• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

Ephesians.
Please cite or quote the verse explicitly stating God has two peoples.
The two cannot be made one if .......
Your opinion was not requested. An explicit statement in scripture is what was requested. This is part of the problem that commonly occurs when discussing Dispensational Premillennialism with Dispensational Premillennialists. Simple question are responded to but not actually answered. Theological bias or personal opinion are offered instead of scripture. Honest answers are rarely provided. Constant attempt to change the subject must be endured by any and all inquirers.
So I guess the best questions to ask are:
1. Are Gentiles part of the ABRAHAMIC covenant? [Remembering that God simply promised outside the covenant, that all the nations of the world would be blessed by Abraham's seed, which does not require those nations to be a part of the covenant.]
2. Why did God break the covenant with Abraham? [To say he didn't means you realize that God has unfinished business solely with the Jews.]
3. If the physical promises made specifically within the covenant are not fulfilled, is God simply going to break the covenant He made with Abraham? Or, are we to believe as Abraham did, that God already knows exactly how He is going to fulfill those promises? That takes as much faith as Abraham had...
4. If the Abrahamic Covenant has not been broken by God, then does that mean there has to be two peoples in the Bible, the Jews under the Abrahamic covenant, and the Gentiles who are not?
I will gladly answer and address every single one of those questions once I have received the verse that explicitly states God has two peoples OR an acknowledgment there is no such verse in the Bible.

For now, I will say there were no Jews and there was no Jewish Israel or geo-political nation-state Israel when God made His covenant with Abraham. Abraham was Hebrew, not Jewish. He was a Babylonian, not a citizen of the nation of Israel. Those are the facts of scripture.
 
Please cite or quote the verse explicitly stating God has two peoples.
I can't. The Bible is clear that God has one people, and that is Israel through Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, and so on and so forth. Jews are God's people. Gentiles are strangers and foreigners from the covenants of God. They are not God's people. And God says so Himself. Which means the church is... special. Paul says that salvation is first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. This is not possible if there aren't two peoples. Why would Paul say the Jews are PRIORITY? (Priority can be temporal, though in this case, Paul's actions in Acts seems to state otherwise.) If you look at Acts, every time Paul entered a city, what is the very first thing he did in regards to preaching about God and Christ. He sought out and immediately went to the synagogue and spoke with the Jews. He didn't go to the Gentiles first, he went to the Jews first. Kind of like they were priority. It goes deeper then that. Salvation, judgment, blessings, and curses. First to the Jew, then to the Gentiles. Why? First three chapters of Romans. First the uncultured in chapter 1. Then the cultured. Then the Jews. All mentioned and spoken of by Paul. For those who believe Jews are special and all are saved, Paul gives Romans 3:23 after talking about these three groups. (The first two are types of Gentiles.) "For all have sinned..." No one is righteous, not even the Jews. However the Jews are God's chosen people of the Old Testament. God made covenants and promises for and that affect the Jews.

Quick question. If God breaks HIs covenant with Abraham and by extension, Israel, and breaks His promises with the forefathers, (all specifically dealing only with the Jews), then how can a Gentile trust God when He says... trust Me? How, if He breaks covenants and promises like they are nothing? In what is to be the trust of the Gentile if God is unfaithful? What of Abraham's faith? In what was Abraham's trust? In God's fulfilled promise. He questioned God's promise about Isaac, wondering how he, as old as he was, was supposed to have a son with Sarah. Sarah laughed. She was too old. Yet God said, next season He comes around, Sarah will be with child. And it was exactly as God said. Despite the impossibility, God fulfilled His promise, and Abraham no longer doubted God on anything. He even believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead, because God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (kill him), but the covenant and promises all hinged on Isaac. Having seen God already keep what was thought a difficult/impossible promise to keep, Abraham harbored no doubt at all. God would do the impossible, and Isaac would be the one through whom God's promises would be fulfilled, even if Isaac was dead.

