Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom?

All I asked is what Paul meant by saying "I die daily." He was saying he lived in peril of his life every day. Like those who volunteer for a suicide mission, he basically resolves to die at the hands of the enemy, and, in a real sense, he does die, even if he returns alive. He wasn't using hyperbole when he said, "I die daily." He is communicating the true gravity of his resolve.

So it is when Christ says that His followers must take up their crosses and follow Him.

Neither statement depends upon any resurrection for its meaning. They are not about being dead in sins, they are about suffering at the hands of their persecutors, and how this suffering is viewed from Heaven.

 

As you see it . . .

. . . but that's obvious. I know how you are reading Revelation, and I'm not presuming to be able to change your mind about that. What one calls the "whole counsel of God" depends greatly on his biases and presuppositions.

But, I've shown that I have solid, biblical bases for saying that there has been a resurrection. I call it the First Resurrection. That all believers suffer tribulation, and that God counts it as a laying down of their lives.

I've also shown that while He was on earth, Christ bound Satan.

 

How I read Revelation:

Pretend that the four Gospels are one book, with four sections.

The first is about Christ's earthly life and ministry, and He is revealed as the King of Israel.
The second segment is, again, about Christ's earthly life and ministry, and He is revealed as a bearer of burdens, a servant.
The third segment is about Christ's earthly ministry again, but He is revealed as the Son of Man.
The fourth segment is yet again about Christ's earthly ministry, but He is revealed as the Son of God.

Four parallel accounts, each with a different view of the same Person.

That is how I read Revelation, a series of parallel images of what was, is, and is to come in regard to Christ and His church.

 

Agreed, our views are subject to our interpretational approach.

However, what I mean by the Whole Counsel is that we must reconcile all Scripture.

That means that if one passage differs from another, and shows an event that seems similar, then we have to examine the relevant passages to draw a conclusion that does not neglect other passages. One example would be a belief that there is one general resurrection, which Revelation cannot be made to present. Three distinct resurrections would dismiss a dogmatic view of one resurrection.

I agree, but is it a spiritual resurrection as we have in regeneration, a bodily resurrection as we have in the Rapture, or a general resurrection as we see at the Great White Throne judgment?

We have passages that teach all of these, both implicitly as well as explicitly.

Whereas I see noting in History that has Tribulation Martyrs raised from the dead in glorified form to reign with Christ for one thousand years.

This world is still awaiting Christ to take possession, and to reign temporally even as He reigns in the hearts of His people today:


Revelation 11:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.


One might try to make the events of the First Century fit this, and say it is a spiritual reign. I don't have a problem with that, but the spiritual reign of Christ did not begin in AD68-70, but began at Pentecost. It was at that time when Christ's Kingdom began, and that Kingdom is built with born again believers who have been spiritually resurrected and immersed into Christ.

Consider:


Colossians 1:12-13

King James Version (KJV)

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

No-one argues this, as we are promised tribulation as long as we are in this world.

But, it is hard to see the events of Revelation as describing the tribulation we go through.

I must have missed that, but I haven't gotten to both/all the posts yet.


God bless.

 

Are the nations, and the people who make up those nations, presently being deceived by Satan the devil?

Are there presently, that is today, demon princes's of nations guiding those nations as here: Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Hebrews 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world (the inhabited earth) to come, whereof we speak.

 

Your questions are steeped in presupposition and erroneous notions (and at least one rewritten verse from Hebrews).

Obviously his binding hasn't removed evil men, evil intent, blindness and hardness of heart from the earth. Or even demons. Maybe not the Devil himself. But the point Christ makes is very clear, his power is greatly curtailed, and he describes that curtailing as a binding.

 

I would agree that the Gospels have a unique perspective they give.

But, each Gospel still maintains a timeline of events which we can compare between them. So rather than one book with four sections, we see that they are four giving the same account, though we distinguish the differences which make them distinct.

