Is Revelation 20:1-6 really a recap?

[Spiritual Israelite]

But if he is already bound according to you, it seems absurd to have to bind him yet again. I'm not saying your experience was not real. I believe you 100%. I'm saying it makes zero sense to bind someone that is already bound. Therefore, satan is not already bound, otherwise you would not have needed to bind him some more. That gives the impression that satan gets loose all the time and needs to be bound again. Except how can satan get free from his restraint if his restraint is for 1000 years? Well 2000 years and counting if you are an Amil.

Your experience undeniably proves that satan is not bound. Yet somehow you think it proves he is bound. I can't figure that logic out?

His experience only proves that Satan is not bound according to how YOU understanding his binding. Not according to how Amils understanding his binding. Who cares if it proves he is not bound according to YOUR understanding of his binding? Not me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Presently He is reigning on the right hand of power.

Congratulations on acknowledging that He is presently reigning. Many Premils don't even understand that, which is very sad to witness.

What all does that involve? It involves judgment, justice, and death, for one. But once 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled, He is no longer reigning in that manner, yet He reigns for ever and ever. Just not in the manner involving judgment, justice, death, etc.

When do you think 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled in relation to the second coming of Christ? I assume 1,000+ years later? What is the basis for thinking that? That is not indicated in the text whatsoever. If you read starting at 1 Corinthians 15:22 up to 1 Corinthians 15:28 you should see that Paul clearly indicated that 1 Corinthians 15:28 would be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ. That is when He said "the end" would come when Jesus delivers His kingdom to the Father.

As to the saints that reign with Him a thousand years, that is meaning when He has returned to the earth bodily and is then sitting upon His throne of glory until judgment, justice, and death has been satisfied and put away.

Read Matthew 25:31-46. I would hope you agree that it's referring to Him sitting upon the throne of His glory to judge at His second coming? Do you think what is described there goes on throughout the thousand years after His second coming? Do you think He is judging people throughout the thousand years? That is not the impression He gives at all. How could He rule the world in the way Premils think He will if He's spending all His time having people appear before Him and judging them?

Revelation 3:21 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.

What do you think this means? Do you not think that when a Christian dies he or she then goes to be with the Lord in heaven? I believe the soul of each Christian goes to sit with Jesus in His throne in heaven after they die. And it's not talking about literal thrones here. Do you understand that? Heaven itself is God's throne with the earth being His footstool (Isaiah 66:1). He obviously doesn't literally sit on heaven with His feet literally setting on the earth.

How can any objective person not see that 'my throne', meaning Christ's throne, is not meaning His Father's throne?

The thrones aren't literal. You are getting thrown off by thinking of separate, literal thrones. You continually interpret symbolic text literally and that's why you don't understand much at all in the book of Revelation. The thrones symbolically refer to authority. It's not referring to two separate literal thrones. Christ was given authority over all of heaven and earth after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22). It is in that sense that He then sat on His Father's throne which then became His throne as well. We come to share in His authority if we overcome.

How can any objective person not see that 'my throne' is meaning His throne of glory He sits upon when He bodily returns in the end of this age?

That is not saying He was not on His throne of glory before that. He will have not judged anyone before that. Do you deny that He has been on His throne of glory since His resurrection? Despite the fact that He was given all authority in heaven and earth after His resurrection and that He was placed at the right hand of the Father far above all power and authority and every name that is named at that time with all things under His feet while being made the head of all things in the church (Ephesians 1:19-23)?

How can any objective person not see that this---To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne---is meaning when He sits upon His throne of glory when He returns and is, therefore, meaning during the millennium?

LOL. How can any objective person read Matthew 25:31-46 and see anything there describing Jesus ruling for a thousand years on the earth? It says that believers inherit eternal life at that time and unbelievers are cast into everlasting fire at that time. Who exactly would Jesus rule over on the earth for a thousand years in that case?

How can any objective person not see that both Matthew 19:28 and Matthew 25:31 prove this?

I am an objective person and that's why I'm an Amil after previously being Premil. Those verses do not come anywhere near saying what you think they do. Those verses are about eternal JUDGMENT, not about ruling for a thousand years.

