon birds allowed to nest in the Kingdom
A false Christ and a False Gospel professed by both the Mother of Harlots and Her Harlot daughters..
That has to end.
Christmas, January 1, February 2, Good false goddess Frigg Day, unholy Saturn Day, sun god day all need to end up in the Lake of Fire with the rest of the false doctrines of demons allowed to be peddled for any part of these last about 2,000 years the Ark, the Light, the Word left to go to Heaven.
Thank God it wasn’t about 3,000.
There is a hint that 3 measures of leaven were to be in the lump to make it all leavened.
Hopefully for the sake of the elect, He’ll cut time short.
The bible hints that He does.
Take a look at what offerings are required for the Feast of Weeks/Pentecost (aka the Birth of the Church)
Two LEAVENED Loaves
Christ is the UNLEAVENED Bread of Sincerity and Truth
2 Leavened loaves, Cronos.
That’s what the world has had while the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth is in Heaven.
The bible shows us the corrupted Kingdom on earth would be the opposite of Sincerity and Truth.
It eventually would morph into insincerity and falsehoods.
The parables may not be fully understood by the Church.
Maybe they read them and actually have no clue what they’re reading.
They don’t even have Paul’s first/Chief importance of the gospel Right.
Why should they have any Truth in them at all?
Welcome to about 2,000 years of Satan influence in the Garden, while the Tree of Life is in Heaven.
Your mileage will vary because your religion varies from mine..
You and I don’t have the same Jesus or the same Gospel.
I expect your religion to read the Bible differently than one who has been led out of Babylon.
What bombastic insolence! After stating (in a response to your post to a brief one of mine, which focus was on Rome's documented reluctance to recognize the state of Israel) that I have lots to do, and that time is more valuable than to spend much on this issue or anything else, and after spending 12 hours working on bikes (for free, by the grace of God) yesterday without a break, and more awaiting, I find 5 replies lengthy from you, culminating with your insolent demand, as you are actually worthy of a replies on this dead thread as a cultists who can only affirm RC teaching. Indeed there certainly is more to show, not simply from apostles, but prophets since they are the human foundation for the church.
Rather, I have already shown you enough and you implicitly admit you are wrong by your recourse of dismissing all such as referring to the 1,000 reign of Christ and of redeemed Jews being subjects in it, which dismissal is consistent with your liberal exegesis shown in a post a little while back. Thus relying on some non-inspired writings of so-called "church fathers."
No, I am not going to place you or your preterist cousins above other persons waiting for help by taking hours (it takes me) typing and refuting this spiritualizing of Scripture, even though this issue need not be essential to salvation, but instead I will leave readers with one source among many that have already provided much on this issue.
As well as to reiterate what you are rejecting:
"laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (Revelation 20:2-3)
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:6-10)
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21:1-4)
A "thousand" appears 23 times in 15 verses in the Revelation, so if you allegorize or spiritualize the 6 uses in Revelation 20+, you would have to interpret the other 17 uses similarly and many passages would make no sense, but be nonsense. The truth is that there are literally hundreds of prophetic promises of the coming Messianic Kingdom scattered throughout the Old Testament.\The non-literal reader will be forced to used his or her "sanctified imagination" invoking a variety of allegorical or spiritualized interpretations (see the Rise of Allegorical Interpretation). — https://www.preceptaustin.org/the-millennium-in-the-old-and-new-testament
May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Your latest reply is a bombastic tirade, dodging my challenge to provide a single apostolic text supporting your literal Jewish millennial kingdom with insults, excuses, and a recycled dispensationalist script.
You claim I’m an “insolent cultist” blindly affirming “RC teaching,” dismiss the Early Church Fathers as “non-inspired,” and accuse me of “liberal exegesis” and “spiritualizing” Scripture, all while failing to engage my arguments or produce evidence. Your appeal to Revelation 20, vague references to “hundreds of prophetic promises,” and a link to a dispensationalist website (Precept Austin) are no substitute for substantive exegesis.
This isn’t a defense—it’s a tantrum, and it exposes the fragility of your position.
Let’s break down the numerous errors in your post
Your dispensationalist house of cards collapses under the weight of God’s Word and the Church’s apostolic faith.
1. Your Evasion: No Apostolic Text, No Case
I challenged you to show one apostolic text explicitly teaching a literal Jewish earthly kingdom millennium, or admit you’re wrong. Your response? Zero texts, just bluster about being too busy fixing bikes and a claim that you’ve “already shown enough.” You haven’t. Not a single New Testament verse from an apostle supports your dispensationalist fantasy of a 1,000-year Jewish reign in Jerusalem. Instead, you lean on Revelation 20 and vague Old Testament “promises,” filtered through a 19th-century lens. This is a glaring failure.
- Apostolic Silence: The apostles—Peter, Paul, James, John—never teach a literal millennial kingdom. Paul proclaims Christ’s present reign (Colossians 1:13: “He has delivered us… into the kingdom of His Son”) and expects His return for final judgment (1 Corinthians 15:23–24: “Then comes the end”). Peter anticipates a “new heaven and new earth” (2 Peter 3:13), not a Jewish interlude. Acts 1:6–8 shows the apostles’ early hope for a restored Israel rebuffed by Jesus, who redirects them to the Church’s mission. Your claim that the New Testament Church expected a “soon establishment” of an earthly kingdom (from prior exchanges) is baseless—no apostolic text backs it.
