Amillennialism

[Naomi25]

Hi Naomi, Your words: "I'm truly not sure that it matters who is right or wrong in this situation."

On a personal level you're correct, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong but for our witness to the world it matters a great deal! I imagine that if I was an unbeliever and you told me that by accepting Christ as my Savior, I would enter into the kingdom of God, at first I might be excited. However, when trials and tribulations came I would be disappointed and ask, is this really the kingdom of God? I wouldn't find it all that attractive. But if you were to actually show me in the Word where it says that "through much trial and tribulation we shall enter the kingdom of God", that would make much more sense.

Ok, well...putting aside the whole 'personal' level, that of "Jesus IS coming back, does it really matter how or when"....
I can't see how believing in a Amillenial position would cause believers, new or otherwise, to disappointed or discouraged when trials and tribulations hit. A decent amount of bible reading can tell anyone that Jesus is calling us to and through such trials in life.
As far as the "Kingdom of God" goes, and whether or not it is now or is to come, I would say the idea of "Already, Not Yet" sort of sums it up well. I'm assuming you know what that is, anyone who has stuck their toe in the kiddy pool of Eschatology would know. But it is such a wonderful, biblical explanation of that time we are now in! Jesus' main work is done. Apart from his return, the work that sees us having redemption now, has already happened. So while we have assurance of salvation, we have forgiveness of sins now, we won't see the complete fulfillment until his return.
So, hypothetically speaking to this new believer, were you to say "Everything you need to be right with God was achieved by Christ's death and resurrection. And because of his faithfulness in that act, and in his promised return, we can live now, in this fallen world and in these fallen bodies, resting in him and striving through our hardships.'
I think Ephesians 2:6 makes a fairly clear case that in some part, in some way, the Kingdom is now:

...and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus

If Christ is now seated at the right hand of God, over all authorities (Eph 1:20-21), and we are somehow seated with him....but clearly waiting for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven...then in some way it is now, but not yet, wouldn't you agree?

Also, if I asked you about Revelation and you told me not to take it literally, that it was all metaphors, I would believe you. BUT when all those events ACTUALLY begin to happen, then I would feel lied to, at best, or believe the imposter Christ to be the real one and I would be deceived and spend eternity in hell if I received his mark. So, it really does matter. I don't think God would have given us all these warnings about the "latter" days, if they weren't literally coming and in the details Christ Himself describes.

Well...I don't really have the time or energy to really dig into why I think Revelation is very clearly NOT literal, or supposed to be taken that way, but I'll give you a few quick ones.
The first, and most importantly is: in the first Chapter of Revelation, Jesus actually tells us so:

As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. (Revelation 1:20)

He just informed John that the picture, or vision he saw, had a metaphorical explanation. Is there anything telling us not to continue doing this throughout the book?

Secondly: the way numbers are used in the book is clearly not literal. Seven is the number of perfection or completion (7 days of creation, 7 'spirits' of God.. ) 4 is the whole earth (as in north, south, east, west), 12 is again a number of completeness (double 7: 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples), 10 and multiples of 10 are indications of time, especially in light of Jubilee years. I could go on.
Both the use of numbers, and also the imagery used in Revelation is straight out of the OT. Pretty much every 'weird' vision in Rev is found in the OT. And anyone who has spent time reading OT apocalyptic literature will recongize the language used in Revelation...it is not language that is unique and interpreting it non-literally is not unique.

So, I don't believe I need to hypothetically warn a new Christian to beware actual dragons. But I DO believe that any Christian firmly grounded in scripture will be fully prepared for anything Satan might throw at us.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Naomi, Your words: "As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. (Revelation 1:20)

He just informed John that the picture, or vision he saw, had a metaphorical explanation. Is there anything telling us not to continue doing this throughout the book?"

You're right, Christ uses metaphors and when He does, He explains them as with your example and that of the dragon. If there is no similar explanation within the context then all other parts of the one vision should be taken literally. That's how you tell them apart.