How can any objective person deny that you fully overcome first, then you are rewarded later for having fully overcome?

How can any objective person, meaning anyone who doesn't believe in soul sleep, think that we must wait until the future when Jesus returns before sitting with Jesus in His throne?

How can one fully overcome unless they do that all the way up unto the end? Keeping in mind there is such a thing as falling away, except a lot of Amils deny it, but not all Amils deny it.

I agree that it's talking about overcoming until death because other text in Revelation 2 and 3 talks about that.

How can any objective person not see that Christ fully overcame first, thus He never fell away before He died and that He was then rewarded with being set down with His Father in His Father's throne?

When was He set down with His Father in the Father's throne? Long after He died? No.

Except Amil has things backwards when it comes to them.

Amil has nothing backwards. Your understanding of Amil has always been backwards. You continue to think that you understand Amil when you clearly do not and you never have. An Amil knows if someone is describing our beliefs correctly or not and most of the time you do not because you look at everything only from your own Premil perspective.

Before they have even proved they have fully overcome first, they already have themselves being rewarded, thus sitting with Christ in Christ's throne, when they know very good and well that Christ didn't do it in that order Himself.

Don't lump all Amils together. You Premils get upset when I make general blanket statements about Premils and I try not to do that. So, don't make general blanket statements about Amils if what you're saying doesn't apply to all Amils.

So why do Amils think everything should be handed to them on a silver platter when it wasn't true of Christ? He had to overcome first, then He was rewarded.

I don't think that. You apparently think that all Amils believe the same. Proving yet again that you have no understanding of Amil at all.

That chronological order hasn't changed. It's still the same--overcome first--get rewarded later. Even the rewards involving the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3 prove this, that one overcomes first, they are then rewarded later.

Amil theology is like being in a race and being rewarded with a victor's prize before the race is even run first. Totally backwards.

Stop acting as if all Amils agree on everything. You know that's not true just as Premils don't agree on everything. Nothing you're saying here applies to what I believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The only way Amil survives is if only OSAS is Biblical, NOSAS isn't.

Here we go again with this stupid nonsense. You do understand that you're the only one who makes this dumb argument, right? There's a reason for that. Everyone else knows it's not a legitimate argument. But, you insist on continuing to make a fool of yourself with this nonsensical, childish argument.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes Paul had spiritually and used the very same words as Revelation 20:4

Ephesians 2
6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Completely different words clearly. No being beheaded for rejecting the mark or reigning over the nations with a rod of iron. How is this "very same words"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So you then think these locusts make up all fallen angels?

Sure, why not? Why would only some fallen angels be in the bottomless pit? Do you think the following only applies to some, but not all fallen angels?

Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

These verses refer to "the angels which kept not their first estate" and "the angels that sinned". What fallen angels don't fit those descriptions?

Obviously, not all fallen angels are in the pit yet some are.

LOL!!! Obviously? If it's obvious, then you should be able to clearly prove that, yet I know that you can't. You obviously don't understand what the word obviously means.

That's why you are confused here,

LOL!!! Says the person who has been very confused when it comes to the topic of Amil vs. Premil for many years.

because I'm not denying that fallen angels are roaming around free.

LOL!!! Wow. Your ignorance knows no bounds. When have I denied that fallen angels are roaming around free? NEVER. You get upset when I say that you misrepresent Amil, yet you do it over and over again. And you deny it. Yet, everyone else can see that you do it repeatedly.

I'm denying that all fallen angels are being imprisoned. Some are, some aren't.

Based on what? Your claims mean NOTHING without any evidence to support them.

Think of it like this. There is such a thing as criminals who are roaming around free and there are criminals who are locked up. Not all criminals are locked up just because they are criminals. Maybe some of them haven't got caught yet. Or maybe they have but no one can do anything about it. Trump and his DOJ come to mind. Some of the biggest criminals in America in plain sight and no one is doing anything to stop them. But let's don't get into that debate. I'm only using them as an example. They are clearly criminals yet they are not locked up. BTW, I'm a Republican, so it's not like I'm being biased here.

