A problem with premillennialism

[Josheb]

I'll quote the text since it speaks for itself...

The text does not speak for itself. No verse speaks for itself apart from the whole of scripture.

, although not always with enough detail that some may wish to demand of the account.

"Not enough detail" is a cop-out, an avoidance of the fact Zechariah 14:3-4 has been removed from Zechariah 14:1-2 and 5-15. All he is telling you @Tambora is that he uses scripture selectively and then claims it speaks for itself.

Zechariah 14:3-4
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Now, @Tambora, read the whole passage of Zechariah and compare it with Revelation 21 and 22.

I heard the other day that they have found a fault line in the middle of that mountain...

Blessedly, we do not render scripture via the latest newscast and call that sound exegesis. If that is the way you're going to render scripture then by all means do investigate "enough detail". What you should both do is find out the details about the geography of the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, Azel and the sea and then Google to find out about the largest earthquakes, like the one last year in Turkey that created a 900-foot canyon. Zechariah 14's earthquake makes that one look miniscule.

So, @Musicmaster, understand many people have already considered the WHOLE of Zechariah 14 and understood the earthquake described in that passage would destroy Jerusalem and leave everyone dead if we're to take its metrics literally. There would be no Jerusalem for Jesus to physically live in. There'd be no Jerusalem from which Jesus could physically rule. He could not rule from a non-existent, earthquake-destroyed city one second. How then could he rule for a year, or decade, a century, or a millennium without first rebuilding the city?

Using Zechariah 14:4 to justify Jesus being physically on earth physically ruling during Revelation 20's thousand years is untenable. It is not exegetically tenable, nor is it logically tenable once the real-life consequence of the earthquake are considered.


Musicmaster cannot provide a single verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically living on earth physically ruling for a thousand years. Not one premillennialist here has been able to provide such a verse. Until that foundation has been established there is no basis in scripture for premillennialism.

No premillennialist here has been able to explain how Jesus' reign fails and results in rebellion, either. All the non-premils here have asked and waited patiently only to suffer abuse and have the inquiries ignored.

 

[Tambora]

I'll quote the text since it speaks for itself, although not always with enough detail that some may wish to demand of the account.

Zechariah 14:3-4
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Well that doesn't explain how you visualize this event happening literally without a Supermanish aspect to it. (ie. everything under His feet around Him is devastated, including the city of Jerusalem, with gas lines exploding, not to mention all the dead bodies it would cause, but He is still standing somewhere amidst the rubble unscathed).

Not that I oppose a Supermanish visual aspect in scripture, as the angel killing 185,000 guys also conjures up a Supermanish visual.

I heard the other day that they have found a fault line in the middle of that mountain, with the fault running east and west through that mountain. I have not gone over there to check this out for myself, but it is indeed an interesting piece of information if it be true. So, to try and visualize that event yet to come, and that it speaks in language that is not vague in any sense that I can see, He will indeed stand upon that mountain, and it splits in half, opening up a great valley in the middle. This describes a massive movement of the landscape under His feet.

Could be a fault line there.
If a massive earthquake happens due to it then Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble and dead bodies.

For those who allegoricalize everything in prophecy, I cannot say for sure what their own imaginations may conjure up in order to force that narrative into conformity with their personal interpretations, and I do not know the full purpose behind His opening up that mountain into a valley. All I've ever dine with this so far to this point is to accept it for what it says.

Please explain the mystery you see in this, if any, because I don't understand the basis for your question. What CAN anyone visualize apart from what is said, without going to the comical, although sick extreme of a Monty Python movie showing Jesus being thrown off balance and thus falling headlong into its depths? I'm not saying you're one of those, but I've encountered some rather colorful characters through the years who tend toward what they see as humor.

MM

I might purpose that heaven is His throne and the earth is His footstool.
Which portrays a visual of a huge giant guy who is sitting in heaven while his feet are on earth.
I don't think that's meant to be taken literally, but portrays a theological aspect of His rule over the cosmos.

 

[Musicmaster]

The text does not speak for itself. No verse speaks for itself apart from the whole of scripture.