 

[Wormwood]

Trekson,

I think you are severly mistaken on your view on the Kingdom. Yes, the consummation of the Kingdom in its physical nature occurs at the second coming and all who become a part of that Kingdom and see God face to face will be transformed. Sinful flesh will not inherit the Kingdom. Yet, Scripture is very clear that the Kingdom has begun to be established now...in fact, that is the focus of most of Jesus' parables. Its like a mustard seed, like yeast in the dough, and like a treasure hidden in a field. The point Jesus was making to the Jews (who didnt understand) was that the Kingdom "was not of this world" (John 18:36). Rather, the Kingdom of God was not one in which the King of kings would overthrow Rome, but one in which he would conquer human hearts and make them citizens of heaven through spiritual warfare and conversion rather than physical warfare.

Luke 4:43 (Jesus was not preaching a Kingdom that was still over 2,000 years away from arriving!)
Matthew 3:2; 4:17
Matthew 11:11
Matthew also says quite clearly in Matthew 16:28 sums it up, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” So, was Jesus lying?

See also
Matthew 12:28
Matthew 12:34
Matthew 5:3, 10
Matthew 13:19
Matthew 10:14-15
Acts 8:12
Acts 19:8
Acts 20:25
Acts 28:23
Col. 1:13
Col. 3:1-2

So what was Paul preaching? Was he preaching the good news that the Kingdom isnt going to arrive for perhaps thousands of years? Of course not. He was preaching the presence of the Kingdom of God through the Spirit of God and the people of God. I think you are struggling with the same issues the early Jews wrestled with in their demand for a conquering Messiah setting up a physical Kingdom and a physical thrown. Yes, that will come. But it comes first through the invasion of the Spirit of God in a person's life. They are transferred into the Kingdom of God by conversion and at the coming of Christ, the world sees clearly what citizenship we have. Jesus explains this with the parable of the wheat and tares. God knows which are wheat and which are tares. The wheat and tares are not determined by the establishment of physical boundaries. Rather it is already established by our allegiance to which King we follow and judgment merely reveals what God already sees ...if we are wheat or a tare.

 

[Trekson]

Hi WW, Your words:"Matthew also says quite clearly in Matthew 16:28 sums it up, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” So, was Jesus lying?"

No, He wasn't lying but the answer isn't as simple as you want it to be. At the time He was speaking there were most likely two people that He was speaking about. Stephen and John. Stephen saw Christ in the the kingdom of God just before he died and John saw it in a vision.

Most of the verses you gave do not speak of the kingdom of God being already present on earth and I believe three of them had nothing to do with the topic at all. Did Christ preach that the kingdom of God was near? Yes as did Paul but what they preached wasn't that it was here but that it was now attainable. How? Through the gospel of Jesus Christ as summed up in John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

It's in the promise of eternal life where we will see the kingdom of God. I believe Paul when he taught that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

The closest one you offered was Matt. 12:28 but Christ was speaking of Himself.

Your words: "So what was Paul preaching? Was he preaching the good news that the Kingdom isn't going to arrive for perhaps thousands of years? Of course not. He was preaching the presence of the Kingdom of God through the Spirit of God and the people of God."

I disagree. Paul was teaching about the attainableness of the kingdom. As I said in my last post we can access parts of the kingdom when the Holy Spirit is working through us via His gifts but his main focus was eternal life is NOW available. By faith we can be in the kingdom but as Heb. 11:1 points out it's substance and the evidence of it's existence can ONLY be accessed by faith. I believe I have eternal life right now but the real FACT of it won't occur until I die or I'm raptured.

A post or two ago you brought up the statue from Dan. 2. Yes, Christ is the stone made without hands but the kingdoms described as toes is the same kingdoms as the fourth beast and is the same kingdoms of the dragon but they have not yet arrived. No, they're not Rome they are still to be realized.

Your words:"Jesus explains this with the parable of the wheat and tares."

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. It's not that the tares and wheat grow together in the kingdom of God because they don't. The point is that at the harvest the wheat will enter the kingdom of God and the tares won't! The good seed that was sown and produced the wheat is what the opening verse to the parable means. When we are gathered into the barn is when we are gathered into the kingdom which previously we could only catch small glimpses of now and then by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wormwood]

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. It's not that the tares and wheat grow together in the kingdom of God because they don't. The point is that at the harvest the wheat will enter the kingdom of God and the tares won't! The good seed that was sown and produced the wheat is what the opening verse to the parable means. When we are gathered into the barn is when we are gathered into the kingdom which previously we could only catch small glimpses of now and then by the Holy Spirit.