I put my faith and trust in THAT God. He will fulfill His covenants and promises with Israel, NOT THE CHURCH. Why? He didn't make those covenants/promises with the church.
Your opinion was not requested. An explicit statement in scripture is what was requested. This is part of the problem that commonly occurs when discussing Dispensational Premillennialism with Dispensational Premillennialists. Simple question are responded to but not actually answered. Theological bias or personal opinion are offered instead of scripture. Honest answers are rarely provided. Constant attempt to change the subject must be endured by any and all inquirers.

I will gladly answer and address every single one of those questions once I have received the verse that explicitly states God has two peoples OR an acknowledgment there is no such verse in the Bible.
There are two peoples. Why else would Paul not only say there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but continued in saying there is neither man nor woman, neither slave nor free? Did he mean there is only one gender? Did he mean we are all slaves, or we are all free? There are two people, Jews and Gentile. God deals with them differently, hence again, Paul says salvation is first to the Jew, then the Gentile. Hence Paul lived what he taught, and went to the Jews first whenever he entered a city. One of the issues with saying the church is Israel is that in order to do that, one must deny progressive revelation. Salvation was always by grace through faith, however, speaking through progressive revelation, the content of the faith differed, as seen with Abraham. His faith was in the faithfulness of God to fulfill His covenants and promises. Unwavering, never doubting in God's faithfulness. And God credited THAT faith, as righteousness. This is why Abraham was not in sheol proper, but in paradise, as can be seen in the story (not parable) of Lazarus and the rich man. Paradise was also known as Abraham's bosom.
For now, I will say there were no Jews and there was no Jewish Israel or geo-political nation-state Israel when God made His covenant with Abraham. Abraham was Hebrew, not Jewish. He was a Babylonian, not a citizen of the nation of Israel. Those are the facts of scripture.
Abraham was Hebrew. Abraham was not a Babylonian as the Chaldeans didn't exist at the time either. I have heard that he was Aramean, or Assyrian, definitely not Chaldean. However God made a covenant and promises with Abraham, as well as promises to other forefathers, and God does not break covenants and promises. Again, that is where the hope of the Gentile lies. The God who will not break His covenants and promises with Israel, is the One who will also save the Gentilles, and you can take that to the bank. In God we trust... all others, cash only.
 
Quick question. If God breaks HIs covenant with Abraham and by extension, Israel, and breaks His promises with the forefathers, (all specifically dealing only with the Jews), then how can a Gentile trust God when He says... trust Me? How, if He breaks covenants and promises like they are nothing? In what is to be the trust of the Gentile if God is unfaithful? What of Abraham's faith? In what was Abraham's trust? In God's fulfilled promise. He questioned God's promise about Isaac, wondering how he, as old as he was, was supposed to have a son with Sarah. Sarah laughed. She was too old. Yet God said, next season He comes around, Sarah will be with child. And it was exactly as God said. Despite the impossibility, God fulfilled His promise, and Abraham no longer doubted God on anything. He even believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead, because God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (kill him), but the covenant and promises all hinged on Isaac. Having seen God already keep what was thought a difficult/impossible promise to keep, Abraham harbored no doubt at all. God would do the impossible, and Isaac would be the one through whom God's promises would be fulfilled, even if Isaac was dead.

I put my faith and trust in THAT God. He will fulfill His covenants and promises with Israel, NOT THE CHURCH. Why? He didn't make those covenants/promises with the church.
Quick question: What does God [possibly] breaking his covenant have to do with anything, here? It is a bogus question. He will not. What is the point in asking? You are biasing any outside reader against your opposition, as if he had suggested such a thing. That is disingenuous.
 
Quick question: What does God [possibly] breaking his covenant have to do with anything, here? It is a bogus question. He will not. What is the point in asking? You are biasing any outside reader against your opposition, as if he had suggested such a thing. That is disingenuous.
It has a lot to do with what is going on here. Dispensational Premillennialism is all about God keeping His covenants with Israel. So, if God keeping and not breaking the covenants is the rule of the day, that is a fact peg for dispensational premillennialism. That is, it is a check mark in the fact column next to dispensational premillennialism. So it matters. If God will not break his covenants and promises, then when is He going to fulfill them? I mean, when you decide to just be like "what covenants?" it makes it easy I guess.

