The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[WPM]

If they believed in a future Sabbath day, why would they think Satan would not be bound also at that point? Are you saying they think Satan will be loosed and walking around on earth for 1,000 years?

Ancient Chiliasts had a very rigid system of eschatological belief in 7000 literal rigid years of human history. After this, they believed the redeemed were into the new heaven and new earth. That may explain why “time” comes to an end right at the very completion of their future millennium and how they make no allowance for Satan’s little season.

Another strong reason why they did not accept Satan’s little season at the end was because of their expectation of a future millennium. They saw it as a perfect pristine unspoiled arrangement that was liberated from all the bondage of corruption. That meant they saw no sin or sinners, no decay or disease, no dying or crying, no devil or his demons.

They believed that Satan and his demons were destroyed at the second coming. It is not just that the ECFs believed Satan was bound at the First Advent, not one early writer that I can find (up until AD240) taught a further binding of Satan at the second coming. You are trying to foist that upon them without the slightest evidence (or justification) to do so. What is more, they believed the devil and his angels were destroyed at the second coming. So, there was no evil one to populate the age to come and no wicked to deceive. This too is akin to modern day Amil. Think about this: for 210 years after the death of Christ all the Fathers anticipated a perfect age to come free of the bondage of corruption and free of all rebellion in the visible and invisible realm.

It is certainly significant that there was a widespread acceptance among the early Chiliast writers that Satan was bound through the earthly ministry of Christ. But what runs hand-in-hand with that is the fate of Satan when Jesus comes. The most startling thing about the beliefs of the earliest Millennialists who spoke of this is that they believed Satan, his minions and all evil would finally be eliminated at the second coming. This is extremely surprising because it runs totally contrary to what is loudly taught today by all modern Premillennials, of all sections. An obvious and vital by-product of that is that it eliminates the whole idea of Satan’s little season 1,000 years after the coming of the Lord. This is undoubtedly a curious position, allowing for the actual detail of Revelation 20. This suggests that early apostate Judaism had a greater influence on the formulation of this early Chiliasts theory than Revelation 20. In fact, early Millennialists seem to have acquired many of their core early beliefs from Christ-rejecting Judaism.

Justin Martyr

One of the leading early Chiliast proponents of this was Justin Martyr. He believed that Satan would be destroyed at our Lord’s return:

[T]he serpent that sinned from the beginning, and the angels like him, may be destroyed, and that death may be contemned, and for ever quit, at the second coming of the Christ Himself (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 45).​

This couldn’t be clearer! This ancient writer depicts the termination of all evil at the glorious return of Christ. Justin explains how Satan, his angels and death itself are destroyed at the second coming of Christ. This allows no room for the Premillennialism scheme where Satan is bound 1,000 years after the second coming and then released to gather Gog and Magog to fight Christ and the glorified saints. Not only is Satan and his minions and death destroyed at Christ’s coming, but, all the bondage of corruption is destroyed. He teaches that there shall be “freedom from suffering, from corruption, and from grief.” This, paradoxically, is one of the main dividing points between Amillennial/Postmillennial teaching and that of Premillennialism reference the appearing of our Lord.

He further states in another work:

For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils (1st Apology, Chapter LII).​

The second coming sees the elimination of every enemy of righteousness. The coming of Christ is climactic. In the eyes of most of the earliest Chiliast writers there was no allowance for sin and Satan, crying and dying, Satan and his minions on a future millennial earth. It is a new perfect porchway into the eternal realm.

For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He foreknows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born (1st Apology of Justin, Chapter 28).​

According to Justin, the seeming delay in the return of Christ is for the special purpose of the salvation of souls. But when this occurs, he indicates the punishment of Satan, his devils, and the wicked occurs. The fate of all of these are carefully tied together. They are all punished at the same time. He states in the same book:

[Y]ou hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, perhaps for this reason, lest you be persecuted by the rulers, who, under the influence of the wicked and deceitful spirit, the serpent, will not cease putting to death and persecuting those who confess the name of Christ until He come again, and destroy them all, and render to each his deserts (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 39).​

Once again, the second coming is presented as the time when the devil and all evil come to an end. This is clear and repeated in the teaching of these early Chiliasts.

 

[WPM]

If they believed in a future Sabbath day, why would they think Satan would not be bound also at that point? Are you saying they think Satan will be loosed and walking around on earth for 1,000 years?