I dont have much time, but I must say, I think its clear you are missing the point. Jesus said plainly, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.” (Matthew 13:24–25, ESV) Did Jesus say, "The kingdom is like the field after the weeds have been pulled and burned"? No. Clearly, Jesus is saying the Kingdom of heaven is like a field that has good crops that has been mixed with bad. I mean, I dont know how someone can read that and make any other conclusion.

“He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”” (Matthew 13:33, ESV)

Why is the kingdom like leaven in dough? Why isnt it t he whole loaf of bread? Because the point Jesus is making is that the Kingdom is not easily determined. It does not have boundaries or walls. It is in the earth and is mixed in the earth and is spreading as the message of the Kingdom is preached. Makes no sense to see this any other way. This parable is nonsense given your definition of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Trekson]

Hi WW, Parables are short stories. As in any story, it's not the intro that counts, it's the end of the story. There are three short parables in a row in Matt. 13. The wheat and the tares (1), the mustard seed (2) and the leaven (3). They all have somewhat common themes but come from different angles. These are all comparing the kingdom of heaven to earthly things the people of that day would be familiar with. So within these tales we have good and bad seed, good seed and bad seed. Leaven in the bible is NOT a good thing. So comparatively we have:

1. Good seed planted, the enemy comes in secret and adds bad seed.
2. Good seed planted, no interference.
3. Bad seed, hidden within the good, messes up the whole batch.

The comparison to the kingdom of heaven in all three parables is how the knowledge of the kingdom grows. With the wheat and tares, sometimes we let outside influences affect our presentation of the gospel message, such as the veritable "wolf in sheep's clothing" scenario.

The mustard seed, although small is allowed to grow without interference and becomes the largest of herbs, which tells us that the good news of the gospel when not interfered with will grow and produce a great harvest.

The leaven, which is comparable to bad seed, is "hid" in the meal. The meal was most likely wheat flour going back to the first of our three parables. This line of thought is like Paul's teaching when he says a "little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump". Again, this is NOT a good thing. Not being a baker I had to do a little research on what leaven does and I found out something interesting. Leaven doesn't work if it's too hot or too cold. It works best in a lukewarm environment. Sound familiar? Does this make a little more sense to you now?

 

[Trekson]

This discussion appears to have been abandoned. Maybe something came across that couldn't be refuted. Anyone else interested in continuing the conversation?

 

[Naomi25]

Hi Naomi, Your words: "As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. (Revelation 1:20)

He just informed John that the picture, or vision he saw, had a metaphorical explanation. Is there anything telling us not to continue doing this throughout the book?"

You're right, Christ uses metaphors and when He does, He explains them as with your example and that of the dragon. If there is no similar explanation within the context then all other parts of the one vision should be taken literally. That's how you tell them apart.

You could be right...if that was the only indicator of how we understand revelation. But it's not.
But let me ask you a question. I understand you may not be a dispensationalist, but to me, those who hold a 'literal' interpretation of the book; well, their view just doesn't add up.
For example, when John see's a Lamb, we know it's Jesus, not a literal lamb. But to follow the literal hermeneutic, it has to be an actual lamb. It seems to me that the 'literal' camp, picks and chooses what things 'has' to be literal or figurative; which is dodgy. Saying "well of course it's Jesus, not a lamb" just proves you can't stick to your own hermeneutic, which then calls into question your whole interpretation.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Naomi, Your words: “For example, when John see's a Lamb, we know it's Jesus, not a literal lamb. But to follow the literal hermeneutic, it has to be an actual lamb. It seems to me that the 'literal' camp, picks and chooses what things 'has' to be literal or figurative; which is dodgy. Saying "well of course it's Jesus, not a lamb" just proves you can't stick to your own hermeneutic, which then calls into question your whole interpretation.”

I think you’re putting too much emphasis on hermeneutics and not enough on the Holy Spirit. Is every little thing in Rev. to be taken literally? Of course not, it’s obvious that some symbolism is used. The point isn’t to “pick and choose” each little part but how we define the book as a whole. I try to trust in the HS for understanding and He answers that prayer by showing us “how to rightly divide the word of truth”. Let’s take your example and add some context to it.

Rev. 5:5-6 – (CEV) “Then one of the elders said to me, “Stop crying and look! The one who is called both the ‘Lion from the Tribe of Judah and ‘King David’s Great Descendant (Root of David – KJV) has won the victory. He will open the book and its seven seals.” 6 Then I looked and saw a Lamb standing in the center of the throne that was surrounded by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb looked as if it had once been killed. It had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God, sent out to all the earth.”