What you should be doing is showing there are no covenants (impossible?), showing God is breaking the covenants/promises, or explaining how these covenants and prophecies can be fulfilled outside of the dispensational premillennnialist framework. Why? They support dispensational premillennialism being a fact, and that is in fact... the question of the op. I believe dispensational premillennialism is a fact, however, I also don't like labels and systematic theologies. Why? They pigeon hole people into set beliefs where there are no perfect beliefs. There is always going to be something wrong. For instance, we know the gospel, but there are many different beliefs. Just as a for instance, there is Christus Victor, Satisfaction theorry, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, etc. And that is just in dealing with how one views the sacrifice of Christ. What about all the rest? Systematic theology is nice in that it gives an ordered, laid out explanation. It's easier to find the errors. I did not say the errors are fatal, however, followers of systems will anathametize anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

However, a deeper question for thought, in approaching these question is, what hope can a Gentile have of salvation based on promises, if God breaks covenants and promises? It is a thought question. That was meant to give you something to take away wtih you. You can trust God with your very soul BECAUSE God does not break covenants and promises. I find that to be a big deal.

The Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled physically, in sight of all, and that fulfillment is the millennial kingdom which is at the heart of dispensational premillennialism. Again, that makes dispensational premillennialism a fact. Amillennialism denies the fulfillment of both the Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants.
 
It has a lot to do with what is going on here. Dispensational Premillennialism is all about God keeping His covenants with Israel. So, if God keeping and not breaking the covenants is the rule of the day, that is a fact peg for dispensational premillennialism. That is, it is a check mark in the fact column next to dispensational premillennialism. So it matters. If God will not break his covenants and promises, then when is He going to fulfill them? I mean, when you decide to just be like "what covenants?" it makes it easy I guess.

What you should be doing is showing there are no covenants (impossible?), showing God is breaking the covenants/promises, or explaining how these covenants and prophecies can be fulfilled outside of the dispensational premillennnialist framework. Why? They support dispensational premillennialism being a fact, and that is in fact... the question of the op. I believe dispensational premillennialism is a fact, however, I also don't like labels and systematic theologies. Why? They pigeon hole people into set beliefs where there are no perfect beliefs. There is always going to be something wrong. For instance, we know the gospel, but there are many different beliefs. Just as a for instance, there is Christus Victor, Satisfaction theorry, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, etc. And that is just in dealing with how one views the sacrifice of Christ. What about all the rest? Systematic theology is nice in that it gives an ordered, laid out explanation. It's easier to find the errors. I did not say the errors are fatal, however, followers of systems will anathametize anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

However, a deeper question for thought, in approaching these question is, what hope can a Gentile have of salvation based on promises, if God breaks covenants and promises? It is a thought question. That was meant to give you something to take away wtih you. You can trust God with your very soul BECAUSE God does not break covenants and promises. I find that to be a big deal.

The Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled physically, in sight of all, and that fulfillment is the millennial kingdom which is at the heart of dispensational premillennialism. Again, that makes dispensational premillennialism a fact. Amillennialism denies the fulfillment of both the Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants.
Of course it's a big deal that he keeps his promises (and covenants)! But how is anyone denying that God keeps his promises (and covenants)? Why should anyone be showing that there are no covenants?

If I understand you correctly, you mean to assert here that God cannot keep his covenants and prophecies outside of premillennial dispensationalism. You need to be demonstrating that as truth. If you wish to assert that to believe in a framework outside of premillennial dispensationalism necessarily implies that God does not keep his promises, do so. But to pose this bogus 'thought question' does nothing for your argument.
 
