Questions for Amillennialism

[Josheb]

@JesusFan, and @atpollard,

Please do not get frustrated with me because I ask a valid question relevant to this op. Don't get made at me when I observe the specifics of my request have not been met. Do not get frustrated with yourselves, either. It's a simply request. It's a valid requestion. It is intentionally worded the way it is worded. Please don't get frustrated because I'm persistent, either.

No one can discuss their inferences if the facts of what is stated have not first been established.

So, I've first asked for what is stated.

Reading scripture to imply something should be based on what is stated. The exegetical principle at work there is that the literal provides the basis for any inference. The literal explains the figurative. Not the other way around. Sadly, the topic of eschatology is filled with wanton, unsubstantiated inference.

And I trust all three of us can agree on at least one simple, straightforward guideline: If the text does not actually state what we imagine it to say then perhaps we ought to adjust our previously held beliefs so they reconcile with what is actually stated AND THEN AND ONLY THEN work from what is stated to what can exegetically be inferred. If my trust is misplaced, then just let me know and I'll respond accordingly.

That is what Post 42 is asking of you @JesusFan.

Would you tell us where, specifically, in Revelation you read the text stating Jesus is returning? Cite or quote the verse, please.

Where does the text states Jesus is returning? It is not Revelation 19.

Once that is established then maybe we can discuss any remaining inferences. Jesus comes in the end times. We all agree. As far as I know there are no full-prets in this thread. We ALL hope for Jesus' return. NOTHING I have posted should be construed in any way to suggest I do not share in the hope of Christ's return.

When does the text of Revelation state that happens? When, in the end times does the text of Revelation state that occurs? It is not Rev. 19.

Would you tell us where, specifically, in Revelation you read the text stating Jesus is returning. Cite or quote the verse, please.

TIA

 

[Arial]

Acts 2 does not identify the heavenly throne as the throne of David. It identifies Christ as the Davidic heir, not heaven as the Davidic location.

For starters I am not arguing that heaven equals David's throne as a location, nor that there are two thrones. The claim is that Christ's present exaltation is the enthronement promised in the Davidic covenant, as Peter explicitly argues. You keep shifting my claim and misstating my position. So, let's bring the discussion of Acts 2 back to what it actually argues, not what it doesn't say.

The promise (Acts 2:30 is "God had sworn...to set one of his descendants on his throne."
This is explicitly the Davidic throne promise (2 Samuel 7).

The fulfillment event (Acts 2:31-31 "He foresaw...the resurrection of the Christ...This Jesus God raised up..."
Peter identifies the resurrection as the decisive turning point.

The enthronement (Acts 2:33) "Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God...."
Here is where you try to insert a separation. Notice, Peter does not introduce a second, different throne---he continues the same argument. Which means that you have inserted into the text what is not there.

The conclusion (Acts 2:34-36) "The Lors said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand,,," then "God has made him both Lord and Christ..."
You are avoiding the logical structure Peter uses

1. God promised to seat David’s son on his throne
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Jesus was exalted to God’s right hand
4. Therefore, Jesus is now installed as the promised Davidic king

The exaltation is not proof of eligibility only. It is the enthronement itself. Peter does not say: Jesus is qualified to sit on David's throne someday. He says the promise if fulfilled in the resurrection exaltation event.

So now that we have correctly removed the two thrones from your argument against the amil view of Acts 2 as legitimate, we can move on to the rest of your rebuttal. In separate posts to keep them from getting too long. There is a lot of ground to cover.

 

[Arial]

Nothing in Acts 2 says the

Davidic throne has been redefined, relocated, or spiritualized; it simply affirms that the risen Christ is the rightful Davidic king. The New Testament maintains the biblical pattern: Christ now reigns from the Father’s throne in heaven, and he will sit on his own glorious Davidic throne at His return (Matt 25:31; Rev 3:21).

Acts 2 doesn't pause to redefine categories---it demonstrates fulfillment by identifying when God actually seated David's Son as king. You are using the passage incorrectly avoiding the issue by shifting my claim and misstating my position.

You use Matt 25:32 and Rev 3:21 to affirm your assertion of a two-throne system---the Father's throne and David's throne. As an aside, you also continually affirm correctly that the "thrones" aren't furniture but represent power and authority but in the same breath essentially treat David's throne as furniture.

But let's see if those passages actually support your position that the NT maintains this two throne position.

Matt 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes… then he will sit on his glorious throne.”
You interpret this as a future sitting on the throne but not happening yet. However, this is describing the public exercise of royal authority in judgment, not the initial moment of enthronement.