We also need to look at Revelation within the context of the bible as a whole. It’s the last chapter of the book we call the bible and thus summarizes and brings to a conclusion what the rest of the bible is all about. Within these two verses are the summary of who Christ was and why He came in the first place. The Lion of Judah is a reference to a prophecy about the Christ from Gen. 49:9-10 – “Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? 10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

This tells us that Christ will be triumphant and the King of Kings!

The Root of David refers to a prophecy from Is.11:1,10 – “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots…10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.”

This shows us that being from the tribe of Judah and directly descended from David, he fits all the qualifications necessary to become a legal King! The next description is that of a “lamb as if it had been slain”.

The following is from gotquestions.org. “Christ’s victory at the cross is symbolized by his appearance as a “Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (Revelation 5:6). Prior to the exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were commanded by God to take an unblemished lamb, slay it, and smear its blood on the doorposts of their homes (Exodus 12:1–7). The blood of the slain lamb would set apart the people of Israel from the people of Egypt when the death angel came during the night to slay the firstborn of the land. Those who had the blood of the lamb would be spared. Fast forward to the days of John the Baptist. When he sees Jesus approaching him, he declares to all present, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Jesus is the ultimate “Passover lamb” who saves His people from eternal death.”

To summarize, every good story has six components, who, what, where, why, how and when. The symbolism of the Lion of Judah and the Root of David answers the who and what. The where is before the throne of God. The Lamb is the why and how. The when is answered in Luke 21:28 – “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

I consider the Olivet Discourse from Matt. 24 to be basically, the outline for what later Jesus shows John in what is called the Book of Revelation. Chapter five is setting the stage for why everything else happens in Rev. This is just my personal opinion but I believe that when the 144,000+ (the woman of Rev. 12:14 who goes into hiding for the latter 3 ½ yrs. of Daniel’s 70th week) are being protected this is what they will be studying to pass the time along with the rest of the NT. I suppose one could consider it a crash course for Jews about Christ using the language and symbolism they would recognize. The Lamb is the reference about Christ used most in Rev. It is used 29 times. Why? Because it’s the most important aspect of what He has done for us and them (the Jews).

 

[Naomi25]

Hi Naomi, Your words: “For example, when John see's a Lamb, we know it's Jesus, not a literal lamb. But to follow the literal hermeneutic, it has to be an actual lamb. It seems to me that the 'literal' camp, picks and chooses what things 'has' to be literal or figurative; which is dodgy. Saying "well of course it's Jesus, not a lamb" just proves you can't stick to your own hermeneutic, which then calls into question your whole interpretation.”

I think you’re putting too much emphasis on hermeneutics and not enough on the Holy Spirit.

Um. There is a reason for 'hermeneutics', and sadly, your comment on letting the HS guide you on the book is one of them. How many people do you think are out there who do the same thing for all of scripture? And how many do you think are getting it right? The number of cults that are out there because of their interpretation of scripture has been spoken to them by the HS is shameful. (Please don't see me as saying your one of those, I recognize many would not be, but my point still stands). Leaving interpretation in the hands of being 'lead' alone is not how we are told to read scripture...by God himself!

We are told to test the spirits...how? By going to scripture. We interpret scripture by scripture. So when we get to a book like Revelation we need to approach it with an understanding of both genre and an understanding on how Jesus himself interpreted the OT.

Is every little thing in Rev. to be taken literally? Of course not, it’s obvious that some symbolism is used. The point isn’t to “pick and choose” each little part but how we define the book as a whole. I try to trust in the HS for understanding and He answers that prayer by showing us “how to rightly divide the word of truth”. Let’s take your example and add some context to it.

Wait. I'm not allowed to pick and choose, but you are? So...if I say that the Holy Spirit is guiding me in how I'm reading Revelation, that means I'm a validated as you, right? Because I could say that. I've prayed hard about it, and read extensively and truly believe that the place I've landed is both Spiritually and bibically approved. But then it becomes a case of "my spirit against your spirit". You see how that just doesn't work. In fact...you seem to be doing a lot more picking and choosing than I am. I have a very simple way of reading Revelations, and it's based on 3 things. Genre, the rest of the bible, and how Jesus interpreted the OT and spoke of the future.