Irenaeus believed that Satan will be destroyed at the Second Advent! You have been careful to duck around this in your posts. Irenaeus lists the resurrection at the coming of Christ as the time when the curse is finally removed, incorruption is introduced and death and the devil are eliminated. This climactic portrayal fits consistently with the Chiliast vision of future state. There is no space for sin and sinner, death and disease, war and terror, Satan and his demons. We are looking at a perfect pristine arrangement.

There shall in truth be a common joy consummated to all those who believe unto life, and in each individual shall be confirmed the mystery of the Resurrection, and the hope of incorruption, and the commencement of the eternal kingdom, when God shall have destroyed death and the devil. For that human nature and flesh which has risen again from the dead shall die no more; but after it had been changed to incorruption, and made like to spirit, when the heaven was opened, [our Lord] full of glory offered it (the flesh) to the Father (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, L.).​

The glorification of God’s people described in this ancient text occurs at the second coming. It is here that this corruptible will take on incorruption. This Chiliast father teaches that every vestige of the Fall is removed when Christ returns never to arise again. The approaching earth will be totally different from the current corrupt one and will be totally renewed and eternally free of corruption.

Irenaeus reckons that man’s sinful makeup must be changed in order to allow him to grace a future millennial earth. Every trace of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

According to this early writer, the saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new order. This arrangement is shown to never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible ongoing arrangement.

The ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire (Against Heresies Book I, Chapter X, 1 – Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world).​

Again, the coming of Christ is here represented as glorious and climatic. It involves God’s righteous final judgment upon all wickedness. There is no indication that sin and sinners survive the Lord’s future return. Wicked man and wicked angels are both collectively shown to experience “everlasting fire.”

This is classic Amil. This completely refutes the claims of Premils that Irenaeus was one of them. He wasn't! Ancient Chilaism and modern Premil are as far apart as day and night.

 

[Timtofly]

Please note the close correlation between these 3 accounts of the same event - AD70. A comparison of these three parallel narratives will see the correspondence in teaching. Pay especial notice of what is highlighted in brown. This proves that this is an historic event that pertains to the judgment of Jerusalem as a punishment for their rejection of Christ and has been long fulfilled.

Please note: Mother's still have babies today like they did in the first century.

Should they not worry about any future AoD, and not flee, since some people already fled in 66AD? How would people in the first century remove the coming AoD?

How does the saying go? Amil and Preterist put their heads in the sand and deny, deny, because some people witnessed armies approaching thousands of years ago, no need to worry about anything today.

Besides, it is not Matthew that is in isolation, it is Luke that gives a narrative in isolation from Mark and Matthew. But if you fail to see the subtle differences, that is your problem to deal with. God left those in the first century a warning. You place the warning to that last generation alive on earth, at the Second Coming, in the first century, locked away, so you can prove nothing happens at the Second Coming other than your "say so", contrary to God's Word.

Why would God allow something to be written in the first century, specific to an event 1992 years later? That is the gist of preterist thinking.

For one reason, those words came directly from Jesus as God, while on earth. It is not a common every day occurrence for God to show up in human flesh and warn us. God came with 2 witnesses the day before Sodom was destroyed, only one time. No guarantee that is going to happen again, so what Jesus said then would be the only warning, and literally set in "stone", or at least black and white that would never change, even if applied to an event after the Second Coming itself. Certainly no generation since the Cross has had an excuse, not to heed such warnings. Even if it was never applicable to them. Yet even today, people still attempt to flee from the middle east whenever war brakes out.

God does not need to show up every generation, because His Word recorded in the Gospels is sufficient.

If some choose to think that God cannot preserve His Word over time and language changes, that is a whole other issue. Obviously even hundreds of years after the Reformation, people still argue over what salvation even entails. So teachings constantly change, but all generations can go back to the source and take another shot at interpretation, even if wrong in that interpretation.

The point now is we have hundreds of versions of God's word to fit each incorrect personal interpretation. That was the issue with the first century Judaism, that had their own copies of "Scripture" to align with their corrupted teachings.

Despite this seemingly forest of Bible versions, we can still be assured God was preparing even that last generation, and no human on earth can say they were never warned.

 

[Timtofly]

If this is supposed to be a collection of millennial inhabitants 1,000 years after the second coming, why would they be mocking “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”? Such a notion is completely absurd because Christ’s coming (or parousia) would then be long past.

