Will Christ utter new words in a Premil millennium?

[Spiritual Israelite]

My answers to your original post, @grafted branch , are as follows:

"...will there be new chapters or books added to the Bible during the Premil millennium?"

No, there will never be anything added to the Bible (or taken away), as the Word of our God endures forever (Isaiah, Peter), and... well, John is absolutely clear about this in Revelation 22 18-21.​

Revelation 22:18-19 is referring to the book of Revelation in particular and not the Bible itself, so I don't think that passage can be used to prove nothing can ever be added to the Bible. Just throwing this out there even though we both know nothing will ever be added to the Bible. So, it's not a significant point. But, you know me. If I see something I disagree with, I say so. But, it's not a big deal at all in this case.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I guess if you believe that anything new would need to be added to the book of Revelation for some reason instead of in a new book, then you'd have a point.

"Or could it be possible that Christ doesn’t speak at all during the millennium?"

Christ speaks through the Scriptures and by the Spirit, Who brings to our remembrance all that He has said (John 14). And the writer of Hebrews says, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the Heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world." (emphasis mine; Hebrews 1:1-2). So to this question no, also​

Agree.

 

[Davidpt]

If the Premil millennium contains absolutely no deception whatsoever, then it doesn’t contain free will either.
If I were in the millennium and I wanted to deceive another person I wouldn’t be able to, because there would be no deception in the millennium, that means I would have limited free will at best.

Currently someone who believes in election might say no one has the free will to choose Christ because we are dead in our sins. In the Premil millennium someone might say no one has the free will to deceive because we are all alive in Christ.

You would have to admit there is deception of some kind in the millennium in order for people to retain free will in the millennium.

Except the following proves they still have free will during Premil's proposed millennium. This assuming the following is involving a millennium post the 2nd coming. Pretty much all Premils think it is involving a millennium post the 2nd coming. Non Premils disagree of course, but that's irrelevant unless non Premils can undeniably prove that verses 16-19 do not involve a millennium post the 2nd coming.

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

The commandment is this---every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

The free will opposition to that is this---whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Who would argue, regardless where they place verses 16-19 in the timeline of events, that verse 16 and 17 does not involve free will choices?

What about in the beginning, before and during the fall? Are you going to argue, in light of the 2 verses below in Genesis 2, that before they fell, this means they had no free will, thus why they didn't fall initially?

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Verse 17 is pointless unless Adam and Eve already possessed free will. Free will involves making choices, exactly what verses 16-17 are involving.

 

[Davidpt]

If you, as I am, are a Gentile, David, and a believer in Christ, a Christian, then you yourself along with me and all other Gentile Christians past and present are proof that we are in the millennium right now. That's of course not to exclude Jewish believers/Christians, as we are all in Christ, and thus one in Christ, but they were, of course, never members of any Gentile nation and thus not Gentiles.

My answers to your original post, @grafted branch , are as follows:

"...will there be new chapters or books added to the Bible during the Premil millennium?"

No, there will never be anything added to the Bible (or taken away), as the Word of our God endures forever (Isaiah, Peter), and... well, John is absolutely clear about this in Revelation 22 18-21.​

"Can there be more time added in somewhere after the millennium by Christ uttering new prophecies?"

No, same as above.​

"Or could it be possible that Christ doesn’t speak at all during the millennium?"

Christ speaks through the Scriptures and by the Spirit, Who brings to our remembrance all that He has said (John 14). And the writer of Hebrews says, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the Heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world." (emphasis mine; Hebrews 1:1-2). So to this question no, also ~ and yet more proof that we are in the millennium ~ these last days ~ now.​

Grace and peace to you both.

My thinking is this. Look at all the debates taking place in regards to how this should be interpreted, how that should be interpreted, etc. Obviously, these debates are never going to be settled before Christ returns. Therefore, why can't Christ during a future millennium use that time to put these debates to rest? Where He then provides the correct interpretations, thus none of these things are any longer debatable?