"Not enough detail" is a cop-out, an avoidance of the fact Zechariah 14:3-4 has been removed from Zechariah 14:1-2 and 5-15. All he is telling you @Tambora is that he uses scripture selectively and then claims it speaks for itself.

Now, @Tambora, read the whole passage of Zechariah and compare it with Revelation 21 and 22.

Blessedly, we do not render scripture via the latest newscast and call that sound exegesis. If that is the way you're going to render scripture then by all means do investigate "enough detail". What you should both do is find out the details about the geography of the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, Azel and the sea and then Google to find out about the largest earthquakes, like the one last year in Turkey that created a 900-foot canyon. Zechariah 14's earthquake makes that one look miniscule.

So, @Musicmaster, understand many people have already considered the WHOLE of Zechariah 14 and understood the earthquake described in that passage would destroy Jerusalem and leave everyone dead if we're to take its metrics literally. There would be no Jerusalem for Jesus to physically live in. There'd be no Jerusalem from which Jesus could physically rule. He could not rule from a non-existent, earthquake-destroyed city one second. How then could he rule for a year, or decade, a century, or a millennium without first rebuilding the city?

Using Zechariah 14:4 to justify Jesus being physically on earth physically ruling during Revelation 20's thousand years is untenable. It is not exegetically tenable, nor is it logically tenable once the real-life consequence of the earthquake are considered.


Musicmaster cannot provide a single verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically living on earth physically ruling for a thousand years. Not one premillennialist here has been able to provide such a verse. Until that foundation has been established there is no basis in scripture for premillennialism.

No premillennialist here has been able to explain how Jesus' reign fails and results in rebellion, either. All the non-premils here have asked and waited patiently only to suffer abuse and have the inquiries ignored.

That all makes for an interesting movie script, but trying to force the verses down into one of many rabbit holes of creative thought for movies doesn't deal with the realities a systematic study does provide.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Well that doesn't explain how you visualize this event happening literally without a Supermanish aspect to it. (ie. everything under His feet around Him is devastated, including the city of Jerusalem, with gas lines exploding, not to mention all the dead bodies it would cause, but He is still standing somewhere amidst the rubble unscathed).

Perhaps if you would explain the origins of all that thinking, then perhaps we could get this moving forward. Gas lines exploding? City devastated? Where is that coming from?

Also...supermanish? When speaking about the One who spoke creation into existence from nothing, ex nihilo, what is so hard to understand about the Lord of Glory bringing about exactly what He commands, with every event transpiring within the constraints the Lord places upon them? This is why I asked about the basis of your inquiry.

Not that I oppose a Supermanish visual aspect in scripture, as the angel killing 185,000 guys also conjures up a Supermanish visual.

Not to me it doesn't. It makes no sense to screen the scriptures through some Hollywoodesque envisionings. What's with all that?

Could be a fault line there.
If a massive earthquake happens due to it then Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble and dead bodies.

And how do you know that Jerusalem would end up as rubble? Do you harbor doubts about the Lord's ability to constrain any and all otherwise destructive forces from accomplishing what is outside His Will?

I might purpose that heaven is His throne and the earth is His footstool.
Which portrays a visual of a huge giant guy who is sitting in heaven while his feet are on earth.
I don't think that's meant to be taken literally, but portrays a theological aspect of His rule over the cosmos.

Look, it's well known among systematic theologians that the scriptures are a mix of literal and allegorical, parallelisms, imagematic representations, etc., all that serve to mask the depths of knowledge from those whom the Lord so desires to hide them, and to reveal them to whomsoever He chooses.

So, what's your point, if I may ask?

MM

 

[Tambora]

Now, @Tambora, read the whole passage of Zechariah

This part intrigues me:

Zechariah 14:5 NET
(5) Then you will escape through my mountain valley, for the valley of the mountains will extend to Azal. Indeed, you will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come with all his holy ones with him.

Azal is a descendant of King Saul who was of the tribe of Benjamin.
Perhaps an illusion to a destruction (or division) of one king that gives rise to the appointed King of the Lord from the tribe of Judah.
Hard to tell what the scripture writers are eluding to at times.