You fail to see that some even dismiss the first century coming of Jesus. They do not even acknowledge the first coming much less scoff at a second coming. Of course the first coming has been long past, 1992 years ago, to be specific.

This is not a water tight excuse to deny a future millennium. It is not fire proof either. This is not talking about scoffers in Revelation 20:7-9.

Who makes that argument?

This is talking about those who deny any coming since creation. They deny dispensations where God has appeared to humanity on earth.

"And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

Where does it say since the Cross? Why do you not apply this to those who deny dispensations?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

When have I called you a heretic? Nowhere! I will repeat: it is the origins of your doctrine that is found among the heretics.

And this statement is a lie!

God said 6 times there is a 1,000 year time- I accept that, you say God didn'tr mean it.

I showed you why Jesus can't be teh first resurrection of REv. 20:6 and you refuse to acknowledge your position is a rewrite of SCriptures.

I gave over 80 Scri-ptures, without comment or reinterpretation that showed there is an earthly kingdom and how life will be on it. YOu say god didn't mean that and then rewrite the Scriptures.

Sorry but you can join the ranks of hundreds of others who have done the same.

Answer the rebuttal of why Jesus isn't the resurrection of REv. 20 and we can move on.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You said other threads. Where is your evidence?

These are not enough for you? How we strain at gnats to divert attnetion from teh camel you swallow! But I will search them out and call you for the phony you are.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Amil doctrine is founded on literal, straightforward passages like Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 28:18, John 5:28-29, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Acts 17:31, 1 Thess 4:14-5:6 and 2 Thess 1:7-10. So, your claims about Amil are out of ignorance.

already answered all those claims you make against those verses.

No my claims against amil cvome out of you and Pual's mouths.

And I noticed you still havent replied to the scores of verses I gave you about the kingdom.

Let me ask you this:

It is written that Jesus will rule with a rod of iron. You say Jesus is ruling now! Look around the world- do you believe He is ruling with a rod of iron ???? Or is that symbolic to you as well and god didn't mean Jesus would rule with a rod of iron.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

After all this time you have argued with us Amils, you don't even know what we believe? You have to be kidding me. You should educate yourself about what others believe before debating them. How can you know that our view is wrong if you don't even know or understand what we believe? Anyway, I'll answer your question, but I'm just amazed that you wouldn't already know the answer.

Well when you and Paul learn what pre mils believe maybe we can learn together.

but Paul said 1000 years is not 1000 years. You said 1000 years is not 1000 years. I am quoting you!

Since I believe it correlates with the beginning of Christ's reign (and Satan's binding) I believe it started when Christ was resurrected from the dead. If you read Matthew 28:18, which was just before His ascension and obviously after His resurrection He said that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him at that point. So, He was already reigning then. Just not in the way that Premil thinks He is supposed to reign (which, unfortunately, is the same way people like the Pharisees thought the Messiah was supposed to reign).

and that is what I know you said! so I have not misquoted you. According to you this unkown time frame called 1000 years began when Jesus rose from teh dead.

OK

then please answer these questions or problems with your theology.

Revelation 20:4-7
King James Version

4 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 and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

1.So who were these who live and reign with Christ?
2. It says they were beheaded for thE witness of Jesus, and did not worship the beast or take his mark.
3. So these events must have happened during Jesus earthly life before Calvary! YOU said Jesus began His reign after HIS RESURRECTION
4. who is this beast during Jesus lifetime?
5.. what was this beasts' mark?
6. Is it the same beast as REv. 13 or a different beast?
7. It says that those who take part in this first resurrection are blessed and holy and the second death has no power over them?
8. Does that mean the second death has power over us who are alive now as we were not part of this first resurrection?
9. Or do you believe like Paul that all this is all wrong and means Jesus resurrection alone?

I hope you answer these. We really need to know your position to move on in a =n knowing what you believe way. See, with dispensational pre-mil believers, you do not need to ask these questions. For when a passage is clear, succinct and straightforward like this with no language suggesting it is to be translated another way we accept it a face value.

 

[WPM]

And this statement is a lie!

God said 6 times there is a 1,000 year time- I accept that, you say God didn'tr mean it.

I showed you why Jesus can't be teh first resurrection of REv. 20:6 and you refuse to acknowledge your position is a rewrite of SCriptures.