LOL!!! This really sums up how you interpret scripture. It's based on your imagination and not on scripture itself. Nowhere does scripture talk about fallen angels in this way.

 

[ewq1938]

Because it’s not a literal locked prison

It is a prison with a lock and satan is literally imprisoned in it.

At the cross as Revelation 12 shows below satan was kicked out of heaven and sent to the earth,

It shows AFTER the cross not at the cross and we do not know when in time it happened or will happen but definitely not at the cross.

I now believe that the earth is the abyss. Satan is banished their from heaven and heaven is locked for him so he can’t go back up

Rev 20 shows the pit is in or at the Earth but is not in the physical world itself.

So yes satan is running rampant like a lion but the church over come him while here on earth by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony.

He cannot do that when he is actually imprisoned in the real Millennium.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Next question. One might ask: If Jesus is reigning in us, His body, is He not even now reigning bodily?

And the next. One might ask: Is 1 Corinthians 15:28 referring to Jesus reigning bodily being fulfilled, or does it rather refer to "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled?"

And the next. One might ask: Is Judgement still necessary if each person "but each one in his own order" has personally completed "for men to die once," --"but after this the judgment"--"after" being as "today you will be with Me in Paradise?” Which is to say--all things are only "future" for those to whom that time has not yet come as "today" personally--"each one in his own order." This is therefore the "but" that Paul inserted into his explaining the timing. "Therefore."

The question I have for you is why you turn simple things into convoluted things? In 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 Paul clearly refers to a one time event that will happen at the second coming of Christ, not an ongoing event that happens for each person one at a time. All of the dead in Christ will be resurrected at the same time. The order of resurrections that Paul gives is Christ's first and then next in order those who are Christ's at His second coming. It's false teaching to suggest that each believer is bodily resurrected and judged one at a time over the course of time. Scripture never teaches this.

 

[TribulationSigns]

That's not the question. The question is, is Christ reigning now and will He still be reigning in the same manner, except bodily, when He returns? The answer to both questions is yes. But Amil only wants Him reigning now in an unseen manner and apparently do not see Him having the ability to reign over the earth in a seen manner, as in literally bodily present. Or maybe Amil thinks He is unworthy of such a task?

When did Christ establish His Eternal Kingdom? Show me the Scripture. And when did all authority in heaven and in Earth is given to Christ, Matthew 28:18?

And do you realize that Christ's Kingdom was already established where we cannot "see" it with observation but is within His Saints on Earth since the Cross?

Luke 17:20-21
(20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
(21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

That passage CLEARLY denies a political, geographically observable kingdom arriving in visible stages that you are hoping for. Jesus locates the kingdom in His present redemptive authority -- not in earthly borders. You need to read the following Scripture:

Colossians 1:13

Revelation 1:6

Revelation 5:10

Ephesians 2:6

Matthew 28:18-20

Christ is already enthroned now, Psalm 110 fulfilled in Acts 2). Believers reigning now through union with Him. The Great Commission as kingdom expansion. The "binding of Satan" as limitation of his ability to deceive the Gentiles.

The problem is, do you view "reign" as language symbolic of covenantal authority and spiritual victory, or predictive of geopolitical administration? Didn't Scripture already saids Christ's throne is at the Father's right hand (Act 2:33-36). If he is seated there until all enemies are made His footstol (Psalm 110:1) then His reign precedes the final destruction of Death (1 Cor 15:25-26). Clearly , this strongly supports a present reign.

Yes, the Scripture also speaks of a future "visible" manifestation of the kingdom when the last enemy destroyed is Death. And every knee visibly bows. And the Kingdom is delivered to the Father (1st Cor 15:24).

Christ's kingdom inaugurated at the Cross, advancing through the Gospel, consummated at His Return - not a "postponed" political regime as you think!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Says who? You! 2 Peter 2:4, Jude v 6, Rev 9 and 20 does not say that.

You are always adding unto Scripture to support your error.

