Questions for Amillennialism

[Arial]

His kingship is therefore incarnational (not spiritual), even though the location of that reign is presently heavenly rather than earthly.

That statement forces a false dichotomy by misdefining "spiritual". And it causes your argument to fail. And it separates what Scripture consistently joins.

The incarnation is profoundly spiritual because the definition of spiritual regarding the incarnation is "of/by the Spirit". The incarnation is explicitly the work of the Spirit (Luke 1:35) "Spiritual" in the context of amil and the current reign of Christ from heaven does not mean "non-bodily". And a person cannot successfully or even reasonably redefine the meaning of a term to mean something other than the way the one using it, is defining it.

Scripture itself does not divide "incarnational" = bodily, human and "spiritual as being non-bodily or Spirit only.
The Son becomes incarnate by the Spirit
The son ministers in the power of the Spirit
The Son is raised by the Spirit
The Son reigns and gives the Spirit

You are trying to protect the idea that Christ's kingship must be exercised through his human nature as the sole operative category. The problem with that is it isolates Christ's humanity from the Spirit's role and also from his divine nature.

And 1 Cor 15:44 breaks your argument. "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.? A body. Yet called spiritual. "Spiritual" does not mean "non-bodily". It means Spirit-empowered, Spirit-governed.

 

[Arial]

If Christ truly reigns “in a glorified physical state,” then his reign must be exercised through that glorified physical humanity, which necessarily entails a visible, embodied, localized, historical kingship. To affirm the humanity while denying its operative is not consistency but a contradiction.

Patience my friend. That happens at the end of this age when he returns. Don't rush him. He has lambs to gather into his kingdom. He has a means of doing so, like any good king has means of obtaining his purposes. Jesus send his earthly armies, the saints out into all the world with the gospel so his sheep might hear his voice and follow him, he sent the apostles to lay the doctrinal foundation of his church, and men to canonize it, wisdom to translators and those who designed the printing press. He sent men to reform his church when the evil one made a mockery of it in the Roman church. He continues to do this work through men. He is gathering his flock, and he will continue to gather his flock until the last one is brought in. No one gets to tell him how the King does this or when.

And since he remains the Christ with two natures, human and divine, and always will, then all these things are done by his human and divine natures. In sending the Spirit to regenerate his people he is not crowning the Spirit king nor is the Spirit taking kingship for himself. To claim that is not only unorthodox it is illogical.

 

[Carbon]

I believe Jesus has a human body, a glorified human body.

 

[Binyawmene]

Then in that you are amil. Except for that last sentence which in its wording removes his divine nature. And don't forget, Father, Son and Spirit are One. They never act independently of each other.

Christ's reign doesn't remove his divine nature. The divine nature cannot be exalted, enthroned, or given authority. Because it is eternally sovereign, immutable, and the source of authority. And Christ doesn't receive divine authority in his divine nature. He eternally has it as God. So he receives authority in his human nature as man and the divine nature is the fountain of authority. That means the divine nature empowers the reign, but doesn't become the reign.

So why then does historic premil insist that he must reign present on earth in Israel for a literal one thousand years?

I see you want to change the topic of the thread and discuss Historic Premillennialism.

Why do Historic premillennialism insist on a future, earthly, Israel‑centered reign of Christ?

Because we see Christ’s kingship as the completion of Adam’s and David’s earthly vocations, not merely a spiritual rule from heaven. Adam’s mandate is to rule, subdue, and cultivate the earth. Because Christ fulfills Adam’s vocation as the Second Adam. His kingship must be exercised in the same arena where Adam failed. Likewise, the Davidic covenant promises a son of David who will sit on David’s throne in Zion, ruling Israel and the nations from a real geographic location. These covenants are not abstract or heavenly; they are genealogical, territorial, and political. And also, because I simply refuse to spiritualize these promises or relocate them to heaven, insisting instead that Christ’s human kingship must be exercised in a human sphere.

Explain what you mean by "Christ's human operation". If Jesus has his glorified human nature where he is with the Father---and he does---and he is reigning from heaven now---which he is---whatever means brings about his intended purpose is from both his human nature and his divine nature.

Not only would I explain it but also define it for you.