It could take a thousand years just to set the record straight, as to the correct interpretation of this passage, the correct interpretation of that passage, so on and so on. Why not? Don't ppl deserve to know the truth? Granted, some might already be interpreting things correctly. But, everything, though? Nobody could be that enlightened to where they never misinterpret anything. Only someone arrogant beyond belief could think they never misinterpret anything.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Except the following proves they still have free will during Premil's proposed millennium. This assuming the following is involving a millennium post the 2nd coming. Pretty much all Premils think it is involving a millennium post the 2nd coming. Non Premils disagree of course, but that's irrelevant unless non Premils can undeniably prove that verses 16-19 do not involve a millennium post the 2nd coming.

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

The commandment is this---every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

The free will opposition to that is this---whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Who would argue, regardless where they place verses 16-19 in the timeline of events, that verse 16 and 17 does not involve free will choices?

What about in the beginning, before and during the fall? Are you going to argue, in light of the 2 verses below in Genesis 2, that before they fell, this means they had no free will, thus why they didn't fall initially?

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Verse 17 is pointless unless Adam and Eve already possessed free will. Free will involves making choices, exactly what verses 16-17 are involving.

This contradicts you saying before that Jesus and His followers would be keeping everyone in line with their rods of iron during the supposed future thousand years. That contradicts free will. You need to make up your mind about this. You either believe that Jesus will be dictating what everyone does during that time or He will let people choose. Which is it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My thinking is this. Look at all the debates taking place in regards to how this should be interpreted, how that should be interpreted, etc. Obviously, these debates are never going to be settled before Christ returns. Therefore, why can't Christ during a future millennium use that time to put these debates to rest? Where He then provides the correct interpretations, thus none of these things are any longer debatable?

He could do that in eternity if that mattered to Him (which it probably does not). There is no scripture which teaches that, so you are once again just speculating on things.

It could take a thousand years just to set the record straight

LOL. What? Why would it take that long for Jesus to clarify all these things? That shows a lack of respect for Him. I'm sure He could do it in one day.

 

[PinSeeker]

My thinking is this. Look at all the debates taking place in regards to how this should be interpreted, how that should be interpreted, etc. Obviously, these debates are never going to be settled before Christ returns.

Right, but still, there is a "right," and there is a multitude of "wrongs." <smile> Still, it's a discussion ~ and debate, if healthy ~ worth having... even through the whole millennium. <smile>

Therefore, why can't Christ during a future millennium use that time to put these debates to rest?

<chuckles> At the end of the millennium, all will be resolved. After the final Judgment, maybe you and I will walk the road to Emmaus, and Jesus Himself will join us and explain everything to us (like He did in Luke 24:13-32), and our hearts will burn within us... That'd be pretty rad... <smile>

It could take a thousand years just to set the record straight...

Probably not. <smile>

Don't ppl deserve to know the truth?

We have the truth. In both Word and Person. <smile> And I think when all is resolved, we will marvel at how we struggled with something so plain.

Granted, some might already be interpreting things correctly.

The things we're talking about, sure.

But, everything, though?

Probably not. <smile>

Nobody could be that enlightened to where they never misinterpret anything.

Probably right. <smile>

Only someone arrogant beyond belief could think they never misinterpret anything.

I do think that no one really thinks they're infallible. I think most everyone would admit they're probably mistaken about... a few things... <smile> But it's okay for one to think he or she is right... <smile> ...and even to be at least somewhat adamant about it.

Grace and peace to you

 

[grafted branch]

I am making no assumptions. I am merely saying we do not know what Jesus will say and do in the minutae in the millennial kingdom and we do not know if any of it will be recorded and a "millennial testament" will be the 3rd section of the bible.

And we do not make assumptions. We let Scripture speak of itself. Premil is based on a literal look at the bible, pre trib rapture is based on a literal understanding of Scripture. We know the millennial is future based on what Scripture says about teh millennial kingdom.

