CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
(7) Premillennialists ignore the tenses in the original Greek in order to sustain their teaching. That is because the tenses expose Premil. For example, Scripture shows that Jesus is reigning now over creation, His people and all His enemies. It is shown to be in the present ongoing tense. Most Premillennialists reject this as it messes with their belief-system. However, 1 Corinthians 15:25-27 states: “he must reign (present, active infinitive), till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For ‘he hath put’ (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet. “
His reign begins "at his coming", which is the moment of his Triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem. This is yet to begin.
Ephesians 1:20-22 tells us that God hath “raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet.”
The aorist tense is without a time element. An aorist verb is understood as a statement of fact without regard to time. The phrase "at his right hand" is figurative language intended to indicate preeminence and status, not necessarily dominion. Currently, as we read in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus Christ is heir-apparent to the throne.
Hebrews 2:7-8 says, “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: ‘Thou hast put all things in subjection’ (aorist active indicative) under his feet. For in that ‘he put all in subjection’ (aorist active indicative) under him, he left nothing that is not put under him."
Again, the aorist has no time element. Paul isn't suggesting that Jesus Christ currently has dominion over the earth. Right now, as Paul argues, Satan has dominion over the earth pro tem. He continues to work through the sons of disobedience.
Another example (of many) how Premillennialists reject the tenses in the original Greek, involves the redeemed currently functioning as kings and priests. The Bible shows God’s people reigning now. Ephesians 2:5: “Even when we were dead in sins, ‘hath quickened us together’ (aorist active indicative) with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).”
Ephesians 2 isn't about domination or rulership. The subject is the battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light and how God, through his mighty power is freeing some from that dark power.
John says in Revelation 1:5-6, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made (aorist active indicative) us kings and priests unto God and his father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.”
Once again, the aorist tense indicates status not action. We are not currently ruling as a kingdom of priests, but we will some day.
Revelation 5, which is evidently located before the Second Advent, describes the same kingly/priestly reign of the redeemed in heaven, saying, “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast (aorist active indicative) redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made (aorist active indicative) us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign (future article) on the earth” (v. 9).
Aorist = no time aspect. Aorist is NOT past tense. Contrary to what some commentators say, the aorist tense does not describe "simple" action. It indicates action without any time aspect at all.
Revelation 20:4-5 says, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (aorist active indicative) and reigned (aorist active indicative) with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”
A final matter may prove our point, John is describing a current reality in Revelation 20:6. It says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.” Our part in the first resurrection, shown throughout the Word to be Christ’s resurrection (Acts 26:23, Colossians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 15:20 and Revelation 1:5).
The question is whether John employed a metonym whereby he indicates the significant benefits of Christ's resurrection with the phrase "first resurrection" or whether John was indicating a subset of humanity that came back to life during the time when John saw thrones. Since John mentions the beheaded martyrs in this context, it seems reasonable to understand "the first resurrection" in contradistinction to those who experience the second death, which John indicates as being thrown into the lake of fire.
The duplicity of this subject is that everywhere else the presence tense is used Premillennialists have no difficulty in applying it to the present tense, when it does not interfere with their pet doctrine. Jesus parallels Revelation 20:6 in John 3:16, teaching: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth (present active particle) in him should not perish, but have (present active subjunctive) everlasting life.”
But so far you have been talking about the aorist tense.
(8) Premil lacks corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs on Revelation 20. Whether you look at the binding of Satan, the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming, the restoration of animal sacrifices in an alleged future millennium, a thousand years of peace, perfection and prosperity, two different judgment days, two different resurrection days, the rebellion of the wicked at the end of the millennium, these enjoy no other support in Scripture. I struggle with this, because the only way to authenticate and understand any doctrine is interpret it with other Scripture.
But what if this is what John meant to say?
Premil somehow extrapolates two distinct physical future resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+ out of Rev 20. Where in Scripture does it even mention "resurrection days" (plural), pertaining to the end? Nowhere!
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
What Scripture (including Revelation 20) teaches there are two distinct future judgement days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years+?
The rapture, mentioned above, strongly implies a judgment, since it represents an exclusive group of those who are "in Christ." Matthew 25:31-46 suggests another moment of judgment where those living at the time of Christ's return are rewarded or punished solely on the basis of how a person treated Jesus while he was gone. There is another judgment at the end of Revelation 20.
Where in Scripture does it mention "judgement days" (plural), in regard to the end? What Scripture corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the Second Advent, then released for a "little season" to deceive the nations, and then destroy them? There is no other Scripture that teaches this doctrine. Premils force that upon the sacred text.
Cheep trick to ask for proof and rule out the proof at the same time.
(9) Premils invent an unscriptural three-age theological framework in order to justify their flawed belief system. This consists of “this age, the age to come and another age to come after the age to come.” The only problem is: this paradigm enjoys no scriptural support. Repeated Scripture, including the teaching of Christ, only recognizes two overriding ages – “this world/age” and “the world/age to come.” These terminologies are crucial when trying to understanding biblical eschatology. The dividing point between these two ages is continually shown in the sacred text to be the glorious final future coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The comparison between "this age" and the "age to come" allow for other ages to exist between them. There is no logical reason why there can't be other ages.
(10) Christ (who was "the truth"), Paul the Apostle (that Hebrew of the Hebrews) or none of the other NT writer taught a supposed future 1,000-year temporal visible earthly kingdom after the second coming and before the new heaven and the new earth. Their whole teaching depicted a current spiritual invisible heavenly eternal kingdom that was entered by faith. The final perfect visible manifestation of the kingdom is shown repeatedly in the NT to arrive when Jesus comes and destroys all enemies and banishes all imperfection forever. Premil mistakenly advocates another additional imperfect kingdom age, which is in fact a rerun of our current day, to support their faulty theology.
One does not need to prove what is already commonly understood. Thus, the absence of mention does not prove anything one way or the other.