The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Davidpt]

So He's sitting at the right hand of the Father until He makes His enemies His footstool but also on the earth at the same time? So doesn't Jesus currently sitting on the right hand of the Father at this moment prove that He is reigning now?

Revelation 3

To the Church in Philadelphia​

7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.
11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. 13 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Revelation 3 was clearly a current time to the writing of Revelation

Marty, I'm trying to do better via my exchanges with you. So hopefully you do think I'm addressing your arguments at times rather than never addressing them at all. The truth is I appreciate having exchanges with you, regardless we don't see eye to eye on most of these things. When having exchanges with you there is usually no added drama to have to deal with. Apparently then, you might be the only adult in the room, or at least among the very few.


I don't deny He is reigning now. But He is not reigning in the sense Matthew 19:28 depicts Him reigning. That being upon the earth and bodily. But that doesn't mean I agree saved saints are currently reigning with Him, spiritually speaking, during an alleged millennium that has been underway for the past 2K years. All one has to do is objectively compare with Revelation 3:21 and plainly see there are 2 thrones depicted in that verse, not one throne. And then compare to Matthew 25 where it then gives the timing of when He initially sits in the throne of His glory and where He does that at. It is then at that point when saints begin reigning with Him a thousand years.

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.

It is then during the following when saints begin reigning with Him a thousand years.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And finally the following provides the exact when.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


If you disagree, and I'm sure you do, you then need to convincingly prove there are not 2 thrones in view in Revelation 3:21, but that there is only one throne in view.

You also need to convincingly prove exactly why--To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne--is not meaning the very same throne/s both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 are involving and when those verses are meaning.

And finally you need to convincingly prove why---To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne--does not equal saints reigning with Christ a thousand years. But if you perhaps agree that it does, well you then can't divorce both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 from the equation then expect anyone to find your arguments credible. If your arguments are credible, you would not need to divorce both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 from the equation, obviously.

 

[Davidpt]

Actually the word "Week" represents a seven day period

If Daniel meant "Four Hundred Ninety Years" he would have written it, he didnt

It's too bad you can't even do simple basic 3rd grade math. Even 3rd graders likely know you can't fit a literal 3.5 year period into a period involving 490 days. 42 months = 1260 days. 770 more days than 490 days. Yet you would have us believe that these 1260 days take place during these literal 490 days. Seriously, how are you not embarrassed, that you are a grown person, seemingly intelligent, but can't even do simple 3rd grade basic math by now? How can you think you are not insulting the intelligence of anyone that can do simple basic math, including 3rd graders?

 

[ewq1938]

Where does the bible say that there are only two coming?

I already posted it.

Hebrews 9:27-28​

27 And just as it is destined for people to die once and after this comes the judgment, 28 so also[a] Christ, having been offered once so as to bear[b] the sins of many, will appear for a second time without reference to sin to the ones eagerly-awaiting Him, for salvation.

Not third time or 4th time but SECOND TIME.

This means your assertions that going to the Father and returning at the resurrection was a second coming is incorrect. That was all part of the first coming and fulfilment of prophecy. The only coming left is the second one and it did not happen in AD70 and I reject the idea of a secret or special coming before the true second coming that Amill and Pretrib promote.

 

[Marty fox]

I already posted it.

Hebrews 9:27-28​

27 And just as it is destined for people to die once and after this comes the judgment, 28 so also[a] Christ, having been offered once so as to bear[b] the sins of many, will appear for a second time without reference to sin to the ones eagerly-awaiting Him, for salvation.

Not third time or 4th time but SECOND TIME.

This means your assertions that going to the Father and returning at the resurrection was a second coming is incorrect. That was all part of the first coming and fulfilment of prophecy. The only coming left is the second one and it did not happen in AD70 and I reject the idea of a secret or special coming before the true second coming that Amill and Pretrib promote.

Once again this was your words not mine and you actually said.

"No, because the first coming was from heaven to Earth, and so is the second coming. If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming."

You said "If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming."

You said it not me these are your words so at least be respectful and address what you said

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Marty, I'm trying to do better via my exchanges with you. So hopefully you do think I'm addressing your arguments at times rather than never addressing them at all. The truth is I appreciate having exchanges with you, regardless we don't see eye to eye on most of these things. When having exchanges with you there is usually no added drama to have to deal with. Apparently then, you might be the only adult in the room, or at least among the very few.