He says "obviously" that not all fallen angels are in the bottomless pit while providing ZERO evidence to back that up. He obviously has no idea of what the word obviously means. He thinks just claiming that something is true without any evidence to back it up makes it true. It's ridiculous.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Just like blindness and darkness are attributed to the Gentiles (without qualification) prior to the cross, it didn’t mean that every single Gentile was blind and in darkness. Scripture often described the Gentiles as a collective whole. That did not mean the Gentiles were all the same. Scripture, like us, makes generalities. Prior to Christ’s earthly ministry the heathen nations were viewed as being in wholesale ignorant and therefore outside of God’s plan of salvation. Could I suggest this was simply a general observation about the overall condition of the Gentiles as a broad mass, not an attempt to represent every single Gentile?

If we were to take many of the sweeping general statements re the blindness and darkness of the Gentiles in the OT hyper-literally it would negate the salvation of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Ruth (Ruth 1:16), the widow women of Zarephath that entertained Elijah (1 Kings 17:24), Rahab the harlot and “all her kindred” (Joshua 6:23-25), Naaman (2 Kings 5:15), the Queen of Sheba (Matthew 12:42), and the inhabitants of the Gentile city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:5). Were these not Gentiles? Where these not “God's people”? The fact is this general assertion did not apply to every single Gentile. Likewise, when Scripture speak about the enlightenment of the Gentiles and the removal of the deception it doesn’t mean that every Gentile will be saved, but that the Gospel message and opportunity would be extended to them as a whole – just like Israel experienced in the Old Testament.

Let me illustrate.

In Matthew 12 we see the religious Jews rejecting Christ. Matthew 12:14-22 records, “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.”

Christ’s rejection by his own house (Israel) saw Him turn to the Gentiles and the formerly outcast. He was now going to invade the devil’s house and acquire a spoil. Immediately after the Jews turned on Him in this story He delivers one of Satan’s household – a demon possessed man – thus illustrating that there was a darkened people out there that would come to faith in Christ. He used this man who belonged to the devil’s own house (kingdom) to impress the direction of the Gospel from hereon. Now, my main point is this: this reading expressly declares “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.” Using the Premil argument: all the Gentiles must trust, or this cannot apply today. What I am saying is, if you were to apply this argument namely that the fact that the vast bulk of Gentiles still remain deceived is evidence why we can’t be in the millennium now then we must (if we are consistent) apply the same rule to this statement to show that it can’t be relevant to today. It cannot relate to the here-and-now because the majority of Gentiles still don’t trust God. Of course that would be preposterous. Such a statement is a general reference to the removal of the veil deceiving the Gentiles as a whole after the cross.

Great post that I'm sure Premils will not understand at all, if they even bother to read it. It's always all or nothing with them. The idea of scripture referring to people groups like the Jews and Gentiles in a general sense is not a concept that Premils understand. So, to them, Satan can only be bound in the sense of being fully incapacitated and unable to deceive at all. Otherwise, he is not bound. The idea of him being bound in the sense of not being able to deceive the nations in a general sense like you described rather than in the sense of not being able to deceive at all is just something they can't accept because of their all or nothing, hyper-literal approach to interpreting the most highly symbolic book in the Bible.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, if we reign with Christ now, in the matter of Spiritual Salvation, then our reign will never end. But I can't characterize our victory now as a "reign," because the Kingdom has not yet come. In the book of Revelation, ch. 11, the Kingdom comes in the future. And Jesus said that the Kingdom is "near," but not yet "here."

Revelation 11:15 refers to the time when Jesus will deliver the kingdom He has been reigning over since His resurrection to the Father.

Revelation 11:15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.”

Notice that it refers to "the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah". That means "our Lord" refers to God the Father. It doesn't refer to Christ's kingdom there, but rather the kingdom of God the Father and of His Messiah. Whenever Jesus talked about His kingdom or when scripture refers to His kingdom it only describes it as His kingdom (John 18:36, Colossians 1:13, etc.). But, here, we see it referred to as the kingdom of God the Father and His Son. That's because Jesus will have delivered His kingdom to the Father at that point which agrees with 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 which says the end will come when Jesus comes again and that He will deliver His kingdom to the Father at that point.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Rebellion is all through the Amill Millennium. They don't like to admit that.

