No, you did not answer the question. You gave scriptures that were demonstrative/vindicatory / revelatory but not clearly redemptive in effect.
From my opinion and standpoint. I see your question as a non sequitur and a load question. This question is not actually asking for information. It is asking for a reason or a justification to not believe in the millennium. Which carries a hidden loaded assumption that if something does not directly contribute to individual salvation (like regeneration, justification, sanctification), then it has no meaningful place in redemptive history. It also tries to create a false dilemma "Either the millennium has a soteriological purpose, or it is pointless." That is a flat-out category mistake. I suppose you could simply rephrase your question to say, “Why should I believe in a literal, geopolitical, Israel‑centered millennium if it doesn’t save anyone?” And personally, I could care less if you believe in a millennium or deny it. But it's obviously important to you since you created a thread opposing an already answered question.
Assumption 1
Your question assumes redemption is an individual salvation only concept. But the word "redemption" itself carries a wide range of semantic meaning within the Biblical domain. Just to name a few biblically, redemption includes:
⦁ individuals (Ephesians 1:7 Redemption applies to people),
⦁ nations (Revelation 5:9 Redemption for nations, not just people),
⦁ land (Amos 9:14–15 Redemption includes the physical land promised to Abraham),
⦁ creation (Romans 8:19–23 Redemption includes the entire creation),
⦁ history (Acts 3:21 Redemption unfolds through historical stages God has ordained like “The restoration of all things” occurs in history),
⦁ covenant (Jeremiah 31:33 Redemption is covenantal and God keeps his promises in history),
⦁ and resurrection (Romans 8:23 Redemption includes the bodily resurrection of the righteous).
⦁ etc.
The question tries to shrink redemption to regeneration only, so that anything not directly tied to regeneration can be dismissed.
Assumption 2
Your question assumes the millennium must be justified by soteriology. But the millennium is not about saving individuals, regenerating hearts, and applying atonement. It is about covenant fulfillment, historical vindication, kingdom manifestation, national restoration, and creational renewal. The question is trying to force the millennium into the wrong category between corporate‑historical and individual‑soteriological.
Bottom line: You have redefined "redemptive" so your answer can fit. My question was about the plan of redemption. Normally this refers to saving sinners; defeating sin and death; restoring creation.
You have shifted the meaning to corporate-historical display and covenantal storyline completion. And that is a different category. You are calling something redemptive that does not actual redeem. To say it is corporal-historical and not individual-soteriological (though redemption is not only individual but also corporate and cosmic) removes the core meaning of "redemption". And it is redemption that I am asking about. You are describing something that does not justify; does not regenerate; does not defeat death; does not consummate salvation.
Your millennium according to you is "redemptive in the sense of bringing redemption to its historical and covenantal climax." In the NT the climax of redemption is consistently tied to the resurrection, final judgement, and new creation---not to an intermediate geopolitical kingdom. So my question remains.
I never given any definition to redemption. But there is a wide range of semantic Biblical domain for redemption. This is what I said:
And Scripture presents multiple redemptive applications of the future thousand‑year reign and restored geopolitical Israel, but they are corporate‑historical rather than individual‑soteriological.
But falsely accusing me of redefining “redemption" doesn't help your question. Regardless if you are aware of this or not. You are shrinking the biblical category of redemption to something far smaller than Scripture allows. You are committing a Reduction Fallacy by reducing “redemption” to only three things when the Biblical domain is far more vast.
Let me ask you these questions:
1). Where in Scripture is “redemption” defined as only regeneration, justification, and the defeat of death?
2). Do you deny that Scripture also speaks of the redemption of land, nations, creation, covenants, kingship, and the kingdom?
3). If redemption includes these categories, why are you requiring the millennium to perform a soteriological function rather than the historical, national, and kingdom functions that Scripture assigns to it?
4). If God made historical promises to Abraham and David, on what biblical basis do you claim He fulfills them outside of history?
Your objection breaks down because it assumes a definition of redemption that the Bible does not teach and then faults the millennium for not fitting inside that reduction.
The problem with that is the timing and placement. You took things the NT consistently ties to the final state ad placed the in the millennium.
Here is how.
You cite resurrection texts and place them in the millennium. Is that what the NY does?
Resurrection is tied to the last day, not a preliminary phase (John 6:39; 1 Cor 15:23-24)
Regarding the renewal of creation you cite Is 65. But in the NT creations renewal is tied to the resurrection of the sons of God (Rom8:21-23); the new heavens and the new earth (2 Peter 3; Rev 21). Those are final state realities not intermediate ones.