 

[Tambora]

Perhaps if you would explain the origins of all that thinking, then perhaps we could get this moving forward. Gas lines exploding? City devastated? Where is that coming from?

It would be the reality of a massive earthquake if one takes it literally.

And how do you know that Jerusalem would end up as rubble?

It would be the reality of a massive earthquake if one takes it literally.

Do you harbor doubts about the Lord's ability to constrain any and all otherwise destructive forces from accomplishing what is outside His Will?

What makes you think the destruction of Jerusalem is outside His will?
It hasn't been outside His will several times in scriptural history.

So, what's your point, if I may ask?

No hidden agenda.
Just wondering how you see it literally unfold in real life.

 

[Josheb]

That all makes for an interesting movie script, but trying to force the verses....

Is exactly what you've done.

Zechariah 14:54 does not state Jesus is physically living one earth during the millennial rule. You make it say that but that is not what the text actually states AND Zechariah 14 reconciles better with Revelation 21-22, not Revelation 20. You should take your own advice and stop trying to force the verse into a movie script (like premillennialists Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins did ). The irony of your own post.

 

[Josheb]

This part intrigues me:

Zechariah 14:5 NET
(5) Then you will escape through my mountain valley, for the valley of the mountains will extend to Azal. Indeed, you will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come with all his holy ones with him.

Azal is a descendant of King Saul who was of the tribe of Benjamin.
Perhaps an illusion to a destruction (or division) of one king that gives rise to the appointed King of the Lord from the tribe of Judah.
Hard to tell what the scripture writers are eluding to at times.

Azal/Azel is also a small town a few kilometers east of Jerusalem on the other side of Gehenna. Therefore, symbolically, the passage may mean the earthquake goes through the grave, or Christ's standing on the Mount of Olives splits open Gehenna, one of the terms/places Jesus used in the gospels to describe what happens when a person dies. It may also, as you've noted mean the earthly line of kings is destroyed and/or replaced with the divine rule of Christ. This would have a certain continuity with earlier scripture because God never wanted an earthly monarch, and he took Israel's request for one to be a rejection of Him as their king (see 1 Samuel 8).

However, I have offered no interpretation. Let that be clearly understood. I have, instead, taken the literal reading of the verse and shown - using the rest of what is written in that very passage - and shown how the literal reading is untenable. A literal reading would mean an earthquake that destroys Jerusalem ensues and that is directly self-contradictory with the premillennial case. In other words, the premillennial literal reading defeats premillennialism once the rest of the text is considered. That is a self-refuting argument. That is not something to be believed. It's the internal conflict that renders it untenable, not my opinion or some other competing end times point of view.

There are other problems presented by the larger Zec 14 text, but this is one of the most glaringly problematic for premillennialism (and we can see from the ineffective weak protests that is the case). I don't know where you're at eschatologically, but eight pages of posts have shown several problems beside the one cited in the op (the fact Jesus' earthly reign is finite and fails and ends with rebellion). Logically speaking, if Jesus is God (assuming you're trinitarian) then there has never been a moment or place in all of creation when Jesus was not/is not King. As the Person by whom, through whom, for whom all creation was created, Jesus is King of all kings and has never not been The King. When he came to earth in the flesh he commanded demons, commanded the elements of creation (earth, wind, water, etc.), transcended time and space, and even defeated the grave. It's impossible to have a God and that God not always be King. Premillennialists (especially the Dispensational variety) often say Jesus is not now king and he won't be king until he returns and establishes his earthly reign.

That is absurd,

If Jesus is God then he is also King, and he is King everywhere over everything. He does not need to move his throne from heaven to earth. I pointed out all of this in less detail in earlier posts and it's all sitting idle in the thread ignored and unaddressed. Jesus' throne is not a chair. Jesus' throne (according to Acts 2:31) is the resurrection, not a chair, not an earthly monarchy. The newer revelation explains the older.

Whatever the meaning of Zec. 14:4, it is NOT what premillennialism says it means. Zec 14 reconciles better with Rev. 21 and 22, not Rev. 19 and 20. That makes Zec. 14 postmillennial, not premillennial. Jesus is in heaven where he reigns both the heavens and the earth and for a thousand years (literally or figuratively does not matter) the already bound Satan (se Jude 1) is prevented from interfering with the spread of the gospel (no other restriction is specified in Rev. 20). Eventually that restriction is lifted but it doesn't matter eternally because Satan's fate has already been decided. In the end he, all the Christ deniers, and death itself get tossed into the fiery lake.