LOL! Yet another foolish statement by a Premill that misrepresents Amill. One of MANY. Amil never says that rebellion doesn't occur during the thousand years. Premills are the ones who claim that, not Amills.

There is zero rebellion in the Premill Millennium, and zero rebellion in Rev 20's Millennium. Rebellion in the Millennium only exists in the Amill Millennium.

Oh, really? So, why does Premills relate Zechariah 14:16-21 to the millennium then? That passage talks about punishments for anyone who rebels. What do you think, that those are empty threats and that rebellion resulting in punishment can't actually occur? Or are you the only Premill who doesn't relate Zechariah 14:16-21 to the millennium?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Isa 2:1-4
(1) The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
(2) And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
(3) And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
(4) And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

During the Millennial Kingdom, the church was not fighting against God. He is using the people of His Kingdom to plant for the Lord with the plowshares. Because Satan was bound or restrained. During the Millennial reign, the true children of the church were generally not fighting against God with their swords, but there was even in the days of the writing of the Bible, those who fought against God in the church. The idea is not that there was no declension in the church, but that it was being "restrained" because Satan was bound for the express purpose that the church could go to the ends of the earth planting, growing, and prosper so that the elect of nations of the world might also not be deceived along with the remnant Jewish saints. The nations would also be saved by the labors of the church through the power Christ in their witnessing. This is what the pruninghooks and plowshares are about!

Another thing to point out about Isaiah 2:1-4 is that it relates to "the last days". In the New Testament, we see scriptures that relate the last days to the time period between the first and second coming of Christ, not to a time period following the second coming of Christ. In Acts 2:16-21, Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 in relation to the last days and indicates that the day of Pentecost was included as being part of the last days. And in 2 Peter 3:3-4 Peter indicates that the time period during which scoffers scoff at the promise of Christ's future second coming is the last days. So, the last days began already before the day of Pentecost long ago and they last up until the last day when Christ returns. Therefore, it's not possible that Isaiah 2:1-4 could refer to a time period (the thousand years) after the return of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hello! All these billions of Satanists (as the sand of the sea) live in your supposed millennium of peace and harmony acting live submissive subjects of your future kingdom, while all the time feigning their veneration of Christ. What a debacle! What a joke! These millennial mortals must qualify to be the most belligerent, stiff-necked, hard-nosed, stubborn, obstinate company of humans ever to grace this earth. They are way more intransigent than the Pharisees that only had 3 ½ years of resisting the person and ministry in his mortal body. For 1,000 years they refuse to receive the glorified Christ sitting in all His eternal majesty. How could they resist Him? How could they deny His authenticity?

Exactly! Their hearts would clearly already be in rebellion against Christ before Satan is loosed and gathers them to oppose "the camp of the saints". Or do Premills think that those Satanists worship and follow Christ for 1,000 years, but then Satan is able to somehow immediately change their minds and convince them to rebel against Christ? Which would mean Satan could undo 1,000 years of these people being convinced that following and worshiping Christ is their hearts desire only to then have Satan change their minds in a short amount of time? How could that be? If they were sincerely following Christ for 1,000 years it makes no sense that they could be convinced to change their minds immediately or in a short amount of time. That's a case of giving too much credit to Satan and making him more powerful than Christ Himself.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Revelation 11:15 refers to the time when Jesus will deliver the kingdom He has been reigning over since His resurrection to the Father.

Revelation 11:15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.”

Notice that it refers to "the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah". That means "our Lord" refers to God the Father. It doesn't refer to Christ's kingdom there, but rather the kingdom of God the Father and of His Messiah. Whenever Jesus talked about His kingdom or when scripture refers to His kingdom it only describes it as His kingdom (John 18:36, Colossians 1:13, etc.). But, here, we see it referred to as the kingdom of God the Father and His Son. That's because Jesus will have delivered His kingdom to the Father at that point which agrees with 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 which says the end will come when Jesus comes again and that He will deliver His kingdom to the Father at that point.

Yes, I do understand this argument and accept it as reasonable, as well as historical. God's Kingdom always exists in heaven. It just doesn't rule yet on earth in the way the Prophets have described it as coming.