Rev. 5:5-6 – (CEV) “Then one of the elders said to me, “Stop crying and look! The one who is called both the ‘Lion from the Tribe of Judah and ‘King David’s Great Descendant (Root of David – KJV) has won the victory. He will open the book and its seven seals.” 6 Then I looked and saw a Lamb standing in the center of the throne that was surrounded by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb looked as if it had once been killed. It had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God, sent out to all the earth.”

We also need to look at Revelation within the context of the bible as a whole. It’s the last chapter of the book we call the bible and thus summarizes and brings to a conclusion what the rest of the bible is all about. Within these two verses are the summary of who Christ was and why He came in the first place. The Lion of Judah is a reference to a prophecy about the Christ from Gen. 49:9-10 – “Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? 10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

It's all well and good to say that Revelation is the last book in the bible...that's fairly clear. And regardless of literal or figurative language, the 'summary' of it's is also clear: Jesus is King. He has won. But the real question is: how does that message come across? You need to look at genre. It's an apocalyptic book, and is written that way. It would be foolish to try and read the Pentateuch as prophecy, or the Psalms as history. And how much of Paul's writing would loose it's meaning if we read them as just poems of songs? Every book of the bible is written is a different genre, and trying to read them outside of that, misses what God is telling us.

This tells us that Christ will be triumphant and the King of Kings!

The Root of David refers to a prophecy from Is.11:1,10 – “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots…10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.”

This shows us that being from the tribe of Judah and directly descended from David, he fits all the qualifications necessary to become a legal King! The next description is that of a “lamb as if it had been slain”.

The following is from gotquestions.org. “Christ’s victory at the cross is symbolized by his appearance as a “Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (Revelation 5:6). Prior to the exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were commanded by God to take an unblemished lamb, slay it, and smear its blood on the doorposts of their homes (Exodus 12:1–7). The blood of the slain lamb would set apart the people of Israel from the people of Egypt when the death angel came during the night to slay the firstborn of the land. Those who had the blood of the lamb would be spared. Fast forward to the days of John the Baptist. When he sees Jesus approaching him, he declares to all present, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Jesus is the ultimate “Passover lamb” who saves His people from eternal death.”

To summarize, every good story has six components, who, what, where, why, how and when. The symbolism of the Lion of Judah and the Root of David answers the who and what. The where is before the throne of God. The Lamb is the why and how. The when is answered in Luke 21:28 – “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

I consider the Olivet Discourse from Matt. 24 to be basically, the outline for what later Jesus shows John in what is called the Book of Revelation. Chapter five is setting the stage for why everything else happens in Rev. This is just my personal opinion but I believe that when the 144,000+ (the woman of Rev. 12:14 who goes into hiding for the latter 3 ½ yrs. of Daniel’s 70th week) are being protected this is what they will be studying to pass the time along with the rest of the NT. I suppose one could consider it a crash course for Jews about Christ using the language and symbolism they would recognize. The Lamb is the reference about Christ used most in Rev. It is used 29 times. Why? Because it’s the most important aspect of what He has done for us and them (the Jews).

I think that a lot of people misunderstand how the Amil person looks at the Olivet Discourse. We say that we believe a lot of those events took place in 70AD, and there's strong argument for that. But they don't seem to understand that we also think it's talking about the end times. I'm not sure why, as it's perfectly acceptable, and even given it's precedent by the bible itself! How many times are things in the OT a foreshadowing event of when Christ came?Why is it so hard to believe that what Jesus said was 'foreshadowed' in 70AD, but will find it's finally fulfillment just before his return?

 

[Retrobyter]

Hi Naomi, Your words: "I'm truly not sure that it matters who is right or wrong in this situation."

On a personal level you're correct, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong but for our witness to the world it matters a great deal! I imagine that if I was an unbeliever and you told me that by accepting Christ as my Savior, I would enter into the kingdom of God, at first I might be excited. However, when trials and tribulations came I would be disappointed and ask, is this really the kingdom of God? I wouldn't find it all that attractive. But if you were to actually show me in the Word where it says that "through much trial and tribulation we shall enter the kingdom of God", that would make much more sense. Also, if I asked you about Revelation and you told me not to take it literally, that it was all metaphors, I would believe you. BUT when all those events ACTUALLY begin to happen, then I would feel lied to, at best, or believe the imposter Christ to be the real one and I would be deceived and spend eternity in hell if I received his mark. So, it really does matter. I don't think God would have given us all these warnings about the "latter" days, if they weren't literally coming and in the details Christ Himself describes.