After that the new city of peace descends, the city not made by human hands for which Abraham long waited. All Jesus' enemies have been defeated, exactly as stated in Psalm 110 and Revelation 1-20. As far as this op goes when it all happens is irrelevant because none of it reconciles with premillennialism's view of the Christological rule (especially not the Dispensational view).

 

[Ghada]

Premillennialism is the only eschatology that says Jesus is physically living on the earth again and physically ruling the earth from earth.

True. Others say different, and don't preach a millennium of Christ at all. But some other reign over the earth with an unknown amount of time.

There are only two teachings of Christ's Millennium: He reigns upon the earth for a thousand years, or He reigns over the earth from heaven for a thousand years.

Every other preophecy of the Lord's reign is non-millennial, or anti-millenial. And some are hostile anti-mil.

This means that the "physically living on earth" position is reached solely by inference. To reiterate: The physically-living-on-earth position is not explicitly stated so it must be inferentially obtained.

All prophecy of Scripture is is sure, not inference only.

Inference replacing surety, is euphemism for unbelief in the words written.

Since scripture nowhere explicitly states Jesus is physically living on earth for one thousand years, why base a position on the silence of scripture?
.

Sounds like the argument of believers in a created Christ. They make the same manner of argument.

They demand a Scripture explicitly stating that Jesus Christ is God. And if not, then all Scriptures teaching He is both Lord and God, are also called only inherential.

No, Job and Abraham saw Jesus "standing" on the earth. No one denies that.

Why not deny it? Why accept the Lord Jesus must be the only One possible to fulfill this prophecy? Why is this explicit enough to conclude Job must be prophecying of Jesus Christ, but not explicit enough for all the Scriptures prophecying the LORD will come upon the earth to inherit, judge, and govern all nations?

Job 19:25For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

It says nothing of Jesus Christ being the One standing on the earth and seen by Job. And those who reject Jesus Christ is God, would not agree He is the One that Job will see. They would say He can only be the 'Father' Jehovah.

The argument demanding God say something explicitly, that must otherwise be concluded from Scripture, is a demand God does not comply with. And here, we see it's also inconsistently applied to Scripture..

 

[Ghada]

For example, Zechariah speaks of Jesus standing on Mt. Olive and an earthquake occurring that divides the mountain east and west. In reality, if such an earthquake were to occur it would destroy Jerusalem (and its inhabitants).

Seriously? You're going to argue science instead of faith in Scripture of God?

In any case, I only argue what the Book says, not whether good or bad science agrees with it.

In other words, taking that verse literally would mean Jesus' standing on the earth is very violent and destructive (the antithesis of a thousand-year rule)

Just as prophesied.

Jer 9:11And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.

Mic 3:12Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.

There will also be great tribulation and wrath from the Lord over much of the earth, as well as the slaughter of whole armies around Judea.

After the first resurrection of His saints rising into the air with Him, it gets very violent and destructive for the inhabitors on earth, concluding with His descent to mount Olivet.

and since Jerusalem would be destroyed Jesus would have to find some other city in which to live, from which to rule.

Or, rebuild it according to prophecy.

Eze 36:33Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded. And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by.

And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited. Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it.

Along with His Millennial temple house:

Zec 6:15And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD, and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.

It would mean God destroyed the place from which He meant to rule.

Correct. It's both doctrine and prophecy of Christ. A full destruction of the old, for a whole new beginning.

Jer 31:28And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.

It's as old as in the beginning of the world:

Gen 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

It's also as present as the full crucifying of the old man, and new birth and building up of a whole new man:

2Co 5:17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,

And so, we see how applying mental reasoning and sciences to Scripture, instead of having faith in the words written, leads to straying from prophecy of Scripture, and also doctine of Christ.

This is like those people who read the third of the stars falling to earth literally. If just one star fell to earth and collided with it the earth and all life upon it would be destroyed.