He is enthroned already. Acts 2:33-36 shows him seated and ruling. 1 Cor 15:25 "He must reign until..."
He is not waiting to start reigning. He is reigning until all enemies are subdued. The NT repeatedly distinguishes between:

• Christ’s present reign (inaugurated)
• Christ’s future appearing (consummated)”

Matt 25 fits the second category, not the first.

Rev 3:21 “sat down with my Father on his throne… will sit on my throne”

You use it as two thrones, two stages, and as not the same thing.

The verse actually distinguishes phases of reign, not different kinds of kingship. He is presently seated with the Father (current reign). A future shared reign with his people (consummation).

The NT never teaches a non-Davidic reign now and a Davidic reign later. You are importing that.

Where does the NT ever say that Christ is not yet seated on David's throne?

 

[Binyawmene]

Notice, Peter does not introduce a second, different throne---he continues the same argument.

snip*

So now that we have correctly removed the two thrones from your argument against the amil view of Acts 2 as legitimate, we can move on to the rest of your rebuttal.

The text is describing the structure of Peter’s own argument in Acts 2. Peter appeals to two different Scriptures, two different events, and two different thrones, and he uses them in sequence to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. The connection between Acts 2:30 and Acts 2:34–35 are not casually mixed. Peter deliberately coordinates them to distinguish two distinct yet sequential phases of Christ’s position.

⦁ In Acts 2:30 from Psalm 132:11, Peter invokes the Davidic covenant to assert that the resurrection qualifies Jesus, as David’s greater Son, to be the rightful heir to David’s throne—the promised, historical, Israelite kingship.

⦁ But when Peter turns to Psalm 110 in Acts 2:34–35, he pointedly does not say that this promise is now realized on David’s throne. Instead, he locates the risen Christ at the right hand of the Father. A fulfillment of Psalm 110, not of the Davidic throne oath.​

As for your argument that Peter “continues the same throne” from Acts 2:30 into Acts 2:34–35 ignores the very contrast Peter himself constructs. In v.30 Peter cites God’s oath about David’s throne, but he never says Christ is now presently seated on it; instead, he immediately pivots to Psalm 110 to explain where Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father, a location David never occupied and which Peter explicitly says David did not resurrected and ascend to.

David himself was not resurrected and ascended:

vs. 29 ...David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.

vs. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven...​

If Peter intended the Father’s throne to be David’s actual throne, then Peter's entire argument would fail, because he would be proving the fulfillment of a Davidic promise by appealing to a throne that David himself never possessed. The shift from vs.30 to vs.34–35 is not a continuation of the same throne but a deliberate movement from the Davidic promise to the heavenly enthronement, both of which identify Jesus as the Christ while keeping the thrones and their fulfillments textually and theologically distinct.

Psalms 110:1 is fulfilled, then what occurs after the "until"?

Acts 2:34-35 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Acts 3:19-21 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets

Acts 1:6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

Hebrews 1 is also another place to have a discussion about the two thrones.

 

[Arial]

No. Romans 4:13 and Hebrews 11 do not “expand” the land promise into a spiritualized, non‑geographical reality; they expand Abraham’s inheritance, not David’s throne. Paul teaches that Abraham becomes heir of the world because the nations are brought into his family by faith, not because the specific, covenantal land promise is dissolved or redefined

Up front: "Spiritualized" is a loaded term. I am not arguing for a non-geographical or dissolved promise. I am arguing that the NT presents the promise as expanded and fulfilled in a greater, not lesser, reality. It does not subtract geography. It becomes cosmic, not merely regional.

In Scripture, the Abrahamic promise and the Davidic kingship are not independent tracks. They are integrated. Abrahma promises---land, seed, blessing to nations. David --- the king rules over the inheritance promised to Abraham. So, if the inheritance expands the scope of the kingship expands.

What you have not accounted for is verse 13 “heir of the world (κόσμος)”. That is not merely more people it is inheritance language expanded beyond Canaan. If Paul meant only more descendants but he uses cosmic inheritance language.

Let's tie Abraham, kingdom and Christ with Scripture (Matt 5:5; Rev 5:10). The inheritance is earth-wide, not restricted to Israel's land.

Hebrews 11:16 describes the promise as a better, heavenly country—not less real, but more ultimate. Since the Davidic king rules over the inheritance promised to Abraham, expanding the inheritance necessarily expands the scope of the kingship as well. So the question isn’t whether the promise is ‘spiritualized,’ but whether the New Testament presents it as confined to its original geography or fulfilled in a greater, world-embracing reality.