Definition: Christ’s human operation refers to every action and activity that the Person of the Son performs according to his human nature. It includes all the functions that arise from the human nature, example: thinking, willing, speaking, acting, suffering, learning, obeying, ruling, judging, and reigning. These are exercised by the Person of the Son who has assumed that nature. The operation is “human” because its source is the human nature and proper to humanity.

Explanation: The “human operation” is not passive, but fully active and operative as a real, complete human nature. When Christ reasons, obeys, prays, suffers, or reigns, He does so in and through the human nature. The divine nature or some kind of "spiritual" thingy doesn't replace or absorb these operations. Rather, the Person of the Son personally activates them. This is why Constantinople III insisted on two natural operations (divine and human) because each nature must express its own proper operations without confusion or division. Christ’s human operation is therefore the concrete expression of his humanity. He rules, judges, and mediates as a true man, exercising human willing and acting, even while the divine nature supplies infinite authority and power.

Functional Docetism does not deny that Christ possesses a real human nature; rather, it denies that this humanity is operative in his present work and reign. It affirms the ontology of the incarnation while treating Christ’s humanity as practically inert, like present in theory but irrelevant in function. If you say that Christ's reign is spiritual the human nature becomes a passive appendage rather than the active instrument through which the Son rules, mediates, judges, and exercises his kingship. Basically, the human nature is non-operative, so his thinking, willing, speaking, acting, suffering, learning, obeying, ruling, judging, and reigning is spiritual and not human by any logical means.

I agree. What does that have to do with amillennialism? And why is all your emphasis put on his human nature and leaves out his divine nature? You have not mentioned that once. How does that figure into his reigning from heaven?

Because Amillennialism places Christ’s present reign entirely in heaven and understands it as a spiritual, non‑localized, non‑bodily kingship. That means the mode of his rule is not exercised through his human faculties (his human willing, judging, mediating, or governing) but through his divine sovereignty alone or some kind of spiritual means. Sure, amillennials believe that Christ’s humanity is affirmed as a fact of the incarnation, yet it plays no operative role in his present kingship. His human nature does not function as the instrument of his rule, after all, you teach that it is spiritual. This is why the question of human operation becomes central. If Christ’s human nature is not actively exercising these functions, then his present reign is structurally a divine‑only operation, which sidelines the very humanity that Scripture presents as the Second Adam and the Son of David.

The reason my earlier emphasis fell on the human nature is because the divine nature is not in dispute. Everyone agrees that Christ reigns with divine omnipotence, divine authority, and divine sovereignty. The real question is whether his human nature participates in that reign as the mode through which the Person of the Son rules. The divine nature is the eternal source of his authority, but a nature does not sit on a throne or fulfill the Adamic and Davidic vocations; only the Person acts, and he acts through natures.

When you tell me exactly what YOU mean by "human operation" I will be able to respond to that accordingly. The way I see it, if Jesus is reigning in his glorified human body from heaven, that is human operation and also divine operation as he did not lose his divine nature at the resurrection either. But perhaps you mean we need to see arms and legs moving and/or anything done by someone else at his decree is then not his human operation but the operation of the other one and therefore the other one is doing the reigning. Who knows.

I don't know how many times this must be articulated in this thread. But here is goes again,

When I speak of “human operation,” I’m not talking about visible limbs moving or Christ needing to perform physical gestures for his humanity to be operative. I’m talking about the Son acting through the faculties proper to his human nature. His human mind, human will, human judgment, and human mediatorial office. If Christ’s present reign is exercised only in a spiritual, non‑localized, heavenly mode, then his divine operation is fully active but his human operation is not functioning as the mode of his kingship. Yes, he reigns in a glorified human body from heaven, and that affirms the ontology of his humanity, but the question is whether his human nature is actually the instrument through which he rules now, or whether his present reign is spiritual in mode and his human operation awaits the age to come. That’s the distinction I’m trying to clarify, not denying his present reign, but distinguishing the mode of its operation.

Was it Christ's glorified human body that returned to the Father and is seated at his right hand (a position of authority)? Did he take his divine nature with him (I speak in human terms)? Why have you separated them and why the Modalist application?