This is exactly what you should do with Prophecy. Just as you acknowledge that all four Gospels have a consistent theme, Christ's ministry, even so all Prophecy has a consistent theme. And like Christ's Deity can be seen in all four, the last Gospel (in sequence) drives home that particular issue. So too, the Prophecy of Revelation, being the last Book we have in regards to Prophecy, drives home and clarifies what the other books reveal. We can track Antichrist from Daniel, to the Gospels, to Paul's writing, to John's writing, which culminates in Revelation. The same is true in regards to Messiah, we can track the revelation through the Old Testament, to the Gospels, to Revelation. IF a person isn't sure Christ is the Son of God from the Old Testament, and still isn't sure by the time they get through the Gospels, and still isn't sure by the time they work through the Epistles, by the time they get to Revelation, if they haven't drawn that conclusion, they may never do so.

The Lord stating "I am Alpha and Onega, the First and the Last" should remove all doubt, right?

So in Revelation we see a timeline of events that can be set down in orderly fashion, even as Christ's ministry can be set down in orderly fashion. We place Christ's birth in the same lace in every timeline, just as we do His death.

Taking off, Aaron,, but I would just suggest giving a Chronological Read a chance. As I have said before, Prophecy can be seen to have multiple fulfillments, and a final fulfillment. Our salvation is just like that, for we are saved (from the penalty of sin), are being saved (from the power of sin), and will be saved (from the presence of sin altogether). While in God's eternal perspective we are glorified, there remains a day when we will receive those bodies which will be like unto Christ's, glorified, and suitable for eternal existence with God. But if we try to make that glorified form something we possess now, we disrupt the sequence presented in Scripture. So too, with Prophecy, there is a sequence of events, and those events are distinguished in Revelation. Just like John is the distinctive treatment in the Gospels of Christ's Deity, even so Revelation is the distinctive treatment of all Prophecy.

Regardless, have enjoyed the conversation, even when it was a little heated, lol, and just suggest that it's not all bad, a it is good for us to challenge each other in regards to our views. It can only strengthen us one way or the other.


God bless.

 

I do not believe Satan is presently bound from deceiving the world, the nations thereof nor the people of those nations, with the possible exception of those called by God and given the Holy Spirit of God to rule with Christ over those nations at the return of Christ. That is, in the millennium.

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Rev 12:7-9

Is Rev 12:7-9 the state of Satan, relative to this present world, the exact same word for world found in Heb 2:5, yet still to come. Is the world to come which shall not be subject to angels, the world spoken of that is not deceived by Satan in Rev 20? Is the world to come of Heb 2:5, of the age of the resurrection, spoken of in Luke 20:35 contrasted to this present age in 2 Cor 4:4 that has a different, god?

And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. Luke 19:17

I do not believe anyone in presently ruling with Christ in their, "spiritual resurrection."

 

DC

I had not planned to enter into discussion with you again. In response to my post you take the typical Darby//dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture: You interpret it to support your erroneous doctrine.

As I show both the Old and New Testamants tell us that mortal man cannot look upon the full glory of GOD and live. GOD does not change! Moses could not look upon the full Glory of GOD. Neither can man in the New Testament, neither can mortal man in the so-called millennial kingdom, regardless of your assertions to the contrary.

John Gill in his discussion of the millennium at least got that correct.. All his remarks show that only resurrected//glorified Saints can inhabit the earth in the presence of the Glorified Savior.

Just because you post a lot of Scripture does not mean you understand Scripture. A number of other BB members have pointed this out to you in recent weeks.

 

Surely you knew what he meant OR. Here is what John said:

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
--It is impossible for any man to look upon God and live. DC simply said that Christ did not "lay aside his glory (or deity as some would have us to believe), but it was merely veiled so that we could look upon--especially they of the first century.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--He was made flesh. God doesn't change in his attributes. But God became a man, and that is a change. It says so right here. He became flesh, and John says: "We beheld his glory." This was impossible just a few years previous to this.
No man can see God. Now John says, I can see Him; he is standing right before me, so to speak.