Assumptions are what cause great heresy like terperism or amillennialism. We are forbidden to make assumptions about Scripture.

2 Peter 1:19-21​

​

King James Version​

​

​

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Assumptions are merely those private interpretations.

I am gone till next Tuesday so will respond then.

You say you don’t make assumptions but when one person says we are currently in the millennium and another person says it’s still future, someone has to be assuming. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say what date the millennium starts, so we all have to make assumptions on how we interpret verses.

I get it that since you put the millennium as still future you are going to interpret some verses literally while others are going to interpret those same verses spiritually, figuratively, or allegorically. I think everyone has to interpret some verses literally and others non-literally but unless you can give a ridged set of rules by which we can always determine what is literal or not, we have to make assumptions.

I don’t know about you personally but there are areas where many Premils assume. For example they tend to put a gap in between Daniel’s week 69 and week 70, that’s an assumption that supports a future millennium. The full 70 weeks without an assumed gap puts the start of the millennium just after the cross.

Also, many Premils assume that national Israel will remain a nation before God forever. They tend to quote Jeremiah 31:35-36 but that’s another assumption.

 

[grafted branch]

What Premil thinks that deception is occurring throughout the millennium?

Except the following proves they still have free will during Premil's proposed millennium.

How can a person have complete free will and not be able to deceive another person? I can currently tell someone “everything is going to be alright” when I know it’s not, that would be me deceiving or at least attempting to deceive.

If there is no deception in the Premil millennium it would be impossible for me to tell someone who was left of the nations that “everything is going to be alright” if they don’t go up and worship the King. I wouldn’t have the free will to say that.

 

[ewq1938]

If the Premil millennium contains absolutely no deception whatsoever, then it doesn’t contain free will either.

That is not a truth from the bible. You made this up.

If I were in the millennium and I wanted to deceive another person I wouldn’t be able to, because there would be no deception in the millennium, that means I would have limited free will at best.

Strawman fallacy. The bible states that satan cannot deceive the nations during the thousand years.

Currently someone who believes in election might say no one has the free will to choose Christ because we are dead in our sins. In the Premil millennium someone might say no one has the free will to deceive because we are all alive in Christ.

You would have to admit there is deception of some kind in the millennium in order for people to retain free will in the millennium.

The bible does not address the subject of freewill during the thousand years so this is all irrelevant.

 

[grafted branch]

Strawman fallacy. The bible states that satan cannot deceive the nations during the thousand years.

I’m not arguing that Satan will deceive, I’m arguing that if a human can’t deceive another human in the millennium then there isn’t free will in the millennium.

 

[ewq1938]

I’m not arguing that Satan will deceive, I’m arguing that if a human can’t deceive another human in the millennium then there isn’t free will in the millennium.

It's a flawed and meaningless argument. Stick to what the scriptures say. During the thousand years satan cannot deceive the nations. The bible is clear satan has been doing that before and after the cross so we cannot have been in the thousand years yet which discounts Amill as a possibility but Premill is possible and is the only option that can match what the bible presents.

 

[grafted branch]

It's a flawed and meaningless argument. Stick to what the scriptures say. During the thousand years satan cannot deceive the nations. The bible is clear satan has been doing that before and after the cross so we cannot have been in the thousand years yet which discounts Amill as a possibility but Premill is possible and is the only option that can match what the bible presents.

I am sticking to the scriptures.

Leviticus 19:11 (NIV) Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.

We can deceive one another, that is a Biblical fact. You are the one that seems to be straying from the scriptures by thinking that once Satan is bound we won’t be able to deceive one another.

 

[PinSeeker]

I guess if you believe that anything new would need to be added to the book of Revelation for some reason instead of in a new book, then you'd have a point.

Jesus is the Word, Spiritual Israelite, as you know. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1,14). And "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). And "(l)ong ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son..." (Hebrews:1:1-2). And "(a)ll flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever" (Isaiah 40:6-8; 1 Peter 1:25). Nothing will be added. Or taken away. You know all this.