I gave over 80 Scri-ptures, without comment or reinterpretation that showed there is an earthly kingdom and how life will be on it. YOu say god didn't mean that and then rewrite the Scriptures.

Sorry but you can join the ranks of hundreds of others who have done the same.

Answer the rebuttal of why Jesus isn't the resurrection of REv. 20 and we can move on.

Amils rightly consider the intra-Advent period to be an indefinite period. This is last days period running through to the second coming. It is therefore proper to view Revelation 20 the same. The symbolic usage of numbers in Revelation reinforces that. The genre of Revelation and the symbolism of the book lends itself to this type of understanding. You could also apply that same reasoning to the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes? Of course not! It means a short period of time. A thousand years represents a long period of time.

 

[WPM]

Well when you and Paul learn what pre mils believe maybe we can learn together.

but Paul said 1000 years is not 1000 years. You said 1000 years is not 1000 years. I am quoting you!

1. Do you believe Satan and his minions are physical beings?
2. Is the dragon in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical dragon?
3. Is the serpent in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical serpent?
4. Is the key mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal door key?
5. Is the chain mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal chain?
6. Is the prison mentioned in Revelation 20:7 a literal brick prison?
7. Do you believe demons need to be detained in a literal physical prison with literal metal chains in order to be restrained?
8. Can a prisoner in a prison have great wrath while in chains?
9. Does imprisonment mean immobility?
10. Does it mean a prisoner cannot do harm?
11. Can a dog on a chain walk or roam about?
12. Can a prisoner in a prison walk or roam about?
13. Does a prisoner have the ability to kill, steal, destroy, rape and embezzle in prison?

 

[WPM]

These are not enough for you? How we strain at gnats to divert attnetion from teh camel you swallow! But I will search them out and call you for the phony you are.

Provide the information, or apologize for lying again.

 

[WPM]

already answered all those claims you make against those verses.

No my claims against amil cvome out of you and Pual's mouths.

And I noticed you still havent replied to the scores of verses I gave you about the kingdom.

Let me ask you this:

It is written that Jesus will rule with a rod of iron. You say Jesus is ruling now! Look around the world- do you believe He is ruling with a rod of iron ???? Or is that symbolic to you as well and god didn't mean Jesus would rule with a rod of iron.

You are missing the crucial point. The word poimaino shows us that Christ is going to divide at the end between the sheep and the goats like a shepherd. You avoid the key destructive detail contained in the Greek and Hebrew words that show the destruction of the nations. For example: The original Greek in Revelation 19:15 states “he should (patasso ho ethnos kai autous poimaino autous) smite the nations, and shepherd them with a rod of iron.”

You need to see what the word poimaino means and how similar kindred words are interpreted elsewhere in Scripture. The word poimaino in this reading which is rendered “rule” in the AV, carries the consistent meaning of shepherd and shepherding in Scripture.

The picture here is of a Shepherd with a rod. However, this is NO ordinary Shepherd with no ordinary rod. The Shepherd here is Christ, and He is coming in His wrath at the end of this age to deal with the wicked thus the significance of the rod of iron. He is a jealous Shepherd who is finally coming to destroy those that have rejected Him. The shepherding is clearly associated with the FINAL separation.

The coming of Christ is not to high-five sin and mollycoddle sinners. It is to judge sinners and banish sin from the earth forever. Premil ushers countless mortal rebels unto the new earth, but Scripture shows they are all totally destroyed. The new earth is incorrupt! Only the incorrupt can possess it. Your argument conflicts with clear and repeated Scripture.

Revelation 2:25-27 says, “that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule (poimaino) them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be ‘broken to shivers’ (suntribo): even as I received of my Father.”

Why do you ignore the crucial words suntribo (to break to shivers) in Revelation 2:25-27 and patasso (to smite) in Revelation 19:15?

The same Shepherd who will comfort His sheep (the elect) will also destroy the goats (the wicked). This teaching is taken from Psalm 2:1-12. See what it is saying: “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.Thou shalt break (ra` a`) them with a rod of iron; ‘thou shalt dash them in pieces’ (naphats) like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

Why do you also ignore the Hebrew here? The Hebrew word ra` a` means to spoil: literally, by breaking to pieces; figuratively, to make (or be) good for nothing. The Hebrew word naphats here derives from a primitive root; to dash to pieces, or scatter.