If it's the Lord causing stars to fall to earth, it's the Lord causing them not to destroy the earth.

Gen 18:14Is any thing too hard for the LORD?

Because the earth would be destroyed by a literal reading of the verse we know the verse is not to be read literally.

No, we know by Scripture what God is writing, not by science and mental conjecture.

If Scripture of God is prophecying spiritual things in a natural manner, then Scripture says so, such as in Rev 12.

We know from Scripture of old, that the morning stars and angels sang together at the creation of heaven and earth.

A third of them rebelled against the Lord, and sinned by Lucifer's lead, and so were cast down to earth and hell.

2Pe 2:4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

All Scripture must be taken together, to rightly divide and teach the doctrine and prophecy of Christ.

It is not to be read literally.

Sure prophecy of Scripture is made into fables, by turning the true things of doctrine and prophecy, into symbol and allegory alone. And that is specifically warned against with the Lord's coming to earth:

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Everything the porphets, apostles, and Jesus Himself says about His coming again, will happen exactly the way it is prophecied, whether people believe it and look for Him, or not.

 

[Ghada]

no other end times view has Jesus leaving his heavenly throne for an earthly one or moving the heavenly throne to earth. Premillennialism alone does that.

True. It's Jesus Christ seated on His judgment seat coming to earth, from the great throne of the Father in heaven.

He first judges from the air between His righteous wheat, and the unrighteous tares only naming His name.

Then with His glory from His judgment seat on mount Zion, He judges all the sheep and goats remaining alive on earth,

Standing on the earth judging the earth does not mean he is physically living on the earth for a thousand years. You've taken the word "stand" and replaced it, or made it equivalent with "living."

That's why I haven't said it. The prophecy simply confirms that the Lord and God Jesus Christ will stand upon the earth, for Job to see Him with his own eyes.

And in Abraham's case, He will stand on the earth, at least long enough to give the land promised to Abraham and his natural seed.

There are those who say He will not step one foot on earth, when He comes again, but only burn it up with fire.

If read inferentially, then it is not okay to replace words like "stand" with words like "live for a thousand years."

True. Why are you doing so? I don't.

Sometimes people add to what people say, to discredit what they say.

 

[Josheb]

It would be the reality of a massive earthquake if one takes it literally.

Exactly. If the earthquake is not literal, then neither is Jesus' standing on the Mount of Olives. Otherwise, there's an inconsistency in reading the text, selectively reading some of it literally and some of it figuratively. This proves extremely problematic for the Dispensationalist because the Dispensational hermeneutic requires everything to be read literally and not allegorically or spiritualized.

It would be the reality of a massive earthquake if one takes it literally.

Exactly. The earthquake would be so massive it would destroy Jerusalem. The problem is very similar to Ezekiel's temple. The measurements of Ezekiel's temple would mean the temple is larger than the entire city and it stick off the top of the mountain in every direction. For that reason the text cannot be taken literally. The problem is like Revelation 12's stars being swept to earth. Aside from our sun, the star closest to earth is Proxima Centauri and it is 4.3 lightyears away. It would take 4.3 years to reach earth if it was moving at the speed of light, so we'd see it coming long before it arrived and the moment it collided with the earth the earth would be obliterated. No more earth. No more earth on which the city of Jerusalem could sit. The verse CANNOT be read literally. Zec 14's earthquake is massive if taken literally.

What makes you think the destruction of Jerusalem is outside His will?

Since the earthquake is so enormous it is necessary to prove it is in God's will to destroy the city of peace..... and then prove Jesus will be living physically ruling from the destroyed city.

It hasn't been outside His will several times in scriptural history.

There is a huge difference between prior history and Christian eschatology. Besides, we know God destroyed Jerusalem once already . What warrant, then, is there for Him to do so twice? Two floods? Two Babylons? Two Sodoms? Two Tyres?

The new city of peace is not built be human hands.

No hidden agenda. Just wondering how you see it literally unfold in real life.

I await his answers with anticipation but since there are a number of still unanswered questions sitting idle in the thread, I am not hopeful an immediate and direct answer is forthcoming.

 

[Josheb]

True. It's Jesus Christ....