Quick question: What does God [possibly] breaking his covenant have to do with anything, here? It is a bogus question. He will not. What is the point in asking? You are biasing any outside reader against your opposition, as if he had suggested such a thing. That is disingenuous.
There are several covenants. The Abrahamic, which is just for Israel and the Jews. (I'm not speaking of the promises that God made to Abraham of which one was universal). Then there is the Davidic covenant, of which God had this to say in Jeremiah 33:
20 "Thus says the LORD: ;If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My Servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sane of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.'"

25 "Thus says the LORD: 'If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, 26 then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abrahaham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them.'"

There are a lot of verses meant just for Israel where God is going to basically resurrect Israel. Consider the prophecy of the valley of dry bones. The first prophecy causes the bones to form skeletons. The next prophecy gives the skeletons the breath of God. In the same way, the reconciliation and redemption of Israel is not all at once. First, Israel is gathered back together, and then God's Spirit comes and regenerates.
 
makesends said:
Quick question: What does God [possibly] breaking his covenant have to do with anything, here? It is a bogus question. He will not. What is the point in asking? You are biasing any outside reader against your opposition, as if he had suggested such a thing. That is disingenuous.
There are several covenants. The Abrahamic, which is just for Israel and the Jews. (I'm not speaking of the promises that God made to Abraham of which one was universal). Then there is the Davidic covenant, of which God had this to say in Jeremiah 33:
20 "Thus says the LORD: ;If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My Servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sane of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.'"

25 "Thus says the LORD: 'If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, 26 then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abrahaham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them.'"

There are a lot of verses meant just for Israel where God is going to basically resurrect Israel. Consider the prophecy of the valley of dry bones. The first prophecy causes the bones to form skeletons. The next prophecy gives the skeletons the breath of God. In the same way, the reconciliation and redemption of Israel is not all at once. First, Israel is gathered back together, and then God's Spirit comes and regenerates.
All you do is continue to lay your theme before us. You are not answering the question, "What does God [possibly] breaking his covenant have to do with anything, here?" And, again, to repeat your first attempted answer doesn't do it. For that to do it, you need to show that God cannot keep his covenants/promises/prophecies outside your eschatological framework.
 
makesends said:
Quick question: What does God [possibly] breaking his covenant have to do with anything, here? It is a bogus question. He will not. What is the point in asking? You are biasing any outside reader against your opposition, as if he had suggested such a thing. That is disingenuous.

All you do is continue to lay your theme before us. You are not answering the question, "What does God [possibly] breaking his covenant have to do with anything, here?" And, again, to repeat your first attempted answer doesn't do it. For that to do it, you need to show that God cannot keep his covenants/promises/prophecies outside your eschatological framework.
Why do I have to do that? Okay, your eschatological framework requires God to violate His covenants. Does that work? Amillennialism is against the idea of God fulfilling the Davidic covenant for instance, or the promises made to David. Why? It is spoken of as an actual physical kingdom, with Jesus sitting in the seat of David.

I only said that because you aren't being specific. That is the only reason. God made covenants and promises that are physical in fulfillment. He also made promises that are spiritual in fulfillment. (The promises made to Abraham to bless all the nations of the Earth in Christ.) The Messianic Kingdom is everlasting, which, the word usually means something along the lines of "age-enduring". Everlasting isn't a perfect translation from the original language.
 
Last edited:
Why do I have to do that? Okay, your eschatological framework requires God to violate His covenants. Does that work? Amillennialism is against the idea of God fulfilling the Davidic covenant for instance, or the promises made to David. Why? It is spoken of as an actual physical kingdom, with Jesus sitting in the seat of David.

I only said that because you aren't being specific. That is the only reason. God made covenants and promises that are physical in fulfillment. He also made promises that are spiritual in fulfillment. (The promises made to Abraham to bless all the nations of the Earth in Christ.) The Messianic Kingdom is everlasting, which, the word usually means something along the lines of "age-enduring". Everlasting isn't a perfect translation from the original language.
And Dispensationalism is the arbiter of which are literal and which are spiritual? No. Calvinism/ Reformed's Covenant Theology —even in Amillennialism— does not require God to violate his covenants, and you have not show it does. You are asserting that they read literal for symbolic, without demonstrating why. You are working backwards, using your accusation as presumed to prove we demand God to violate his Covenants, as though that (circularly) proves Amillennialism wrong.