Who is this God?
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
God the Word is none other than Jesus Christ, the same who became flesh, whom John looked upon. As DC said, he did not "lay aside his deity or glory," but it was merely veiled so that man could see him in the flesh. And that is what happened. Right?

 

Seems that "YOU interpret (Scripture) to support your erroneous doctrine," too. So such a claim is not only puffy clouds that carry little water, but are not worthy of serious discussion. You, in deed, are just as guilty in holding onto a view you consider Scripturally right, and others may hold a differing view. Don't attempt to claim higher ground by stating something is "erroneous doctrine" when it just may be that yours is the one that is erroneous.

Actually, one can.

Again, you are attempting to place the "glory of the Father" upon the Son, prior to the New Heaven and Earth. Doesn't work that way. The Apostles were told that "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." So, the unbelievers who saw Him ascend as well as believers (unless you want to claim no unbelievers saw Him ascend for Pentecost had not yet occurred) could look upon Him. It is that same way in the Millennium.

When Christ prayed, ""Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was" is not a statement that can be taken as humankind could not look upon Him. For, perhaps you do not recall that Abraham looked upon Him when He visited Abraham warning of what was to befall Lot's abode. The High priests looked upon Him once a year as they went behind the veil. Besides, the "glorify Me together with Yourself" isn't claiming a singularity, rather a fellowship. The Glory of the Father, and the Glory of the Son are two different yet one in the trinity. Even in the New Heaven and New Earth this is evident. God the Father is the illumination and the Son is the Lamp - two different, yet one. (Rev. 21)

So, rather than contending over Scripture, OR, you must make a personal remark.

Why? I, again, could lay the very same claim at your own posts. What is interpreted is: Do YOU understand Scriptures? If you did, you would certainly agree with me, and you would see all that I see, and conclude in the same manner I conclude...

That, in essence, is what you are claiming, and could be taken as a haughtiness and a pride.

I don't view you that way, but take you from the landscape of one who is earnest and desires that folks grasp truth. That you are exuberant in your intentions, and word things from that heart.

What I am attempting, in this post, is two items:
1) show how grandiose claims of being right can be turned back upon any poster.
2) show how Christ in the Millennium can be looked upon as the Scriptures do state. Look at the prophecy from Zachariah 12:

“And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. “In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. “The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves."​

 

.0

Are you joined to DHK at the hip or at the head?

 

welcome back brother....ThumbsupThumbsupThumbsup

 

Not much of a refutation of either post is there?

 

When agedman goes the pretribdispensartionalroad he makes just as much sense as you do. "None"! So! Hip or head, no difference, same Darbyite nonsense; pain induced nightmare!

 

I clarified what DC said. It had nothing to do with dispensationalism, Darby, pretrib, or eschatology of any kind. It had to do with the humanity and deity of Christ.
Why not address the Scriptures given to you instead of attacking people?

 

1. Please show me the word "rapture" in the Bible.
2. The kingdom was established in the first century, according to inspired writers: Paul (Colossans 1; 1 Corinthians 15), John (Revelation 1:6-9).
3. If the kingdom has yet to be established, there are two implications: (1) Jesus Christ is a liar [see Mark 9:1] (2) There are people walking the earth who are 2,000 years old [Mark 9:1].

The kingdom is the church (Matthew 16:18-19; Colossians 1; et al.).

 

Have patience my Brother some are still learning... Brother Glen

 

Is that really an argument? That really doesn't carry much authority.

Can you find the name Jesus Christ in the OT? Not there. Rather it was alluded to in the names given such as Emmanuel, Prince of Peace, Lord of Lords ... But the name was FIRST heard by Mary, "You will call His name Jesus."

Such is the same with "church" and "Apostle." They were not part of the thinking of the OT.

In the NT the "rapture" is not specifically written, but the word is alluded by how some interpret various Scriptures.