Hebrews 11 speaks of the patriarchs longing for a heavenly country, but this is about their eschatological hope, not the cancellation or spiritualization of Israel’s territorial promises. Nothing in either passage says, “the land now means heaven,” or that the Davidic throne is relocated to heaven. Amillennialism imports that conclusion

Again: Misstating and shifting. I am not arguing that the land now means heaven or that the promise is canceled. I am arguing that the NT presents its fulfillment as expanded and eschatological, not confined to its original geography.

It is true that nothing says the land now means heaven, but it proves nothing. The NT never fulfill OT categories by saying for example "temple" now means X, or "Israel" now means X, or "Zion" now means X. What it does instead is show fulfillment by Identification, application, expansion. As in Heb 12:22 It does not say "Zion now means heaven". It simply identifies Zion with a heavenly reality (not as heaven).

The fact that Heb 11 is an eschatological hope (and I whole heartedly agree with that) actually supports my point. The patriarchs received promises tied to land yet did not see them fulfilled in that form but instead looked for a better, heavenly country. (Heavenly does not mean heaven itself but from heaven.) That shows the promise was always aiming beyond its initial geographic form. Goal---not cancellation.

Now let's step back to Romans 4:13, "Heir of the world". Abraham's promise---land. Paul---world. That expands the inheritance scope.

If the NT expands Abraham's inheritance to the world, is the Messiah's reign still confined to the original land, or does it correspond to the scope of the inheritance he rules over?

The New Testament never redefines the Davidic throne or the land; it simply reveals that Abraham’s family grows to include the nations, while the Davidic king 'the Christ' still receives the earthly throne promised to him (Luke 1:32–33; Matt 25:31; Rev 3:21).

I agree the NT does not redefine the Davidic throne or the land by saying x now means y. Then again, I never said it did redefine them. That is you misstating my claim and diverting from the issue. Again.

And again, you import "earthly" throne into the texts you cite. So, the real issue is, "Where does the NT say that the Davidic throne must be earthly in its fulfilled form?" That is a question I expect you to answer and have been since the beginning of our conversation.

Since I have already dealt with the Matt and Rev texts you use (though you are probably reading this post before you read that one) I will now deal with Luke 1:32-33 “He will be great… the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David… and he will reign… forever.”

You argue that it is not yet fulfilled therefore must be a future earthly throne. But future language does not exclusively mean future fulfillment. Prophetic future language often includes what is inaugurated in Christ's first coming and brought to completion later.

For example, consider that "he will reign forever" clearly is not limited to a 1000-yearr earthly phase. It is eternal, not postponed. Luke 1 gives the promise; Acts 2 gives the inspired explanation of when and how it is fulfilled.

The nature of Christ's reign as a Son of David is already universal--"of hiskingdom there will be no end". It already stretched beyond ethnic Israel, geographic land, and temproal political rule. It is not merely a national throne--- it is eschatological kingship.

 

[atpollard]

Please do not get frustrated with me because I ask a valid question relevant to this op.

Your response to answers indicates that your question is a dishonest one … like when some demands a verse where Jesus states “I am God” and rejects all verses provided because the exact wording is not provided.

• You restrict the search to “Revelation”.
• You demand an exact wording.

The technique is the same and I will waste no more time on your game than I waste on the non-Trinitarian semantic games. Nations and kings ON THE EARTH gathered for war against God and Jesus killed them with the sword in his mouth and carrion eaters devoured their corpses. Only YOU can claim that happens in Heaven.

Personally, I would not have chosen Revelation to build any theology doctrine on since it is far too symbolic of a book, but that was the book YOU ASKED ABOUT.

 

[Arial]

Even though Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2 show that Gentiles become full members of God’s people, but they do not say that Israel’s covenant structures (the land, throne, nation) are dissolved, redefined, or absorbed into a generic “people of God.”

This is the post that is responding to.

The NT doesn't say "becomes"---it shows who constitutes the people of God in Christ.

Gal 3:28-29 “You are all one in Christ Jesus… then you are Abraham’s offspring”
Eph 2:12-19. Gentiles were strangers to Israel and now are fellow citizens. The people of God are expanded to include Jew and Gentile in Christ.

And that response was because you asked me to show a text where the house of Jacob becomes the church. You respond back from the same artificial premise and argument, ignoring the NT expansion of fulfillment. You still call the amil view something it is not and then base your arguments on what it is not---completely ignoring what I am showing you from the NT. Look at it:

but they do not say that Israel’s covenant structures (the land, throne, nation) are dissolved, redefined, or absorbed into a generic “people of God

That does not line up with a single thing I said. You continue to do this in all your arguments, even after your gross mistakes and category switches, even here inventing a category the NT itself doesn't maintain have been pointed out. It sounds careful but is asking for an explicit statement of structural replacement while the NT argues by identity and fulfillment.