Seriously? You're going to argue science..........

True. Others say different, and don't preach a millennium of Christ at all. But some other reign over the earth with an unknown amount of time.

Yeah, don't talk to me until you've answered my question.


Where does scripture explicitly state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?



.

 

[Tambora]

Azal/Azel is also a small town a few kilometers east of Jerusalem on the other side of Gehenna. Therefore, symbolically, the passage may mean the earthquake goes through the grave, or Christ's standing on the Mount of Olives splits open Gehenna, one of the terms/places Jesus used in the gospels to describe what happens when a person dies.

Interesting.
Glad you brought it up.

It may also, as you've noted mean the earthly line of kings is destroyed and/or replaced with the divine rule of Christ. This would have a certain continuity with earlier scripture because God never wanted an earthly monarch, and he took Israel's request for one to be a rejection of Him as their king (see 1 Samuel 8).

I have no tie-in with the following bit of info on King Saul, but I figure King Saul's cut-off head ending up in Dagon's temple (Dagon being an ancient god of the Philistines) must have been mentioned for a reason.
Although the last verse below does explains the kingdom being turned over to David.

.

1 Chronicles 10:8-14 KJV
(8) And it came to pass on the morrow, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his sons fallen in mount Gilboa.
(9) And when they had stripped him, they took his head, and his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to carry tidings unto their idols, and to the people.
(10) And they put his armour in the house of their gods, and fastened his head in the temple of Dagon.
(11) And when all Jabeshgilead heard all that the Philistines had done to Saul,
(12) They arose, all the valiant men, and took away the body of Saul, and the bodies of his sons, and brought them to Jabesh, and buried their bones under the oak in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.
(13) So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
(14) And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

After that the new city of peace descends, the city not made by human hands for which Abraham long waited.

This has always been a great point.
Abraham wasn't looking for an earthly city. (Heb 11:10)

 

[Tambora]

There is a huge difference between prior history and Christian eschatology. Besides, we know God destroyed Jerusalem once already . What warrant, then, is there for Him to do so twice?

Destroyed twice. Babylonians and Romans.
And I only find one time in scripture (after the Babylonian destruction) where God commissions another temple be built.
No command found after the Roman destruction.
So any earthly temple built will not be per God's instruction.
So I don't know why some folks are bent on looking for one.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Josheb,

Where does scripture explicitly state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?

I find the following passage sufficient evidence:

Acts 3:19–21 (KJV): 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Musicmaster]

It would be the reality of a massive earthquake if one takes it literally.



It would be the reality of a massive earthquake if one takes it literally.

Reality and truth is whatever the Truth says that it is, and He governs it all.

What makes you think the destruction of Jerusalem is outside His will?
It hasn't been outside His will several times in scriptural history.

I didn't say Jerusalem would be destroyed or preserved. Scripture, on the other hand, seems to have already addressed this.

What I said is that taking the text literally while at the same time recognizing that all things are under the Lord's control, yes. That mountain will split in half, whether such an event would naturally destroy the city or not, it all is literally up to the Lord, and the water will literally flow to the east and to the west as is stated.

I say "literally" because the allegorical crowd out there can and does try to make the scriptures say whatever they so desire, or whatever others have taught them contrary to what's stated. Allegory is the playground of such groupings as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. The Mormon Jesus is "a" god, just as the Jehovah's Witness Jesus is "a" god. They reject His being very God by etherealizing the scriptures, and thus twisting them to whatever ends they so desire.

No hidden agenda.
Just wondering how you see it literally unfold in real life.

What you asked is indeed a good discussion. No doubt. So, in continuance as an answer to your question, let's look at this:

Zechariah 14:11 And [men] shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

What destruction is addressed here, from the context? Well, the Lord had just previously destroyed all Israel's enemies, wiping them out completely after they had murdered 2/3rds of all us Jews.

Given that up to nor following that verse there is no mention of a rebuilding of the city, we can see that it will be in habited nonetheless. This would seem to indicate to us that the Lord splits the mountain, the waters gush forth, and the city is still preserved and livable after the attacks upon it from the nations the Lord wipes out.