And I do agree that in some way God's heavenly Kingdom is already having an impact on earth today. We are told that when Jesus came the 1st time, the Kingdom was somehow mysteriously present in that activity. Again, I don't think this is the fulfillment of the Kingdom on earth that the Prophets predicted.

When we are Saved we are able to demonstrate the powers of the Kingdom in our confession and in our ministry. Once again, I don't believe this is the "coming of the Kingdom" predicted to come in the eschaton, nor do I think it has in any way been realized yet in the present age. My opinion only...

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In Revelation 20, we are looking at a vision about a dragon. Is this a literal dragon? Of course not. Satan is a spiritual being. It is a symbolic vision. The chain and key are also not literal and physical but symbolic.

• The dragon represents Satan.
• The angel is Christ.
• The chain represents restraint.
• The key represents authority.

John was given a symbolic picture of a dragon (yes a dragon) being placed into a prison with chains around him. Was this a literal dragon? No! Were these literal metal chain? Of course not. Was this a physical brick penitentiary? Of course not. This represented Satan being placed under spiritual restraint after the resurrection. The restraint related exclusively to the deception of the Gentiles. It allowed the Gospel to spread globally and Satan could not stop it. The Gentiles were blind, deceived and ignorant before the cross, since Christ’s victory and Satan's restraint the light has shone upon the Gentiles and countless have been set free.

Agree 100%. The text itself says that the angel takes hold of the dragon who is identified as Satan. It doesn't say that the angel literally takes hold of Satan himself. Premils miss this. The text gives a symbolic picture of a dragon being chained up in a prison, not of Satan himself being literally chained up in a prison. So, we have to determine what that symbolically represents rather than taking it literally as if a spirit being like Satan can be literally chained up with a literal chain or that it's talking about a literal key that is used to lock up a literal bottomless pit.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I do understand this argument and accept it as reasonable, as well as historical.

Historical? Not sure what you mean. I'm not saying that Revelation 11:15 is fulfilled. I'm saying that it will be fulfilled when Jesus returns at the seventh and last trumpet at which point He will then deliver His kingdom that He has been reigning over since His resurrection to God the Father, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 15:22-24.

God's Kingdom always exists in heaven. It just doesn't rule yet on earth in the way the Prophets have described it as coming.

We're talking about the reign of Christ here. Where does scripture ever say that Christ's kingdom would be ruled over by Christ Himself on the earth? Nowhere.

And I do agree that in some way God's heavenly Kingdom is already having an impact on earth today. We are told that when Jesus came the 1st time, the Kingdom was somehow mysteriously present in that activity. Again, I don't think this is the fulfillment of the Kingdom on earth that the Prophets predicted.

What prophets are you referring to exactly?

 

[WPM]

Who said that billions of people during the Millennium were resistant to peace during the Millennium? You are saying that to disqualify my scenario on a false assumption, that people are resisting the peace that exists during the Millennium! It is when Satan is released *after* the Millennium that the carnal nature of many men is exploited and used to create, once again, international turmoil.

What? The carnal nature was there all the time. It was who they really were. They were not real. They were religious phonies going to Jerusalem once a year to parade their religious hypocrisy.

After, your millennial bliss of supposed global submission and obedience to Christ, they turn enmass at the first sight of Satan and overrun your millennium. A thousand years of Christ appealed to them so much, billions collectively rise up against Him and rebel. Talk about a religious sham!

 

[WPM]

That's not the question. The question is, is Christ reigning now and will He still be reigning in the same manner, except bodily, when He returns? The answer to both questions is yes. But Amil only wants Him reigning now in an unseen manner and apparently do not see Him having the ability to reign over the earth in a seen manner, as in literally bodily present. Or maybe Amil thinks He is unworthy of such a task?

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.


Even though this is a parable, no one can claim He is not bodily back on the earth here. Right? Meaning no one who is being intellectually honest.