Yes. Christ returned to the Father in his glorified human body and is now seated at the Father’s right hand in that same glorified humanity, and of course he did not leave his divine nature behind. Because it's the same divine nature that the Father and the Holy Spirit subsist. Also, the Person of the Son is indivisibly divine and human; but acknowledging that does not mean I am separating the natures or applying anything Modalistic.

 

[Binyawmene]

The incarnation is profoundly spiritual because the definition of spiritual regarding the incarnation is "of/by the Spirit". The incarnation is explicitly the work of the Spirit (Luke 1:35) "Spiritual" in the context of amil and the current reign of Christ from heaven does not mean "non-bodily". And a person cannot successfully or even reasonably redefine the meaning of a term to mean something other than the way the one using it, is defining it.

Not at all. What I’m pointing out that in amillennial usage, “spiritual reign” functionally operates as “non‑bodily,” even if that’s not what the term is intended to mean. That is the logical conclusion and the result. If Christ’s present reign is described as spiritual, heavenly, and non‑localized, and if his human faculties, the human willing, judging, mediating, and Davidic kingship are not the mode through which he exercises that reign, then regardless of intention the term ends up functioning as “non‑bodily” in practice. There is no way around it. That is the logical result, regardless of if you agree with it or not.

Since I’m analyzing the operational consequences of the framework in which the term is used. So, in context to what I am saying about “non‑bodily,” which doesn’t mean Christ lacks a body or is somehow disembodied in heaven. It means that his bodily, human faculties, human willing, judging, mediating, and Davidic kingship are not the mode through which he exercises his present reign. Amillennialism fully affirms that Christ is bodily in heaven, right? But the structure philosophical language of its eschatology places his current kingship in a spiritual, heavenly, non‑localized form that does not involve his human nature actively functioning as the instrument of his rule in the created, historical sphere. So “non‑bodily” refers not to the absence of Christ’s body, but to the absence of human‑mode operation of his human kingship.

 

[Josheb]

This might sound a little nasty, but that makes me think of a Docetic form eschatology. Instead of jumping to conclusions, it's better to ask the question: What do you mean by "spiritual" (Christ's current spiritual reign or spiritual reality of Christ's reign)?

The prefix "a-" simply means absent or without. An amoral person is a person absent or without morals, whereas an immoral person is a person acting contrary to morals. Therefore, the basic foundation of amillennialism is that there isn't an actual or literal millennium. That is why the "thousand years" is consider figurative (along with the fact the entire passage is rife with not literal content. As an amillennialist, I do not make distinctions between physical and spiritual like many do when it comes to eschatology. Jesus may be seated in heaven but everything he says and does has very real, tangible, physical effect here on earth. Therefore, the word "spiritual" is often misused. Care should be taken not to unwittingly assert a false dichotomy in which the physical and spiritual have no overlap.

 

[Arial]

Not at all. What I’m pointing out that in amillennial usage, “spiritual reign” functionally operates as “non‑bodily,” even if that’s not what the term is intended to mean. That is the logical conclusion and the result. If Christ’s present reign is described as spiritual, heavenly, and non‑localized, and if his human faculties, the human willing, judging, mediating, and Davidic kingship are not the mode through which he exercises that reign, then regardless of intention the term ends up functioning as “non‑bodily” in practice. There is no way around it. That is the logical result, regardless of if you agree with it or not.

Then it is you who is saying that the resurrected Christ is not in heaven in his glorified body, if you also say he is reigning in heaven, which you have said. There is no way around it. "Heavenly" is localized. And if he has a glorified body and his human faculties of willing, judging, mediating and Kingship, then he is exercising those in his Kingship. He is not functionally operating non-bodily in amil. You can't make the amil position mean what you want it to mean in order to maintain your literal 1000 year reign that exists in the millennium position you prefer. You can kid yourself is all you can do.

You could keep what you prefer without having to knock down the amil position to do so. Unless of course, you realize that if the claims you make against the amil view are proven to not be true, you realize you have nothing to say against it. Which puts your own view into question. It is simply disingenuous to go to all this trouble to tell amils what they believe and that "spiritual" means what you say it means no matter how they are using it. In the above post you have actually torn down your whole argument by contradicting several other things you have said.

It means that his bodily, human faculties, human willing, judging, mediating, and Davidic kingship are not the mode through which he exercises his present reign.