Agree.

Great!

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

...they still have free will during Premil's proposed millennium.

Of course we do. <smile>

Just on the human will, David, for any person, his or her will, free as it is, is to do either his or her father's (the devil's) will or ~ if he or she has been born again of the Spirit ~ to do his or her Father's (God's) will. And this is because of the state of his or her heart.

Grace and peace to you, David.

 

[Davidpt]

This contradicts you saying before that Jesus and His followers would be keeping everyone in line with their rods of iron during the supposed future thousand years. That contradicts free will. You need to make up your mind about this. You either believe that Jesus will be dictating what everyone does during that time or He will let people choose. Which is it?

It doesn't contradict free will if they are commanded to come up but then choose not to. But by choosing not to come up, there are consequences for that, such as upon them no rain, whatever that might mean and look like. Is it meaning literal rain? I don't know, I couldn't tell you. All I know, the text indicates no rain upon them if they refuse to come up. These consequences for failing to comply still fit with ruling with a rod of iron. Either they come up or they face consequences if that don't. Either way it involves free will. After all, free will involves having choices and the freedom to decide.

Why would anyone want to blatantly contradict the chronology in Zechariah 14? Is that the way truth is established?

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.


In order to apply everything recorded in Zechariah 14 to this age, one first has to undeniably prove/show that verse 12 has already been fulfilled, in any sense. Because until it is fulfilled first, it is absurd that verses 16-19 have already come to pass in the meantime.

What part of verse 12 are some not comprehending? It is clearly being applied to all the people that have fought against Jerusalem. Until verse 12 is fulfilled, the following can't already be true in the meantime---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up

What part of---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem--are some not comprehending? Do some not understand when the text says--which came against Jerusalem--that it is meaning in past tense at this point, rather than this instead---every one that is left of all the nations which are coming against Jerusalem now---that the latter here makes no sense. The point being, no one is any longer coming against Jerusalem once verse 12 is fulfilled. After the millennium though, they are once again coming against Jerusalem. But not the same ones where verse 12 was their fate prior to the beginning of the millennium, but meaning the ones who are left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem but were spared the fate of verse 12 at the end of this age.

Per Premil, this view can make sense out of these things by applying these things to the end of this age(verse 12), then the millennium that follows(verses 16-19), then satan's little season.

Verse 17, for example. It is absurd that that is meaning for all eternity, that someone is commanded to come up year to year, but if they don't, upon them is no rain. Amil has no time period with a beginning and an end preventing this from continuing forever in this manner, Premil does. Keeping in mind, verses 16-19 can't be fulfilled until verse 12 is fulfilled first. And that it makes zero sense that verse 17 can be involving all of eternity, that throughout all eternity one can be threatened with no rain, whatever that might mean and look like, if they choose not to come up from year to year.

In my mind, there is zero way to make verses 16-19 be meaning before verse 12 is fulfilled, rather than after is fulfilled. If I thought or that someone could convince me that verses 16-19 can fit before verse 12 rather than after, I wouldn't even need to apply verses 16-19 to a future millennium in that case. So it's not like I have no valid reasons to apply verses 16-19 to what I do. And I already provided numerous reasons as to why I apply it to a future millennium, above.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus is the Word, Spiritual Israelite, as you know. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1,14). And "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). And "(l)ong ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son..." (Hebrews:1:1-2). And "(a)ll flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever" (Isaiah 40:6-8; 1 Peter 1:25). Nothing will be added. Or taken away. You know all this.

I already said that we (you and I) know that nothing will be added to the Word, but you're not addressing my point. I'm saying that Revelation 22:18-19 refers to adding to or taking away from the book of Revelation itself. I was only talking about that passage in particular.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

See the references to the words in "this book" and "the book of this prophecy"? Those are talking about the book of Revelation itself and not the entire Bible. That's all I'm saying. But, I know there are other verses, like the ones you shared, which indicate that no words will ever be added to the word of God that we have now, but that is beside the point I was making about Revelation 22:18-19 in particular.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It doesn't contradict free will if they are commanded to come up but then choose not to. But by choosing not to come up, there are consequences for that, such as upon them no rain, whatever that might mean and look like. Is it meaning literal rain? I don't know, I couldn't tell you.