The picture here is of a Shepherd with a rod. However, this is NO ordinary Shepherd with NO ordinary rod. The Shepherd here is Christ, and He is coming in His wrath at the end of this age to deal with the wicked thus the significance of the rod of iron. He is a jealous Shepherd who is finally coming to destroy those that have rejected Him. The shepherding is clearly associated with the FINAL separation.

The Lord encounters only 2 types of people when He comes – saved or lost, sheep or goats. The sheep enter into their eternal inheritance; the goats receive their eternal punishment. Nothing could be simpler. You invent some 3rd group of humans that are too righteous to be destroyed at the second coming, yet too wicked to be rescued, yet Premil argue among themselves who they actually are. The reality is: they don't exist.

Nowhere in any of these passages is there any insinuation of a 1,000 years shepherding (or ruling) over the nations -as Premil alleges. What is more, Nowhere in Rev 20 is there any mention of (1) a rod of iron, (2) Christ on earth, (3) and therefore Christ ruling on earth with a rod of iron for 1,000 years. You will only find that in the Premil textbooks.

 

[Timtofly]

The “desolation” is not within the 70 weeks, please read it. The desolation is the consequence of what happened in the midst of the week – Calvary. Daniel 9:27 says, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

Your interpretation is contradictory: Not within the 70 weeks, but in the midst of the 70th week?

You cannot have it both ways.

The AoD is the complete disregard of God's Atonement, not the end of the Law of Animal Sacrifice. Yes the Atonement did away with the shadow of the Law. But free salvation is not the desolation that replaces the Law. That is ludicrous.

The AoD is Satan's 42 months where the Atonement of the Cross no longer applies, until Satan's abomination is brought to an end. God allows Satan this 42 month period, and it certainly was not in the first century.

This verse covers the whole earth and every human, not just Israel and Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

How can the Futurists serious relate such a restriction (1) to the Church and (2) the period preceding "the end of the age"? This last assertion further supports the view that the Jewish capital is the setting and the Jews living in that city (prior to AD 70) are the subjects receiving this warning.

It does not involve the church. It involves those people in Judaea, who are about to choose between beheading or the mark of the beast.

The choice is not made in reaction to the AoD. They need to get away from the AoD to make a reasonable decision, not a hasty decision.

If the lost were in a building that was burning down would you explain to them to get saved to prevent the building from burning down, or have them flee the building to make an informed decision about salvation?

 

[Timtofly]

This is last days period running through to the second coming. It is therefore proper to view Revelation 20 the same.

It is not proper interpretation to change God’s Word to fit your eschatological bias.

There is not a single Second Coming verse in the 20th chapter of Revelation. Not even an implication of a Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

2 different tribs. One was AD70. The other is future. Read what I wrote please. I am starting to think you are just skimming it.

Only one can be greatest. There has been tribulation since the fall. 70AD is no different than any World War.

 

[Truth7t7]

It is not proper interpretation to change God’s Word to fit your eschatological bias.

There is not a single Second Coming verse in the 20th chapter of Revelation. Not even an implication of a Second Coming.

Sure there is, Jesus Christ at his "Second Coming" is the fire seen in Revelation 20:9 coming out of heaven

Revelation 20:9KJV
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-8KJV
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Malachi 3:2KJV
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

 

[Timtofly]

It is a long response that you totally avoided! You failed to address all the biblical evidence contained within that post. I will therefore repeat it and make key additions.

There is no 3rd temple mention in Scripture.

One cannot help but see the drastic move away from the physical to the spiritual, from the shadow to the substance, from the imperfect to the true, from the temporal to the eternal, from the earthly to the heavenly under the new covenant. The physical temple is replaced with a spiritual temple, multiple animal sin offerings are replaced by one final sacrifice for sin. Christ and all the NT writers taught the superseding of the old abolished system with the new eternal system. Basically, we move from the type to the anti-type, from the anticipated to the realized, from the inadequate to the true.

After the tearing of the veil, the earthly temple loses its significance and relevance. It becomes a symbol of rebellion and the focus of God’s distain.