- Your Dodge: You pivot to “prophets” as the Church’s “human foundation,” but Ephesians 2:20 says the Church is built on “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.” The apostles’ teaching, recorded in the New Testament, interprets Old Testament prophecy through Christ’s fulfillment, not a future Jewish state. Your refusal to cite an apostolic text concedes defeat. If “hundreds” of prophecies exist, name one New Testament verse where an apostle explicitly endorses your millennium. You can’t, because it’s a dispensationalist invention, not apostolic truth.
Your entire argument hinges on dispensationalism, a system concocted by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s, not the apostles or prophets. It’s riddled with errors that fracture Scripture’s unity and diminish Christ’s work.
1. Israel-Church Dualism: You insist on a future Jewish kingdom separate from the Church, contradicting Ephesians 2:14–16: “He has made one new man out of the two, thus making peace.” Galatians 3:28 obliterates ethnic distinctions: “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The Church is the new Israel (Galatians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9), fulfilling God’s promises to Abraham (Romans 4:16).
2. Your dispensationalist Old Testament Misreading: You claim “hundreds of prophetic promises” in the Old Testament for a Messianic kingdom, citing your Precept Austin link. But the New Testament reinterprets these spiritually. Ezekiel 40–48’s temple is Christ (John 2:19–21) and His Church (1 Corinthians 3:16). Zechariah 14’s worship in Jerusalem is the gospel’s spread (Matthew 28:19). Hebrews 8:13 declares the old covenant “obsolete” because Christ fulfills it (Hebrews 10:9–10). Your literalist reading ignores the New Testament’s lens, risking a Judaized gospel Paul condemned (Galatians 1:8–9).
3. You postpone Christ’s full kingship to a future millennium, but Scripture says He reigns now (Ephesians 1:20–22: “He seated Him at His right hand… above every name”). Revelation 11:15 proclaims: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord… and He shall reign forever.” Your 1,000-year Jewish stopgap undermines Christ’s eternal lordship (Hebrews 12:28).
You fling insults, calling me a “cultist,” accusing me of “liberal exegesis,” and linking me to “preterist cousins.” These are baseless smears of you as a loser, not arguments.
Catholics aren’t preterists, who claim most prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD. We’re amillennial, seeing the Church age as Christ’s reign until His second coming (CCC 676). Revelation 20’s “thousand years” is ongoing, not past. You mislabel to dodge my arguments.
My exegesis is rooted in Scripture (John 18:36, Ephesians 2:14–16) and the Fathers (Augustine, Origen), not liberal skepticism. Your dispensationalist literalism, ignoring apocalyptic symbolism, is the innovation, as it’s absent from the early Church. Show me one Father endorsing your Jewish millennium beyond Papias’ minority view.
Catholicism is the apostolic faith, founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18), with 2,000 years of continuity. Your dispensationalism, born in 1830, is the novel sect, splitting God’s people into Israel and Church, contradicting Romans 9:6–8: “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Your “cultist” jab is projection
Precept Austin is your cultudt source which is riddled with errors.
You cite Precept Austin’s article on the millennium, claiming it proves “hundreds” of Old Testament promises. This is a dispensationalist echo chamber, not scholarship. The article’s “Rise of Allegorical Interpretation” section derides symbolic exegesis, but the New Testament itself uses it—Paul allegorizes Sarah and Hagar (Galatians 4:21–31), and Hebrews sees Melchizedek as a type of Christ (Hebrews 7:1–3). Your source dismisses the Fathers’ hermeneutic, which shaped the canon, while peddling Darby’s timeline. It’s not evidence—it’s propaganda. Cite primary texts—Scripture, not websites—or your case collapses.
Repent of your dispensationalist division and return to apostolic unity (John 17:21).
Your response is a smokescreen—no apostolic texts, no exegesis, just insults and a dispensationalist link. Revelation 20’s “thousand years” is the Church age, where Christ reigns now (Ephesians 1:22–23), not a future Jewish kingdom. Your literalism mangles Scripture’s symbolism, ignores the Fathers, and fractures God’s people, contradicting Galatians 3:28. The Church, built on Christ (Matthew 16:18), is the new Israel, fulfilling prophecy (Romans 15:8–12). Your “hundreds” of promises are Old Testament texts misread through Darby’s lens, not New Testament truth.
Drop the Precept Austin crutch and face Scripture. Show me one apostolic verse teaching your Jewish millennium, or admit you’re peddling a 19th-century fable of dispensationalism. The Catechism (CCC 676), Augustine, and the Bible stand firm—your dispensationalism is a house of sand.
Repent, and let’s seek Christ’s eternal kingdom together (Revelation 22:5). I’m waiting for that text, but I won’t hold my breath.
“false Christ and a False Gospel professed by both the Mother of Harlots and Her Harlot daughters”
That would be people who follow dispensationalism and numerology as exposed in your posts.
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.