BTW, verse 27 clearly proves He is already reigning before He returns---But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them

Except there is a difference, IMO, of reigning over someone vs reigning with someone. While Christ is away He reigning over believers. When He returns believers will be rewarded with reigning with Him because they allowed Him to reign over them while He was away. The reason these in verse 27 are His enemis is because they did not allow Him to reign over them while He was away. I tend to think these are likely meaning the unprofitable servants of His within the church while He is away. But others might take these enemies to mean all the lost in general. Yet look what the text stated earlier---But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Is one to believe His citizens include atheists, satanists, unrepentant witches, murderers, child molestors, so on and so on?

My view requires that some of the lost, but not all of the lost, are resurrected when He comes. Daniel 12:2 supports this. And so does the sheep and goats judgment in Matthew 25.The lost meant in Daniel 12:2 is not meaning the lost in general, it is meaning the lost within the body of Christ. It is meaning the apostates. And the same is true of the goats meant in Matthew 25. They are meaning the lost, the apostates, within the body of Christ and not all the lost in general. Anyone objectively comparing to Revelation 20:11-15 should easily be able to see these are not the same judgment.

In Matthew 25 all those that appear here are gathered and separated into 2 groups. And that all from both groups answer Jesus collectively as a group, in the same manner. No way is anyone seen depicted doing that in Revelation 20:11-15, though.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

First these are judged, except they are not yet including all of the dead that are to be judged here. Then when the judging of these are complete, another group of the dead are judged next, verse 13. None of this even remotely aligns with what the judgment involving the sheep and goats is depicting.

and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works---does not equal this---Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?---nor this---Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?


As if it makes sense, take Cain, for instance. That if he is among the dead in Revelation 20:11-15, and surely he is, that he too answers in this manner--Lord, when saw I thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Or use an unbelieving Jew as example if you still don't get it, that it is profoundly absurd, thus entirely out of context, that anyone who is not a professed servant of Christ would be answering Jesus in that manner, period.

You major in spreading lies about Amil. You have to because you cannot rebut one single tenets of Amil. That is your fixation.

What is more, you cannot corroborate one single tenant of Premillennialism that you espouse. That is because the doctrine is extra-biblical.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Historical? Not sure what you mean.

I'm saying that Amillennialism is an historically-dignified position. It has been held by good Christians through much of Christian history. I don't have a problem with recognizing that.

I'm not saying that Revelation 11:15 is fulfilled.

And I'm not saying you believe Rev 11.15 is fulfilled either.

I'm saying that it will be fulfilled when Jesus returns at the seventh and last trumpet at which point He will then deliver His kingdom that He has been reigning over since His resurrection to God the Father, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 15:22-24.

I know.

We're talking about the reign of Christ here. Where does scripture ever say that Christ's kingdom would be ruled over by Christ Himself on the earth? Nowhere.

This is where the issue lies. We both may believe that the Kingdom of God exists universally forever. But we disagree on the point I mentioned, that the Prophets specified a certain kind of Kingdom reign that is not present now, but will be present in the eschaton.

You believe, as an Amil, that a kind of Kingdom reign is taking place right now. I don't. I believe that even though there is a heavenly Kingdom right now--one that presently impacts the earth, I don't believe it impacts the earth in the eschatological sense.

So, I can't agree that there is an eschatological reign on earth right now. And apparently, you agree with me. You just think that because there is a heavenly Kingdom right now that Christians already reign. And I don't believe that's Scriptural. I believe our reign takes place only in the eschaton.

What prophets are you referring to exactly?

A major theme of the Prophets involves the coming into existence of Israel and a multitude of nations confessing faith in the God of Abraham. That was in part fulflled when Israel entered into covenant with God under the Law. And it was further fulfilled when Christian nations came into existence.

However, Abraham's promises are said to lead to Israel being politically saved for all time, never more to be oppressed by other nations. That has not happened in the present age, and will not happen in the present age. Therefore, I believe it will take place in the age that follows Christ's return.

Furthermore, Christian nations have all been falling in the present age. This also needs to be fixed, which will take place, I believe, after Christ returns.

So, the Prophets predict a time of peace between nations on earth--a Messianic Age. This has not happened yet. It most certainly is not happening in the present age!