You missed my point completely. In another post you were talking about Jesus and His people dictating what people could or couldn't do by using their rods of iron to keep them in line. That didn't seem to line up with the idea of people having the free will to choose to do what they want to do. But, I guess you meant to say that if they didn't obey then they would be smacked around by Jesus and His people with the rods of iron rather than saying they would be smacked around by the rods of iron to get them to obey in order to make it so that they couldn't possibly disobey?

All I know, the text indicates no rain upon them if they refuse to come up. These consequences for failing to comply still fit with ruling with a rod of iron. Either they come up or they face consequences if that don't. Either way it involves free will. After all, free will involves having choices and the freedom to decide.

Why would anyone want to blatantly contradict the chronology in Zechariah 14? Is that the way truth is established?

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.


In order to apply everything recorded in Zechariah 14 to this age, one first has to undeniably prove/show that verse 12 has already been fulfilled, in any sense. Because until it is fulfilled first, it is absurd that verses 16-19 have already come to pass in the meantime.

What part of verse 12 are some not comprehending? It is clearly being applied to all the people that have fought against Jerusalem. Until verse 12 is fulfilled, the following can't already be true in the meantime---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up

What part of---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem--are some not comprehending? Do some not understand when the text says--which came against Jerusalem--that it is meaning in past tense at this point, rather than this instead---every one that is left of all the nations which are coming against Jerusalem now---that the latter here makes no sense. The point being, no one is any longer coming against Jerusalem once verse 12 is fulfilled. After the millennium though, they are once again coming against Jerusalem. But not the same ones where verse 12 was their fate prior to the beginning of the millennium, but meaning the ones who are left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem but were spared the fate of verse 12 at the end of this age.

Per Premil, this view can make sense out of these things by applying these things to the end of this age(verse 12), then the millennium that follows(verses 16-19), then satan's little season.

Verse 17, for example. It is absurd that that is meaning for all eternity, that someone is commanded to come up year to year, but if they don't, upon them is no rain. Amil has no time period with a beginning and an end preventing this from continuing forever in this manner, Premil does. Keeping in mind, verses 16-19 can't be fulfilled until verse 12 is fulfilled first. And that it makes zero sense that verse 17 can be involving all of eternity, that throughout all eternity one can be threatened with no rain, whatever that might mean and look like, if they choose not to come up from year to year.

In my mind, there is zero way to make verses 16-19 be meaning before verse 12 is fulfilled, rather than after is fulfilled. If I thought or that someone could convince me that verses 16-19 can fit before verse 12 rather than after, I wouldn't even need to apply verses 16-19 to a future millennium in that case. So it's not like I have no valid reasons to apply verses 16-19 to what I do. And I already provided numerous reasons as to why I apply it to a future millennium, above.

I had no intention of getting into a big discussion about Zechariah 14 here and I don't know what gave you that impression when all I was doing was trying to figure out how you saw free will occurring during the supposed future thousand years if people were being forced to obey with rods of iron. But, I guess that isn't what you were intending to say and you instead are saying people would be free to choose, but then would be punished with rods of iron if they disobey.

Can you tell me exactly how you think the rods of iron would be used during that time? Do you think Jesus and His people will be smacking people on their legs and their backs with the rods of iron? Will they just be roughing people up a bit just enough to scare them or will they be causing significant injuries to make people stay in line? Describe exactly what you think Jesus and His people will be doing with the supposed literal rods of iron that they will be carrying around.

 

[PinSeeker]

...you're not addressing my point.