Daniel 9:26 says: “the people of the prince that shall come (speaking of the Roman soldiers) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

In Daniel 9:27 after predicting that the old covenant would be removed, the angel predicted that God would destroy the temple (the centre-point of the sacrifices) forever. We learn: “for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

This whole passage is focused upon Calvary and the irreversible affect it had on Israel’s religious sacrifices and the oblations. The first thing we see is that in God’s economy it caused them to cease. In the economy of the religious Jews at the time of Calvary they stubbornly and sinfully continued to practice their sacrifices. The whole focus of Jewish religious worship was centred on the temple. It was here that the Jews came to make their typical atoning sacrifices.

From this passage, it is clear that it is the nature and exercise and of these abominations that causes the desolation to occur. It is evidently the gross wickedness of these abominations that draws God’s wrath upon the temple. Also, for the fury of God to be justly focused on the temple (the centre of Jewish worship), the Jewish people, who this prophecy was primarily directed towards, must perpetrate them. It cannot relate to the practices of others, especially the heathen, who had NO part in or responsible for or to the temple.

The duration of this desolation lasts until the Lord’s glorious Second Advent. This reading declares, “he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”

The temple will will be derelict until the consummation at the one final future Coming of Christ. There is no mention of its rebuilding. Your hermeneutics are more akin to Premil - explaining away the clear and repeated New Testament fulfilment with your opinion of the Old Testament predictions.

We see the fulfilment of this in Christ’s words in Matthew 23:37-39: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (the consummation, as Daniel predicted).”

Christ continues (to remove any ambiguity as to what He was referring to) in Matthew 24:1-2, “And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

This couldn’t be clearer.

What was going to replace the old physical Jewish building in Jerusalem was not something that was restricted to one race but a global spiritual temple that embraced all nations equally.

In John 4:19-24 we see Christ addressing this subject, in response to a statement made by the woman at the well. The woman said to Christ, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”

Christ responded, “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

What Christ was teaching here was that a new economy was being introduced through His earthly ministry that would forever replace the old. No longer would the worship of the living God be restricted to a natural geographical land-mass or be centered upon a physical temporal brick building built with hands in earthly Jerusalem, rather, it would now be concentrated in a spiritual eternal temple (the redeemed Church) which is spiritual located within the heavenly New Jerusalem. That temple would not be restricted to one physical nation but would be situated throughout all the nations of the world.

Jerusalem would no longer be the center of divine worship on this earth. Geographical locality becomes irrelevant in worshipping God. One location would be as good as another to worship God. In saying this, Jesus was internationalizing divine worship and the community of Christ.

After Calvary, the temple becomes synonymous throughout the New Testament with (1) Christ, (2) the body of Christ, and (3) the temple in heaven.

Since Christ, the worship of God was no longer restricted to a physical earthly building but rather relocated to an invisible spiritual temple called the Church. The Old Testament tabernacle, as important and powerful as it was, became a deficient temporal type of the more perfect spiritual fulfilment in Christ and in His Church. This teaching about the spiritual manifestation of the temple was clearly an anathema to the unbelieving Jew and was regarded as complete heresy.

The house referred to here is a spiritual house and relates to the Lord Jesus Christ and the building of His spiritual body – the Church. Any Jew interpreting this Old Testament text literally would have mistakenly assumed that the hope for the nations in the last days would arise in the form of the physical temporal earthly temple in Jerusalem rather than a new spiritual temple.

Jesus said to the Jews in John 2:18-21, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

The Jews at the time of Christ, being ignorant and earthly minded, interpreted this statement to mean: He was claiming to destroy and rebuild the physical Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The reading records, “Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”

However, the next verse exposed their blindness, saying, “But he spake of the temple of his body” (v 21).

Christ spiritualises the temple here. None could surely dispute this. There were 2 different mind-sets in this picture. Christ’s heavenly mind-set presenting the introduction of the new covenant in the form of Himself and the Jews carnal earthly mind-set hankering towards an old inadequate system.

Christ also declared during His ministry, whilst standing in the actual temple, “I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6). However, the Jews in the main had No comprehension of that glorious statement. To this spiritual Temple would the nations finally find mercy, thus, fulfilling perfectly what the old temple couldn’t. And thus, through Himself (the living Temple), fulfilling Isaiah 2:2 that “all nations shall flow unto it.”

Granted, the temple was central to the Jewish faith. For anyone to intimate in any way that it would be destroyed was viewed as nothing short of blasphemy. However, Christ was redirecting their eyes from the old temporal building – which was an imperfect shadow and type of Himself – and pointing them towards the new all-sufficient eternal temple – in the form of His person. Through His impending death, the temporal temple and its ceremonies would be done away with.