I disagree with a lot of his preterist views as well, and I don't hide my disdain for preterism itself, but he's a good example for us of how to have a respectful discussion. I appreciate that about him. Let's you and I try to do better as well. Deal? That's what I would prefer rather than the insults we tend to exchange.

I don't deny He is reigning now. But He is not reigning in the sense Matthew 19:28 depicts Him reigning. That being upon the earth and bodily. But that doesn't mean I agree saved saints are currently reigning with Him, spiritually speaking, during an alleged millennium that has been underway for the past 2K years. All one has to do is objectively compare with Revelation 3:21 and plainly see there are 2 thrones depicted in that verse, not one throne. And then compare to Matthew 25 where it then gives the timing of when He initially sits in the throne of His glory and where He does that at. It is then at that point when saints begin reigning with Him a thousand years.

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.

It is then during the following when saints begin reigning with Him a thousand years.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And finally the following provides the exact when.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Where in Matthew 19:28 or Matthew 25:31-46 did Jesus say anything at all about beginning to reign for a long period of time on the earth after He comes? Nowhere. Those passages are talking about judging in terms of handing out eternal rewards or sentences, not reigning for a long period of time. What does Matthew 25:31-46 say happens to unbelievers at that point? That they get to continue living in their mortal bodies for another thousand years? Not even close. It says they are cast into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels at that point. So, where do you see anything in Matthew 25:31-46 that talks about mortals inheriting the earth at that point?

If you disagree, and I'm sure you do, you then need to convincingly prove there are not 2 thrones in view in Revelation 3:21, but that there is only one throne in view.

Revelation 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

That verse is talking about having authority, not sitting on literal thrones. Heaven itself is God's throne (Isaiah 66:1). He obviously doesn't literally sit on heaven. If you think of the thrones referenced in verses like Matt 19:28, Matt 25:31 and Rev 3:21 as literal thrones then that will just cause confusion. The verse is talking about one throne, not two, because Jesus is talking about the same authority that the Father had and then Jesus had as well after His resurrection, as described in verses like Matthew 28:18 and Ephesians 1:19-22.

So, what Jesus is saying there in Revelation 3:21 is that just as He was given all authority in heaven and earth over every name that is named after His resurrection (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-22), He will give authority to those who overcome (who are faithful until death - Rev 2:10-11). It's all the same authority. The same throne. His throne is not a separate throne from the Father's throne or else He wouldn't be able to sit with the Father on His throne. Similarly, those who overcome cannot sit on a separate throne from the Father's throne because that is where Jesus is sitting rather than on a separate throne. Again, this all relates to authority. Jesus shares the same authority that the Father has and that's why He sits with the Father together on the one throne. Jesus will allow overcomers to sit on that same throne with Him, which means He will give them authority for overcoming.

You also need to convincingly prove exactly why--To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne--is not meaning the very same throne/s both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 are involving and when those verses are meaning.

Why would he want to do that? Those two verses do refer to the same throne as Revelation 3:21. I don't think he would disagree.

And finally you need to convincingly prove why---To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne--does not equal saints reigning with Christ a thousand years.

Because Matthew 25:31-46 indicates that the saints will inherit eternal life when He comes, so it equals reigning with Him for eternity, not for a thousand years. In subjection to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).

 

[Davidpt]

I disagree with a lot of his preterist views as well, and I don't hide my disdain for preterism itself, but he's a good example for us of how to have a respectful discussion. I appreciate that about him. Let's you and I try to do better as well. Deal? That's what I would prefer rather than the insults we tend to exchange.


Where in Matthew 19:28 or Matthew 25:31-46 did Jesus say anything at all about beginning to reign for a long period of time on the earth after He comes? Nowhere. Those passages are talking about judging in terms of handing out eternal rewards or sentences, not reigning for a long period of time. What does Matthew 25:31-46 say happens to unbelievers at that point? That they get to continue living in their mortal bodies for another thousand years? Not even close. It says they are cast into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels at that point. So, where do you see anything in Matthew 25:31-46 that talks about mortals inheriting the earth at that point?