Right. No need, in my opinion.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

It doesn't contradict free will if they are commanded to come up but then choose not to. But by choosing not to come up, there are consequences for that, such as upon them no rain, whatever that might mean and look like. Is it meaning literal rain? I don't know, I couldn't tell you. All I know, the text indicates no rain upon them if they refuse to come up. These consequences for failing to comply still fit with ruling with a rod of iron. Either they come up or they face consequences if that don't. Either way it involves free will. After all, free will involves having choices and the freedom to decide.

Why would anyone want to blatantly contradict the chronology in Zechariah 14? Is that the way truth is established?

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.


In order to apply everything recorded in Zechariah 14 to this age, one first has to undeniably prove/show that verse 12 has already been fulfilled, in any sense. Because until it is fulfilled first, it is absurd that verses 16-19 have already come to pass in the meantime.

What part of verse 12 are some not comprehending? It is clearly being applied to all the people that have fought against Jerusalem. Until verse 12 is fulfilled, the following can't already be true in the meantime---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up

What part of---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem--are some not comprehending? Do some not understand when the text says--which came against Jerusalem--that it is meaning in past tense at this point, rather than this instead---every one that is left of all the nations which are coming against Jerusalem now---that the latter here makes no sense. The point being, no one is any longer coming against Jerusalem once verse 12 is fulfilled. After the millennium though, they are once again coming against Jerusalem. But not the same ones where verse 12 was their fate prior to the beginning of the millennium, but meaning the ones who are left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem but were spared the fate of verse 12 at the end of this age.

Per Premil, this view can make sense out of these things by applying these things to the end of this age(verse 12), then the millennium that follows(verses 16-19), then satan's little season.

Verse 17, for example. It is absurd that that is meaning for all eternity, that someone is commanded to come up year to year, but if they don't, upon them is no rain. Amil has no time period with a beginning and an end preventing this from continuing forever in this manner, Premil does. Keeping in mind, verses 16-19 can't be fulfilled until verse 12 is fulfilled first. And that it makes zero sense that verse 17 can be involving all of eternity, that throughout all eternity one can be threatened with no rain, whatever that might mean and look like, if they choose not to come up from year to year.

In my mind, there is zero way to make verses 16-19 be meaning before verse 12 is fulfilled, rather than after is fulfilled. If I thought or that someone could convince me that verses 16-19 can fit before verse 12 rather than after, I wouldn't even need to apply verses 16-19 to a future millennium in that case. So it's not like I have no valid reasons to apply verses 16-19 to what I do. And I already provided numerous reasons as to why I apply it to a future millennium, above.

David, there is a certain sense in which our will is never free. As Paul says in Romans 6, we all are, at any given time, either slaves to unrighteousness or slaves to righteousness. We are all naturally the former, but if and when we are born again of the Spirit, then we become the latter. What Jesus tells certain groups of Jews in John 6, 8, and 10 is of great relevance here.

But from a purely human, experiential standpoint, our will is always free.

Of Christians, those born again of the Spirit, Paul tells the Christians in Philippi ~ and us by extension ~ to "work out (their/our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13). We do the willing and working, and freely, but it is because God is at work in us so that we will do so. This is not saying that He "manipulates our will," but that he sanctifies our hearts by the ongoing work of His Spirit, and because of this our will is ~ or becomes more and more in this life ~ to please Him and do His will.

The issue is not really the will, David, it is autonomy. Neither you nor I ~ nor any other human being, past, present or future ~ is autonomous... we are not self-existing "free agents." Only God is.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

Nothing will be added. Or taken away. You know all this.

Ok, PinSeeker, I’m just looking for your opinion on this not a debate, I personally think the Canon is complete, but what about if some documents or scrolls were discovered?

In 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul says “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators” that epistle is what some people call zero Corinthians, it’s the epistle before 1 Corinthians.

If that epistle was found, authenticated, and determined to be written by Paul I would think it should be added to the Canon. Daniel 12:4 does say knowledge will increase and someone could use that as an argument for why the Canon is not yet complete.