Show one at a time, how we do that wrong—for example, prove that the 'Davidic Covenant' is necessarily an actual physical kingdom, and not that it just sounds like it.
 
And Dispensationalism is the arbiter of which are literal and which are spiritual? No. Calvinism/ Reformed's Covenant Theology —even in Amillennialism— does not require God to violate his covenants, and you have not show it does. You are asserting that they read literal for symbolic, without demonstrating why. You are working backwards, using your accusation as presumed to prove we demand God to violate his Covenants, as though that (circularly) proves Amillennialism wrong.

Show one at a time, how we do that wrong—for example, prove that the 'Davidic Covenant' is necessarily an actual physical kingdom, and not that it just sounds like it.
Being one who holds to Historical premil position, can really see both sides of this discussion
 
And Dispensationalism is the arbiter of which are literal and which are spiritual? No. Calvinism/ Reformed's Covenant Theology —even in Amillennialism— does not require God to violate his covenants, and you have not show it does. You are asserting that they read literal for symbolic, without demonstrating why. You are working backwards, using your accusation as presumed to prove we demand God to violate his Covenants, as though that (circularly) proves Amillennialism wrong.

Show one at a time, how we do that wrong—for example, prove that the 'Davidic Covenant' is necessarily an actual physical kingdom, and not that it just sounds like it.
There are no "spiritual" prophecies. Look at all the prophecies given in the Old Testament that were fulfilled. Were they spiritual? Even the predictive prophecies of apocalyptic writing style are not "spiritual". Daniels' take on the world historry of the times of the Gentiles is spot on. There is symbolism and figurative language used, however, as seen in fulfilled prophecies, there is on need to spiritualize. "Out of Egypt I called My Son". Seems rather direct. Daniel said there would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. There was. 483 years later (69*7), Jesus entered Jerusalem, and He was cut off after, just as Daniel said. No need to spiritualize or reinterpret.

The Davidic covenant speaks of a physical kingdom, that is all one needs to know. One could continue on to Jesus not telling the disciples they were wrong after asking if Jesus would now return the Kingdom to Israel. This came after Jesus spent 40 days expounding the Old Testament prophecies about Himself with the disciples. After all this teaching, the question they aske Jesus is "will you now return the Kingdom to Israel?" Seems like they were asking a question about what Jesus had been teaching them. His response, it isn't for them to know the times and epochs planned by the Father. He didn't say there is no Kingdom, or they have it wrong. His response is that it is sometime future, only the Father knows, and no, you aren't allowed to ask.
 
Those Gentiles who become believers during the tribulation and survive. They continue living on Earth, having kids, and living within the new Kingdom. Scripture does not speak on what happens to their children. Since they haven't died, they continue living on as people. 1000 years means a pretty sizeable population.
 
The children that were born of those who entered in the millennial kingdom reigning of the Lord Jesus
So glorified bodies reproduce and there are some unglorified bodies enter Christ's earthly kingdom. I am wondering if you are able to see the inconsisenticies in that historical ore-mil view.

We have Christ returning and the resurrection of those in Christ who have died being resurrected. We have those who remain alive, being changed (1 Cor 15). All those still alive who are not believers still alive at his return cohabiting with the glorified saints (holy without spot or blemish). We have Jesus reigning as King over all the earth (or just national Israel?) He who has been given authority over all flesh, ---his kingdom come to earth. And at the same time, we have despots and sinners who plan and execute a massive rebellion.
 
So glorified bodies reproduce and there are some unglorified bodies enter Christ's earthly kingdom. I am wondering if you are able to see the inconsisenticies in that historical ore-mil view.