I realize it is the only thing you can do and maybe you actually still believe yourself, but it is a fool's game, and game I have decided is all you are playing. It is not slipping by me.

Your standard is artificially narrow. If Gentiles are Abraham's offspring (Eph 2:19) then the identity of "Israel" is already being defined Christologically. Paul demonstrates it---not redefines it. Bringing covenant structure into your argument simply sounds like it is carefully thought out but it isn't. Look closely.

• “One new man” (v.15)
• “One body” (v.16)
• “Fellow citizens” (v.19)

Paul doesn't describe two parallel covenant peoples with shared membership benefits. He describes a single new humanity. That is even more than expansion--it's reconstitution.

You ignore NT trajectories when you say covenant structures aren't changed by the Gentiles being added to the people of God.

• Land → world / new creation
  
  • Romans 4:13: Abraham inherits the world, not just Canaan.
• Temple → Christ and His people
  
  • Ephesians 2:21–22: the church is the temple.
• Nation → transnational people
  
  • John 18:36: Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (not geopolitical).
• Throne → heavenly reign now
  
  • Acts 2:30–36: Christ is already enthroned as Davidic king.

So, the NT doesn’t leave those structures untouched—it universalizes and Christ-centers them.

 

[Arial]

And Scripture repeatedly shows that fulfillment does not change the form of a promise. It completes it in the form originally given. The clearest demonstration is the promise of Christ's birth: Isaiah 7:14 promises a virgin will conceive, and Matthew 1:22–23 shows it fulfilled in the same form, a literal virgin birth, not a spiritualized reinterpretation. Likewise, Micah 5:2 promises Christ will be born in Bethlehem, and Matthew 2:5–6 records the fulfillment in Bethlehem, not in a symbolic or redefined “spiritual Bethlehem.” The resurrection promises in Psalm 16:10 is fulfilled in Acts 2:31–32 as a literal resurrection, not a metaphorical one. These examples demonstrate a consistent biblical pattern: when God fulfills a covenant promise, He does not alter its form. He brings it to pass exactly as spoken.

I agree that many prophecies are fulfilled in a straightforward, literal way—Christ really was born of a virgin, really was born in Bethlehem, and really did rise bodily from the dead. Those examples prove that God can fulfill prophecy in the same outward form—but they do not establish a universal rule that He must always do so.

Scripture itself shows expansion, escalation, and transformation in fulfillment.

Temple: original promise a physical temple in Jerusalem (2 Sam 7; 1 Kings8)

Fulfillment expanded: Christ himself becomes the temple (John 2:19-21). The Church becomes the temple (1 Cor 3:16). The form changes.

The sacrificial system. Original form---repeated animal sacrifices under the Law.
Fulfillment: Christ's once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 10:1-14).

Davids son in 2 Sam 7

A son of David who will build a house. A son who will reigh on David's throne. Near fulfillment: Solomon (literal son, literal temple, real throne).

Expanded in NT: Christ fulfills it in a greater way. He builds a greater "house" (people of God) and reigns forever (not just over Israel but all nations).

The burden of proof lies on you by claiming that the Davidic throne, uniquely promised as an earthly, political, Israelite throne (2 Sam 7:12–16; Luke 1:32–33), is fulfilled in a different form than the one God originally specified.

I have done so again and again. You simply keep shifting g the claim and misstating my position while ignoring what I say. So now the question you must answer is: Where does the NT ever say that Christ is not yet seated on David's throne? And answer this too: What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geo/political Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?

I will respond to no more of your posts until those questions are answered.

 

[Binyawmene]

Where does the NT ever say that Christ is not yet seated on David's throne?

Here we go again,

Palm face. You're dodging that by pretending I am arguing for a category shift. And accusing me of combining categories when it’s actually your position that does that by claiming the Father’s throne is the Davidic throne. That merges two realities Scripture keeps rigorously distinct. The Bible never teaches that the Father’s throne is David’s throne. It never teaches that the Father sits on David’s throne. It never teaches that David ever possessed or shared the Father’s throne. These are two different thrones with two different jurisdictions: one the eternal throne of the Father, and the other the covenantal throne of a human dynasty. Your argument only works if you erase that distinction, but Scripture never does.

The New Testament explicitly says the Father will give Christ the throne of David (Luke 1:32–33). But the moment you say the Father “gives” it, you’ve already admitted it is not the throne where Christ currently occupies. A throne cannot be given if the recipient already sits on it. And a throne cannot be given by someone who already occupies it. The Father cannot “give” Christ the Davidic throne if the Father’s throne is the Davidic throne. Luke’s wording destroys that interpretation.

Revelation 3:21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

Luke 1:32-33 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​