This whole post has literally nothing to do with 70AD. Daniel 9:26, yes, is about 70AD. Daniel 9:27, no, has nothing to do with 70AD, but the 7th Trumpet.

Who argues the Cross changed nothing, except those who deny dispensations? You cannot be against dispensations, and yet declare everything changed at the Cross.

 

[Timtofly]

Op Note

Whilst ancient and modern Amillennialists share much in common with the earliest Chiliast fathers in regard to the character of the earth, those who inhabit it and the environment produced that follows the return of Christ, they go their separate ways with them on their view of the intermediate state. Despite this large-scale concord between both in regard to the perfect and pristine nature of the world to come, there was a strong passionate underlying divergence on the location of the redeemed after death. This was hotly disputed between both sides. This was indeed a toxic battlefield. To gain favor and diminish the credibility of the other position, each likened the view of the other to heretics or apostates. Ironically, the intermediate state would be an issue of nearly wholesale agreement today between modern-day evangelical Amillennialists and Premillennialists.

Amillennialists believed (and believe) the dead in Christ remain in heaven in a disembodied state to rule with Christ until the second coming. The dead saints then return with Christ in majesty and glory, putting on their new glorified resurrected bodies. They taught that the second coming ushered in the end of time; this would see the removal of this current corrupt earth, sin, sinners and Satan and would usher in the introduction of the new heavens and new earth.

Even though the early Chiliasts recognized those who believed in a climactic coming of Christ as orthodox brethren, they often repudiated their beliefs by likening them to the heretical Gnostics who believed God’s people went direct into the presence of God upon death. It seems possible that they used the Gnostic card as a weapon to discredit the idea of a heavenly intermediate state and a climactic return of Christ in order to dissuade people away from Amillennialism. From studying the early writers, we can see that the same passion and partiality that exists today within the different camps in regard to eschatology was similarly displayed back then.

These of course were convenient associations to place against either because there was a semblance of truth to the charges, in that each camp did hold similar views to the repudiated groups on the matter of the afterlife. The Jews rejected Christ’s sinless life, atoning death and glorious resurrection. They therefore taught that the faithful went to Abraham’s bosom upon death and stayed there until resurrection day. The Gnostics understood that the faithful ascended straight into the heavenlies upon death. So, these were smart connections to make to discredit their rivals.

Although this may seem strange to us living in our day, this was the chosen battle field that divided the ancient fathers on either side of the millennial debate. This is a prime example of how we must glean the prevailing points of contention back in the day before jumping to rash conclusions. The fact is: we have no right to decide the critical conflict of the ancients. They already chose it. We just have to understand it.

Leading Chiliasts, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian all acknowledged that there was a sizeable movement of genuine established orthodox advocates who rejected the Chiliast viewpoint. Their influence must have been significant because they are noted as an establish grouping within the early Church. Irenaeus testifies:

Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature (capere Deum) (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 32).​

Essentially, these notable orthodox opponents are rebuked for rejecting the Chiliast blueprint concerning the three-fold gradation experience of believers. They were also criticized for being against the idea of a purgatory-style intermediate state in Hades before the second coming followed by another refining age in between “this age” (time) and “the age to come” (eternity). This period was said to involve a stripping that supposedly equipped the saints to “gradually … partake of the divine nature.” These early Amillennialists also rejected the existence of, and the gradual improvement of, the resurrected saints on a future earth. They rather held that glorification will fully and completely perfect the people of God for all eternity when Jesus comes, whereupon they will populate the new regenerated earth.

Irenaeus saw “the resurrection of the just” ushering in “the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption.” This is notable because Irenaeus later places the judgment of believers after the completion of his future millennium. This phrase “the commencement of incorruption” implies that the saints would continue to undergo enhancement in a future millennium to prepare them for the eternal state.