Regarding the subjugation of the nations you cite Ps 2, Dan 7. But the NY says Christ is already reigning, he subdues enemies until the end, then comes the end (1 Cor 15:25-26). No millennial staging there.
So, a new question immerges. In addition to the one
@Josheb added in Post #6.
Where does the NT clearly insert a separate phase where these covenant fulfillments happen before the final state?
And here you are committing a Timing Fallacy. What you are doing is taking passages that describe final-state realities and assume they must happen only in the final state, then use that assumption to deny the millennium. That's circular reasoning at best. You're assuming the very thing you needs to prove. It's encouraged that not to ignore that very fact that prophetic fulfillment often unfolds in stages, not all at once:
⦁ The kingdom is “already” and “not yet”
⦁ Resurrection has “firstfruits” and “harvest”
⦁ Creation renewal has “inauguration” and “consummation”
⦁ Christ’s reign has “session” and “subjugation”
⦁ Salvation has “already saved” and “will be saved”
And it would be best not to combine all of these into one moment. That is not exegesis, it is compression. Now reread the loaded question: “Where does the NT clearly insert a separate phase where these covenant fulfillments happen before the final state?” Well, there is only one place that I can think of which is Revelations 20:1-10. And is the only place in Scripture that:
⦁ places Christ’s return in Revelation 19
⦁ before a 1,000‑year reign in Revelation 20
⦁ before the final judgment in Revelation 20:11–15
⦁ before the new creation in Revelation 21–22
This is the exact sequence which you claim does not exist.
1). Your claim that “resurrection is tied to the last day, not a preliminary phase” ignores the New Testament’s own sequencing. Revelation 20:4–6 explicitly describes a resurrection before the final judgment and before the new creation, which means the New Testament itself distinguishes a resurrection event prior to the final state. Even Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:23–24 lays out a three‑stage order: first Christ, then those who belong to him at his coming, and then the end. “Then the end” is not simultaneous with his coming. Paul separates them. Your position breaks down by what Paul and John keep distinct, assuming a single undifferentiated “last day” where the New Testament actually presents a sequence of events leading up to the final state.
2. It’s true that the full renewal of creation belongs to the final state, but Isaiah 65 clearly describes a partial renewal
where long life, childbirth, sin, death, agriculture, and nations still exist. These realities that cannot belong to the new heavens and new earth of 2 Peter 3 or Revelation 21. This means Scripture itself distinguishes between a historical, preliminary curse‑reversal and the final, eternal curse‑removal. Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3 describe the consummation; Isaiah 65 describes an intermediate era of restored creation under Christ’s rule. The New Testament does not erase Isaiah 65, it places it before the final state, which is exactly what the millennium accounts for. Your objection places these two stages into one and then faults the millennium for preserving the distinction Scripture already makes.
3. Your argument that Christ’s subduing of the nations happens only in the present age and ends immediately at his return ignores the New Testament’s own sequence. Paul says Christ “must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet,” and that the last enemy destroyed is death (1 Cor 15:25–26). But Revelation 20 places the destruction of death after a 1,000‑year reign and after the final rebellion, not at the moment of his return. This means Christ’s reign of subjugation continues after his coming and before the final state, which is exactly what the millennium is. Your objection combines the “until” into the “end,” by erasing the very interval Paul and John both preserve.
Here is your "parallel" just to keep things clear.
Millennium = corporate-historical application
Regeneration = personal application.
That completely breaks down because regeneration applies redemption. Your millennium is doing things like resurrection, creation renewal, final kingdom manifestation. Those aren't applications. They are consummation events. You are effectively moving consummation into a temporary phase.
Your answer to the OP question depends on relocating consummation events into the millennium. In that sense, unless you can demonstrate that those consummation events belong in the millennium,
You are treating these realities as if they only occur in the final state and therefore cannot appear in any earlier stage of God’s plan. The New Testament itself shows that some aspects of resurrection (Rev 20:4–6), some aspects of creation renewal (Isa 65), and some aspects of Christ’s kingdom rule (1 Cor 15:25–26) begin before the final state and reach their full consummation after the millennium. So, when you insist these things belong only to the final state, then you are assuming the very point you need to prove.
the question still remains inadequately answered.
Not really. And I have the right to state my opinion, "you've been answered." This post makes it the second time I've answered your question. But its
might turn into one of those games that atheist play. They demand that you "prove it." Then you prove it. Then claim that you didn't prove it. They are not sincerely looking for an answer or have a discussion that leads to reasoning.