Shalom, Trekson.

I'll give a little more feedback. Perhaps, the best way to talk about the Kingdom of God is to recognize the three factors that must be present to be a Kingdom:

There must be a legitimate heir present and active to be King;
there must be a realm; and,
there must be willing subjects.

Take away any of those factors, and the kingdom does not exist.

For instance, while the people were in captivity, they had a legitimate heir in Zerubbabel, and they had willing subjects, but they didn't have the realm. They were not in the Land, and the Land was considered property of the king of Babylon.

When Israel had rejected God as their King and they were in the Land, they had a legitimate heir to the Kingdom, God Himself, and they had the Land, but they didn't have willing subjects.
During Yeshua`s first advent and his offer of the Kingdom to Israel, they also had a legitimate heir to the Kingdom present, they had the Land, but they also didn't have willing subjects, particularly in the old guard's leadership. The stewards of the Kingdom would not relinquish their hold on the Realm.

Today, while Yeshua` is away, they now have the Land again, and they have willing subjects, but they do not currently have the legitimate heir to the Kingdom present.

In the future, when Yeshua` returns when their lives are being threatened, they will be willing subjects, they will have the presence of the legitimate Heir, and the Messiah will recover ALL of the Land. So, the Kingdom will begin.

Currently, the Kingdom is not present, but that doesn't mean that we can't be "willing subjects!" THAT'S the focus! Those who believe that we are currently IN the Kingdom should really be saying that we are currently willing subjects FOR the Kingdom.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Naomi, Your words: “Um. There is a reason for 'hermeneutics', and sadly, your comment on letting the HS guide you on the book is one of them. How many people do you think are out there who do the same thing for all of scripture? And how many do you think are getting it right?”

Hopefully, all of them. Sadly, not enough.

Your words: “We are told to test the spirits...how? By going to scripture. We interpret scripture by scripture. So when we get to a book like Revelation we need to approach it with an understanding of both genre and an understanding on how Jesus himself interpreted the OT.”

I don’t think genre is a qualification here. I will explain farther down. I would say Jesus interpreted the OT literally or explained if symbolism was used. Do you have an example otherwise?

Your words: “In fact...you seem to be doing a lot more picking and choosing than I am. I have a very simple way of reading Revelations, and it's based on 3 things. Genre, the rest of the bible, and how Jesus interpreted the OT and spoke of the future.”

I agree with everything except genre. As we have barely gotten into specifics I don’t see how you can judge me as picking and choosing more than you which is NOT the same as rightly dividing the word of truth.

Your words: “It's all well and good to say that Revelation is the last book in the bible...that's fairly clear. And regardless of literal or figurative language, the 'summary' of it's is also clear: Jesus is King. He has won. But the real question is: how does that message come across? You need to look at genre. It's an apocalyptic book, and is written that way. It would be foolish to try and read the Pentateuch as prophecy, or the Psalms as history. And how much of Paul's writing would loose it's meaning if we read them as just poems of songs? Every book of the bible is written is a different genre, and trying to read them outside of that, misses what God is telling us.”

Okay, here’s where we disagree. I really don’t think genre matters. What matters is our understanding. Can I read a Psalm of praise and understand it? Yes, and it doesn’t matter in what style it is written in. There is prophecy in the Psalms, there is law in the gospels. I don’t think Paul’s writing would lose anything at all if someone made a song out of some of his words. There is only one genre that matters and that is, IT IS ALL THE WORD OF GOD. The only thing that makes any of God’s word mean anything at all to us, regardless of style, is the Holy Spirit.

Is Revelation an apocalyptical book? Yes and no. The contents are an unveiling of God’s plan for the earth. That is the technical definition the Greek word “apokalupsis”. The contents thus qualify to be considered as apocalyptic, however, the style, genre, etc. doesn’t matter. I believe John just wrote down what he saw. I really don’t think either John or God took the time to figure out how to describe or write things in a way that only that generation would understand. You really can’t pigeonhole Revelation into a category or genre because it happened to be a popular style back in the day. Jesus calls it a prophecy in Rev. 22:7 and that’s good enough for me. Trying to squeeze it into some literary mold diminishes the points of what Christ wanted to reveal. While some of the OT and sections like Matt. 24 can be considered apocalyptic by content, Revelation stands on its own and there is a reason why it’s the only book of its kind in the bible.