Irenaeus attacked the Amillennialists who believed that the dead in Christ ascended immediately into the presence of God after their departure from this life. He censured those who opposed his belief that the righteous dead went direct to Hades to be tested upon death and await the second coming. He often likened their views to those of the heretics:

Since … some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption, they thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics, despising the handiwork of God, and not admitting the salvation of their flesh, while they also treat the promise of God contemptuously, and pass beyond God altogether in the sentiments they form, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens and the Demiurge, and go to the Mother (Achamoth) or to that Father whom they have feigned. Those persons, therefore, who disallow a resurrection affecting the whole man (universam reprobant resurrectionem), and as far as in them lies remove it from the midst [of the Christian scheme], how can they be wondered at, if again they know nothing as to the plan of the resurrection? (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 31:1).​

These “orthodox” Amillennialists that believed the dead in Christ rise immediately in spirit into the presence of God in heaven upon death are strongly criticized by Irenaeus. He likened the view of the disembodied elect entering heaven upon death to the heresy of Gnosticism. However, this seems strange in the light of the biblical teaching that to be absent from the body” is “to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). This is a view that is commonly accepted by most sound Premillennialists and Amillennialists today. Saying all this, there is no doubt that there was probably a lot of theological posturing going on here in these comments, in order to discredit “the other side’s beliefs.” Nothing, at this time, would have got believers attention more or had more impact than likening a doctrine to Gnosticism.

Early Amillennialist teaching would obviously have cut across Irenaeus’ elaborate scheme of a “pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just” and would have doubtless have caused this top Chiliast proponent to strongly refute this major opposing doctrine.

Irenaeus was not suggesting that the orthodox Amillennial advocates in any way rejected the physical resurrection when Jesus comes, after all, to believe such would immediately nullify their orthodox credentials; it would also invalidate the distinction and comparison between the mainstream and the heretics. It would place them far outside the pale of orthodoxy. He simply disagreed with them dividing up the ascent of the inward man and the physical man in the whole resurrection process. He believed that the soul and spirit would not be perfected until it was clothed with a glorified body. Basically, it was all or nothing. In his estimation, this would only occur at the Second Advent. In his reasoning, he is out of step with most sound Premillennialists today, of whatever shade.

Fellow Chiliast, Justin also acknowledged that there were many sincere brethren among the orthodox who rejected Chiliasm. Justin asked Trypho (his Jewish opponent):

Tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?" I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise (Dialogue with Trypho: Chapter 80).​

Justin admits that there were “many” sincere non-millennialist believers in his day. The only apparent difference between Justin and Irenaeus’ teaching seems to be that Justin advanced nothing in regard to the just being “disciplined beforehand for incorruption.” That in itself does not suggest that he didn’t believe such. He definitely held to the general format Irenaeus taught. We just do not have any surviving statements on that matter. Justin then speaks about other non-orthodox apostate professors who also rejected this Chiliast theory:

Yet they were not outed as Amil, so there could have been a disagreement between pre-mill and chiliast, as you call them.

 

[Timtofly]

Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no intervening time-period or temporal age in between “this age” and “the age to come.” It is within the bounds of this juxtapose alone that we understand the whole eschatological arrangement, with its two unique diverse worlds. Kim Riddlebarger explains: “the two-age model is very simple in its structure and is based on texts that can only be described as clear and straightforward” (A Present or Future Millennium?).

Scripture also makes it perfectly clear, that the OT and the whole church sit in heavenly places in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

The eternal age started at the Cross, and all those redeemed pass from death into life immediately when the soul leaves the body.

There is no longer souls waiting in Abraham's bosom. Abraham's bosom was never Paradise. Paradise is that eternal city wherein the tree of life waited, until the Cross. The Cross made it possible for the redeemed to boldly go before the throne of Grace, in permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They serve and have served God day and night in that heavenly temple.

Yet that has nothing to do with the Second Coming and the throne and temple Jesus sets up in Jerusalem. That is the throne and temple Satan sets in for 42 months, with his AoD. That is what Revelation 13 is declaring in corroboration with Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Amil must think Satan sits in a temple that is set up in the New Heavens and New Earth after the Second Coming. Because they deny a temple before the Second Coming, and some even claim it happened in 70AD. The Day of the Lord is a reign on earth with righteousness the only way of life.

Early chiliast were wrong in holding to Abraham's bosom as an ongoing phenomenon after the Cross. But even Amil deny or avoid the physical resurrection out of Abraham's bosom, because if they did acknowledge that first resurrection, 70AD would be a pointless, just another day, in Roman history of wars and rumors of wars. The temple was rendered void at the Cross. Sacrifices could have gone on, until today, as just another way to live life, because that is Judaism. But the Jews sacrificed themselves on the alter of revolt, and lost.