Revelation 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

That verse is talking about having authority, not sitting on literal thrones. Heaven itself is God's throne (Isaiah 66:1). He obviously doesn't literally sit on heaven. If you think of the thrones referenced in verses like Matt 19:28, Matt 25:31 and Rev 3:21 as literal thrones then that will just cause confusion. The verse is talking about one throne, not two, because Jesus is talking about the same authority that the Father had and then Jesus had as well after His resurrection, as described in verses like Matthew 28:18 and Ephesians 1:19-22.

So, what Jesus is saying there in Revelation 3:21 is that just as He was given all authority in heaven and earth over every name that is named after His resurrection (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-22), He will give authority to those who overcome (who are faithful until death - Rev 2:10-11). It's all the same authority. The same throne. His throne is not a separate throne from the Father's throne or else He wouldn't be able to sit with the Father on His throne. Similarly, those who overcome cannot sit on a separate throne from the Father's throne because that is where Jesus is sitting rather than on a separate throne. Again, this all relates to authority. Jesus shares the same authority that the Father has and that's why He sits with the Father together on the one throne. Jesus will allow overcomers to sit on that same throne with Him, which means He will give them authority for overcoming.


Why would he want to do that? Those two verses do refer to the same throne as Revelation 3:21. I don't think he would disagree.


Because Matthew 25:31-46 indicates that the saints will inherit eternal life when He comes, so it equals reigning with Him for eternity, not for a thousand years. In subjection to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).

To be honest with you I wish it was like it was between you and I when we were having exchanges during our time at BF. I don't ever recall it getting out of hand like this between us during that period of time. Granted, there were times where it got out of hand when involving @WPM. But I don't ever recall it happening between you and I to that degree. But maybe it did but I simply forgot. I honestly don't recall any bad moments between you and I when we were having exchanges at BF.

Sure, we didn't agree with each other about things. But I don't recall us calling each other names. IMO, you always managed to be respectful about things, and that I literally looked up to you at the time, regardless of our differences of opinions. And that I was even literally concerned about you when it appeared you had disappeared from the face of the earth. Where I was hoping that nothing bad had happened to you. And thankfully, the fact you are here now means nothing bad had happened to you, such as maybe you had been diagnosed with cancer or something, then eventually dying because of it. Or any bad outcome like that. I'm just just using that as an example.

 

[Marty fox]

Marty, I'm trying to do better via my exchanges with you. So hopefully you do think I'm addressing your arguments at times rather than never addressing them at all. The truth is I appreciate having exchanges with you, regardless we don't see eye to eye on most of these things. When having exchanges with you there is usually no added drama to have to deal with. Apparently then, you might be the only adult in the room, or at least among the very few.


I don't deny He is reigning now. But He is not reigning in the sense Matthew 19:28 depicts Him reigning. That being upon the earth and bodily. But that doesn't mean I agree saved saints are currently reigning with Him, spiritually speaking, during an alleged millennium that has been underway for the past 2K years. All one has to do is objectively compare with Revelation 3:21 and plainly see there are 2 thrones depicted in that verse, not one throne. And then compare to Matthew 25 where it then gives the timing of when He initially sits in the throne of His glory and where He does that at. It is then at that point when saints begin reigning with Him a thousand years.

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.

It is then during the following when saints begin reigning with Him a thousand years.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And finally the following provides the exact when.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


If you disagree, and I'm sure you do, you then need to convincingly prove there are not 2 thrones in view in Revelation 3:21, but that there is only one throne in view.

You also need to convincingly prove exactly why--To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne--is not meaning the very same throne/s both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 are involving and when those verses are meaning.

And finally you need to convincingly prove why---To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne--does not equal saints reigning with Christ a thousand years. But if you perhaps agree that it does, well you then can't divorce both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 from the equation then expect anyone to find your arguments credible. If your arguments are credible, you would not need to divorce both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 from the equation, obviously.

Thanks for the nice comments at the top I will get back to this

 

[ewq1938]

Once again this was your words not mine and you actually said.

"No, because the first coming was from heaven to Earth, and so is the second coming. If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming."

You said "If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming."

You said it not me these are your words so at least be respectful and address what you said

I've already done that in previous posts. From birth to his resurrection was all part of the first coming, and I posted scripture that confirms there was one coming in that time, not two as you have argued.

 

[Marty fox]

I've already done that in previous posts. From birth to his resurrection was all part of the first coming, and I posted scripture that confirms there was one coming in that time, not two as you have argued.