We have Christ returning and the resurrection of those in Christ who have died being resurrected. We have those who remain alive, being changed (1 Cor 15). All those still alive who are not believers still alive at his return cohabiting with the glorified saints (holy without spot or blemish). We have Jesus reigning as King over all the earth (or just national Israel?) He who has been given authority over all flesh, ---his kingdom come to earth. And at the same time, we have despots and sinners who plan and execute a massive rebellion.
the entire time of the Kingdom Age shall be under Jesus iron rule, as only at the end, before the final state happens, will Satan be let loose to try to turn them against Jesus
 
the entire time of the Kingdom Age shall be under Jesus iron rule, as only at the end, before the final state happens, will Satan be let loose to try to turn them against Jesus
Where does Jesus or the apostles ever talk about "this age" "the age to come" and "another age" after that?

And it does not solve the problem proposed in my post by historical ore-mil or any premil, of the glorified and unbelievers occupying the same space at the same time.
 
There are no "spiritual" prophecies. Look at all the prophecies given in the Old Testament that were fulfilled. Were they spiritual? Even the predictive prophecies of apocalyptic writing style are not "spiritual". Daniels' take on the world historry of the times of the Gentiles is spot on. There is symbolism and figurative language used, however, as seen in fulfilled prophecies, there is on need to spiritualize. "Out of Egypt I called My Son". Seems rather direct. Daniel said there would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. There was. 483 years later (69*7), Jesus entered Jerusalem, and He was cut off after, just as Daniel said. No need to spiritualize or reinterpret.

The Davidic covenant speaks of a physical kingdom, that is all one needs to know. One could continue on to Jesus not telling the disciples they were wrong after asking if Jesus would now return the Kingdom to Israel. This came after Jesus spent 40 days expounding the Old Testament prophecies about Himself with the disciples. After all this teaching, the question they aske Jesus is "will you now return the Kingdom to Israel?" Seems like they were asking a question about what Jesus had been teaching them. His response, it isn't for them to know the times and epochs planned by the Father. He didn't say there is no Kingdom, or they have it wrong. His response is that it is sometime future, only the Father knows, and no, you aren't allowed to ask.
Would it have helped if I had said, "figurative", instead of "spiritual"?
 
Would it have helped if I had said, "figurative", instead of "spiritual"?
No. It wouldn't change the fact that you are spiritualizing. When you look at prophecies in the Old Testament, do you see spiritualizing?

"Out of Egypt I have called my Son?" How? There were no cellphones. This must be future. (really weird spiritualizing.)

Cyrus giving the decree to rebuild the temple. Cyrus is just a name used by the guy running the autopen.

Three prophecies (there are plenty of others) show a direct relation to the situation. The baker's prophecy was given showing him as an F1 driver. So it was obviously speaking of his position as a baker.

No. His prophecy had him as a baker. The cup bearer, as one doing his job, and for pharaoh. No spiritualizing necessary. We know it because God showed that there was nothing incredibly special about these prophecies, other then, one needs to know what the symbols mean. God revealed it to Joseph. Then there are the two visions seen by Pharaoh. They are exactly the same except for the imagery. And it spoke directly to the event. Fat stalks of grain eaten by sickly thin stalks of grain whose appearance did not change afterwards. Fat cows, thin sickly cows eating the fat ones and appearance not changing. Their appearance not changing is actually an important part of the prophecy. It means that the famine will be so bad, and last so long, that everyone is going to forget what it was like before. Prophecy is very specific, though there are symbols and imagery used in the prophecy.

Consider this possibility. The huge hailstones that fall in fire from the sky, mixed with blood. There are going to be an awful lot of starlink satellites in the sky, and on reentry... a lot of fire. Not saying that that is what it is, just that, given the imagery from John, it can very well fit.
 
Where does Jesus or the apostles ever talk about "this age" "the age to come" and "another age" after that?

And it does not solve the problem proposed in my post by historical ore-mil or any premil, of the glorified and unbelievers occupying the same space at the same time.
The Age to come in the OT prophecies was the time of the Messianic Kingdom ruling
 
Back
Top