Let's see how your references work:

Colossians 1 states that the "hope" of the believer is laid up in heaven. Not on this earth. The "mystery" mentioned in Colossians is NOT the church for it clearly states, "God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory ..." It is that Christ dwells IN us as no other previous time or account is found in the OT. He is the hope of glory, and it is found in none other. That the assembly is a gathering of the "Christ in you" is mistaken for appointing the passage as applicable to the church, but just as at other times, Paul writes to the church as a group but addresses the individual's needs within that body. Christ is "in you" is applicable to the believer, and as believers gather, then extrapolated to the church body. NOT the other way around.

1 Corinthians 15 records the resurrection order and is not discussing the establishment of a kingdom.

Revelation 1: 6-9 actually does mention "kingdom" but WHERE is the kingdom? Is it not where the believers are recognized as "priests to His God and Father?" Where is God and Father? Heaven.

WHEN will the kingdom come to this earth? "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen." That certainly wasn't the estate of the first coming.

So, here in this revelation passage there is a dual time stamp. That in which believers are present in the heavenly in which they are acknowledged as priests, and the second is the literal return in which every eye in the world sees Him.

Nope, no earthly kingdom at this present time mentioned in any of the passages given.

So what does this passages teach.

Mark 9:1 - "And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

Did not Paul record that a person was caught up into the third heaven and was still alive and saw things of the kingdom? (2 Cor. 12)

How about John, did he not witness the fulfillment of the kingdom? (the Revelation)

Perhaps you are desiring for some magnificent place at this time, but then Christ's statement at the trial would become a lie ("My kingdom is not of this world").

Yet, what was it that the Lord Jesus stated in the example of how believers should pray? "Thy KINGDOM come..."

WHY? So that, "THY WILL be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven."

There is no evidence that such is the past, current or immediate future of this earth. Rather, the Scriptures give ONE time that such occurs. That is during the millennial reign, and ONLY that millennial reign.

I disagree. The "kingdom" is NOT the church. This church is not in the past, present or immediate future ever in control of any resemblance of a "kingdom." Kingdoms are not made up of people who are counted as sheep for the slaughter. Is that not the estate that believer should continue and be the standard?

A kingdom is not a kingdom without a kingdom. That is just plain logic.

There is no earthly church kingdom at this time. As often as it has been attempted in the past by various Utopian type hopefuls, each was a complete failure.

The church is the church and the kingdom the kingdom - two separate and not at all equal.

Christ did not die for a kingdom - He didn't need to because He already had authority over all matters as the creator and the one that sustains all that matters.

Christ died for the church, the believers that one day will rule WITH Him in an earthly kingdom. A kingdom in which the will of the Father will be done just as it currently is in Heaven.

AND, according to the Revelation, the final estate of the believers is also NOT a kingdom.

Again, when is the ONLY time there is a literal kingdom ruled by Christ in which the believers are ALL priests (not servants, not friends, not slaves, not fellow or joint heirs...) and rule with Christ?

Not for the last 2000 or more years, and not in the immediate few more years, but in the literal millennial reign as recorded in both OT prophecy and the Revelation.

 

The true dispennsationalist will never learn. He is engulfed in the darkness introduced by the "new revelation" of Darby regarding Isaiah 32 and that of Darby's disciples.

Jesus Christ told us in John 8:32: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

The dispensationaist is swimming in the darkness of the Darby/Scofield school and only the direct intervention of GOD will change that. Simply put their doctrine is false and is the same doctrine of the carnal Jewish leaders who also were in darkness and conspired with hated Rome to murder Jesus Christ. Scripture puts it as follows and demonstrates the hatred of the Jewish leaders for Jesus Christ: John 11:43-53
43. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
44. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
45. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
46. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
47. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52.And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

But the Jews of the 1st century were ignorant of the purpose of GOD and the dispensationalist still is. Jesus Christ died for the CHURCH, not a "parenthesis" or for a restored Jewish kingdom on earth.