One may ask how that could happen, and so we go here:

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

It's granted that there is a context within which this verse is couched, but that doesn't limit the scope of the stated fact in what Yahshuah said that ALL things are possible with Yah.

So, were the splitting of that mountain to be a purely natural event not under the controlling limitations of the Lord, then perhaps the city would be destroyed. All we have is what is stated, in that the Feet of the Lord touches down on that mountain, and THEN it splits, and the city continues to be inhabited. In other words, taking it literally doesn't mean that it has to remain purely natural in all its illustrated manifestations. No such rule has ever been established within the rules of hermeneutics.

What this means is that injecting into the text the constraints of what seems to be what would be the natural outflow of an event, claiming that no other scenario is possible, that's presumption at its worst. That the Lord might control the extent of damage, and still cause the event itself within the confines of the area where it is to take place, it can still be taken literally. Taking something literally, even though it may involve controls exercised by the Lord over the extent of its effects, that's no violation of a literal understanding of the text.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Is exactly what you've done.

Zechariah 14:54 does not state Jesus is physically living one earth during the millennial rule. You make it say that but that is not what the text actually states AND Zechariah 14 reconciles better with Revelation 21-22, not Revelation 20. You should take your own advice and stop trying to force the verse into a movie script (like premillennialists Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins did ). The irony of your own post.

You have already been shown where it's stated that Yahshuah's Feet touch down upon the earth, upon the Mount of Olives, and nowhere is it stated that He ascends once again to Heaven in order to rule the earth from afar. Silence can be a powerful indicator of something that some don't like, and in this case, you're absolutely not addressing the absence on the one hand, while ram-rodding the other silence as absolute truth of a belief. It is indeed implied Yahshuah rules upon this earth because of the lack of mention of HIs once again ascending into Heaven after His destruction of all Israel's enemies that had come down from the valley of Megiddo against Jerusalem, and His Feet literally touching down upon the Mount of Olives!

Your argument from repetition fallacy doesn't work here. Repeated demands focused upon only one proof that you personally will accept, that doesn't prove anything. That's nothing more than setting the bar of proof at such a high level, while ignoring the implications to the contrary, that's nothing but feeding the machine of ignorance. We ALL accept many things couched only in implication and inference. Any one of us would be liars if any one of us said otherwise.

MM

 

[Josheb]

This has always been a great point.
Abraham wasn't looking for an earthly city. (Heb 11:10)

Exactly.

Hebrews 11:8-10
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

He'd been to the physical city of peace and met the kingly high priest of God. Mel stands in blunt conflict with the events of 1 Samuel 8.

1 Samuel 8:1-22
And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba. His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them." So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king. He said, "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, "No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the LORD'S hearing. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to their voice and appoint them a king." So Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."

This makes the fundamental foundation of premillennialism absurd. God was already king over Israel (as well as the rest of the earth and all of creation) and they rejected Him. So, he is supposed to move His throne to the earth, set up shop in the whorish city of peace and rule for a fixed amount of time before the effort proves insufficient and rebellion ensues?

Isaiah 66:1
This is what the LORD says: “Heaven is My throne and the earth is the footstool for My feet. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?

Acts 7:48-51
Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, “‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?’ “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

Jesus is going to use his footstool as his throne?

Maybe that is why his rule ends with rebellion .

 

[Josheb]

Destroyed twice. Babylonians and Romans.

Scripture, not secular history.

And I only find one time in scripture (after the Babylonian destruction) where God commissions another temple be built. No command found after the Roman destruction. So any earthly temple built will not be per God's instruction. So I don't know why some folks are bent on looking for one.

I do not want to digress far afield of the op but the observation about the temple is astute. This is one of the many reasons Historic Premillennialism is a much better premillennialism than the Dispensational variety. It does not require a temple and Historicism agrees with all the other views Israel is not germane to Christian eschatology. They don't need a new temple, a reinstituted Levitical priesthood, a separated rapture. Dispensationalism is the historical, normative, and statistical outlier. It's very popular, but neither historical, mainstream, or orthodox.


But more germanely, neither can justify the foundational premise Jesus is physically living on the earth or his rule's failed end in rebellion.