But Jesus went from heaven to the earth in between His death and resurrection

 

[ewq1938]

But Jesus went from heaven to the earth in between His death and resurrection

Then why didn't the writer of Hebrews declare the next coming the 3rd? Why did he say it would be the 2nd?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To be honest with you I wish it was like it was between you and I when we were having exchanges during our time at BF. I don't ever recall it getting out of hand like this between us during that period of time. Granted, there were times where it got out of hand when involving @WPM. But I don't ever recall it happening between you and I to that degree. But maybe it did but I simply forgot. I honestly don't recall any bad moments between you and I when we were having exchanges at BF.

I'm willing to go back to being like that again if you are. I don't recall exactly how the exchanges were back then, but I know we had a lot of the same disagreements then that we still have now. There was more strict moderation there than here, so maybe that's part of it.

Sure, we didn't agree with each other about things. But I don't recall us calling each other names. IMO, you always managed to be respectful about things, and that I literally looked up to you at the time, regardless of our differences of opinions. And that I was even literally concerned about you when it appeared you had disappeared from the face of the earth.

Here's the thing. I tried awhile back on here to make a peace offering with you, so to speak, and you would have nothing of it. You just continued to make things personal. So, I think we're both at fault here. But, I'm willing to work on rectifying the situation and making things more respectful between us if you are.

Where I was hoping that nothing bad had happened to you.

Yeah, I can't really even explain why I took a hiatus for that long from there. Just got really busy with other things, I guess. It can be exhausting at times to argue with people, so maybe I was just tired of it and needed a break and the break became longer than I intended.

And thankfully, the fact you are here now means nothing bad had happened to you, such as maybe you had been diagnosed with cancer or something, then eventually dying because of it. Or any bad outcome like that. I'm just just using that as an example.

Yeah, it was nothing like that at all. Again, I'm not even sure why I left for as long as I did.

With all that said, one thing that is frustrating when having discussions with you is that you tend to come here for a day or two and have back and forth exchanges with people and then you disappear for weeks and don't ever respond to the latest replies to your posts. Can you give me your thoughts on the rest of what I said in post #385? I believe you need to take a closer look at some of the verses and passages you use to support your Premill view, such as Matthew 19:28, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 3:21, to see the context of those verses.

 

[Marty fox]

Then why didn't the writer of Hebrews declare the next coming the 3rd? Why did he say it would be the 2nd?

Because that was still part of the first coming it’s more of what happens during the comings like defeating sin and death in the first advent or the final defeat of satan at the end our world that were the first and second coming, but I was showing you you’re description of a coming not mine.

Jesus has come many times for certain reasons like judgement comings or even in the Old Testament that aren’t actuals the first and second comings, like to Sodom and Gomorrah or to wrestle Jacob

 

[WPM]

To be honest with you I wish it was like it was between you and I when we were having exchanges during our time at BF. I don't ever recall it getting out of hand like this between us during that period of time. Granted, there were times where it got out of hand when involving @WPM. But I don't ever recall it happening between you and I to that degree. But maybe it did but I simply forgot. I honestly don't recall any bad moments between you and I when we were having exchanges at BF.

Sure, we didn't agree with each other about things. But I don't recall us calling each other names. IMO, you always managed to be respectful about things, and that I literally looked up to you at the time, regardless of our differences of opinions. And that I was even literally concerned about you when it appeared you had disappeared from the face of the earth. Where I was hoping that nothing bad had happened to you. And thankfully, the fact you are here now means nothing bad had happened to you, such as maybe you had been diagnosed with cancer or something, then eventually dying because of it. Or any bad outcome like that. I'm just just using that as an example.

I think if you kept more engaged and were fairer with your representation of Amil then we would respect you. We all know you know what Amils believe. No one has had that position explained to them more over the years. But you tend to ignore and distort that. Also, if you start a conversation develop it. Do not run after 2 posts. That is frustrating.

We all have to make a greater effort.

I apologize for any hurts i have caused you. That is not my heart.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think if you kept more engaged and were fairer with your representation of Amil then we would respect you. We all know you know what Amils believe. No one has had that position explained to them more over the years. But you tend to ignore and distort that. Also, if you start a conversation develop it. Do not run after 2 posts. That is frustrating.

We all have to make a greater effort.

I apologize for any hurts i have caused you. That is not my heart.