Your words: “I think that a lot of people misunderstand how the Amil person looks at the Olivet Discourse. We say that we believe a lot of those events took place in 70AD, and there's strong argument for that. But they don't seem to understand that we also think it's talking about the end times. I'm not sure why, as it's perfectly acceptable, and even given it's precedent by the bible itself! How many times are things in the OT a foreshadowing event of when Christ came? Why is it so hard to believe that what Jesus said was 'foreshadowed' in 70AD, but will find it's finally fulfillment just before his return?”

I agree but only a couple of events seemed to have been fulfilled in 70AD and not the whole of Dan. 9:24-27. A partial fulfillment is either a shadow or nothing at all.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Retro, Excellent points all the way through.

 

[Naomi25]

I'm sorry. But having a conversation with someone about how to interpret a book, when that someone can't even recognise the use of genre, well...it's sort of going to go nowhere. It's sort of basic idea to what we take away from what we're reading. In everything we read, not just scripture. If you sat down to read the newspaper with the understanding it was a work of fiction, you're 'take away' from what you read would be massively different to what the writer intended. And that's my point. God is the writer of the bible. And he deliberately gave us different genres within it. Shouldn't you care about why he did that? You're dismissing why he did that. Just like you're dismissing that the bible itself tells us we need to take revelation (in general, not the book) from any spirit by way of checking the scriptures. That's not me telling you that...that's God. So by running along, telling yourself that all your understanding has to be right, because the Spirit told you so, without checking it against other scripture (which God...and that means the Spirit too, tells you to do), and by dismissing the way in which God chose to send us his word...I'm at a loss, and to be honest, it's not going to be possible to talk about interpretation with you. We just start from to radically different places, and yours doesn't make rational sense to me. Sorry.

 

[Trekson]

Everything I believe and say can be backed up with other scriptures. The bible is written so that a child can understand it who has zero knowledge of hermeneutics, styles and genres. It's when we try to insert our intelligences over the simplicity of the truths is where people tend to go astray. The bible tells us that without spiritual discernment everything in scripture is foolishness to those who read it. Nowhere in the bible does it imply that only those with enough "intelligence" to understand all the things you believe are important will successfully understand it all. It all boils down to a "child-like" faith in His Word and trust in the Holy Spirit who will teach us what we need to know. It really is just that simple!

 

[Trekson]

Prov. 3:5-7a - "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 7 Be not wise in thine own eyes:..."

1 Cor. 1:27 - "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

I find it interesting how some people assume things about others and consider one ignorant of scripture because they follow scripture.

 

[Naomi25]

"What in the world is that over there?"
I love it when people avoid the point.
"Hey, maybe instead of answering, I'll call them ignorant or foolish. Maybe that way they'll forget I haven't actually addressed their point."
Around and around we go.
I'll be hopping off the merry-go-round at this point, thanks.

 

[Trekson]

Interesting again, you were the one implying I was ignorant. I'm just calling you on it!

 

[keras]

I have been away for a while and have just read all of this thread.
All posters have made good points and except for blessedhope's inappropriate comments, are worthwhile discussion.
I did think that you, Trekson were a pre-tribber and I am happy see you are not. Did you change your belief?

The whole idea of the Kingdom now, is obviously wrong, as we await the Return of Jesus to literally reign for a literal 1000 years. Any other interpretation is making plain scripture mean something else. For this Church age, we have the promise of our citizenship - Philippians 3:20, but our King is yet to take up His reign on earth.

Re the events of the Sixth Seal, there is a means whereby all that is prophesied there and in many other prophesies about a terrible judgement/punishment by fire from the heavens will be literally fulfilled. It is a Coronal mass Ejection, an explosion of the sun. Secular scientists warn of this possibility/probability and the many Bible prophesies describe it exactly. Isaiah 30:26 and Psalm 50:1-4 say that God will use the sun on His Day of wrath.
​This sudden and shocking worldwide disaster will set the stage for all the prophesied end time events, leading to the glorious Return.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Keras, No I haven't changed my position, I've always been pre-wrath which is not the same as pre-trib.