I second this. We're all passionate about the Bible, which is a good thing, but we have to try to control that and not let things get personal. Easier said than done, of course.

But, what you said here describes exactly how I feel about @Davidpt . Our frustration isn't an excuse to make things personal, but I do wish he would make an effort to continue the discussions we were having even if he has to leave for awhile before coming back to them. But, what typically happens is we discuss something with him for one or two days and then he leaves for at least a week or two and he never responds to the last response in the discussion that came from us. I think it might be better if he not post here unless until he knows he will have the time to engage in the discussion for more than a few posts before leaving for weeks at a time and then coming back again without addressing our arguments and instead starting new ones.

 

[WPM]

I second this. We're all passionate about the Bible, which is a good thing, but we have to try to control that and not let things get personal. Easier said than done, of course.

But, what you said here describes exactly how I feel about @Davidpt . Our frustration isn't an excuse to make things personal, but I do wish he would make an effort to continue the discussions we were having even if he has to leave for awhile before coming back to them. But, what typically happens is we discuss something with him for one or two days and then he leaves for at least a week or two and he never responds to the last response in the discussion that came from us. I think it might be better if he not post here unless until he knows he will have the time to engage in the discussion for more than a few posts before leaving for weeks at a time and then coming back again without addressing our arguments and instead starting new ones.

Very true. But deliberately trying to misrepresenting Amil is provocative and exhausting.

Let us see whether he is willing to address this. Maybe we could move forward and explore Scripture.

 

[Marty fox]

I second this. We're all passionate about the Bible, which is a good thing, but we have to try to control that and not let things get personal. Easier said than done, of course.

But, what you said here describes exactly how I feel about @Davidpt . Our frustration isn't an excuse to make things personal, but I do wish he would make an effort to continue the discussions we were having even if he has to leave for awhile before coming back to them. But, what typically happens is we discuss something with him for one or two days and then he leaves for at least a week or two and he never responds to the last response in the discussion that came from us. I think it might be better if he not post here unless until he knows he will have the time to engage in the discussion for more than a few posts before leaving for weeks at a time and then coming back again without addressing our arguments and instead starting new ones.

Yes that has happened with me too

 

[Marty fox]

Marty, I'm trying to do better via my exchanges with you. So hopefully you do think I'm addressing your arguments at times rather than never addressing them at all. The truth is I appreciate having exchanges with you, regardless we don't see eye to eye on most of these things. When having exchanges with you there is usually no added drama to have to deal with. Apparently then, you might be the only adult in the room, or at least among the very few.


I don't deny He is reigning now. But He is not reigning in the sense Matthew 19:28 depicts Him reigning. That being upon the earth and bodily. But that doesn't mean I agree saved saints are currently reigning with Him, spiritually speaking, during an alleged millennium that has been underway for the past 2K years. All one has to do is objectively compare with Revelation 3:21 and plainly see there are 2 thrones depicted in that verse, not one throne. And then compare to Matthew 25 where it then gives the timing of when He initially sits in the throne of His glory and where He does that at. It is then at that point when saints begin reigning with Him a thousand years.

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.

It is then during the following when saints begin reigning with Him a thousand years.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And finally the following provides the exact when.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


If you disagree, and I'm sure you do, you then need to convincingly prove there are not 2 thrones in view in Revelation 3:21, but that there is only one throne in view.

You also need to convincingly prove exactly why--To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne--is not meaning the very same throne/s both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 are involving and when those verses are meaning.

And finally you need to convincingly prove why---To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne--does not equal saints reigning with Christ a thousand years. But if you perhaps agree that it does, well you then can't divorce both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 from the equation then expect anyone to find your arguments credible. If your arguments are credible, you would not need to divorce both Matthew 19:28 & Matthew 25:31 from the equation, obviously.

At the regeneration of all things this earth and our bodies as we know it will be gone and Matthew 19:28 is the judging throne. The reigning from Revelation 20 will be expired by then.

Revelation 3:21 is just a promise that who overcomes will reign spiritually with Him. The context of the letter to the Laodiceans were that they were lukewarm and about to be rejected by Jesus.

Did you notice verse #14? “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

Yes, Jesus reigns over all of Gods creation now

The context of Matthew 25:19 is the judgement day at the end of our world and the regeneration, after the reigning of Revelation 20.