Whose bodily, human faculties, human willing, judging mediating is he using then? Did he put them in a drawer while he is in heaven and will take them out and put them back on when he dresses to return and preside over Israel in the temple (even though he is the Temple)? What is he reiging with in heaven iow?

As to his Davidic kingship. Is he the Son of David now or not. Is he King of kings and Lord of lords now or not? I really wish you would confront my arguments instead of just repeating what you think amil is.

 

[Arial]

Not at all.

Not at all what?

This is what you responded to with "not at all". Post #21

The incarnation is profoundly spiritual because the definition of spiritual regarding the incarnation is "of/by the Spirit". The incarnation is explicitly the work of the Spirit (Luke 1:35) "Spiritual" in the context of amil and the current reign of Christ from heaven does not mean "non-bodily". And a person cannot successfully or even reasonably redefine the meaning of a term to mean something other than the way the one using it, is defining it.

And I said that because you said this:

His kingship is therefore incarnational (not spiritual), even though the location of that reign is presently heavenly rather than earthly.

Address the content of the posts.

 

[Arial]

Christ doesn't receive divine authority in his divine nature. He eternally has it as God. So he receives authority in his human nature as man and the divine nature is the fountain of authority. That means the divine nature empowers the reign, but doesn't become the reign.

The person of the Son reigns according to both natures. They are not separable agents as you have expressed it. As though the human nature does the actual reigning, and the divine nature is background power source. It is not one nature doing one role and another doing another. T.he only way you can "support" your position against the amil position on Christ's reigning now in heaven as King is to narrow the mode of reign to one nature. And that is not orthodox.

Council of Chalcedon: "Christ is one person acting through two natures."

I see you want to change the topic of the thread and discuss Historic Premillennialism.

No, I absolutely do not. You are the one that said he was historic premil.

That means the mode of his rule is not exercised through his human faculties (his human willing, judging, mediating, or governing) but through his divine sovereignty alone or some kind of spiritual means

That is not orthodox. His natures are neither mixed together nor separated. They are distinct. "Or some kind of" shows a great deal of careful and reasonable thinking put into it before deciding that is what Christ is doing in heaven.

Because we see Christ’s kingship as the completion of Adam’s and David’s earthly vocations, not merely a spiritual rule from heaven.

Amil does not say that Christ will not come back and rule on the earth. How many times have I pointed out Rev 21?

Adam’s mandate is to rule, subdue, and cultivate the earth. Because Christ fulfills Adam’s vocation as the Second Adam.

That is man's mandate not just Adam. Christ did not come to fulfill Adam's vocation as the second Adam and you need to show Scripture that says that. The first Adam and the second Adam (Christ) are two federal heads. All sinned as their father Adam sinned. All in Christ through faith are counted as righteous as he is righteous. Jesus came to break the chains that hold us in bondage to sin and to conquer sin and death.

Because Christ fulfills Adam’s vocation as the Second Adam.

Is that truly why you think Christ came? To fulfill Adam's vocation? I am shocked at such a statement.

His kingship must be exercised in the same arena where Adam failed.

Does Scripture say that?

Likewise, the Davidic covenant promises a son of David who will sit on David’s throne in Zion, ruling Israel and the nations from a real geographic location. These covenants are not abstract or heavenly; they are genealogical, territorial, and political.

The are not abstract to be sure but how do you know the covenants are strictly genealogical, territorial, and political? The NT expands them into the big picture. But as I said, I am not really interested in discussing historic amil.

And also, because I simply refuse to spiritualize these promises or relocate them to heaven, insisting instead that Christ’s human kingship must be exercised in a human sphere.

Well that is the old go to. Amil spiritualizes everything. However, no one made any claim that the covenants and promises are relocated to heaven and Christ's human kingship will be exercised in a human sphere--the new heaven and the new earth. When heaven and the New Jerusalem come down. Amil does not deny that Jesus will reign bodily on earth. So, next argument?

 

[Binyawmene]

The prefix "a-" simply means absent or without. An amoral person is a person absent or without morals, whereas an immoral person is a person acting contrary to morals. Therefore, the basic foundation of amillennialism is that there isn't an actual or literal millennium. That is why the "thousand years" is consider figurative (along with the fact the entire passage is rife with not literal content. As an amillennialist, I do not make distinctions between physical and spiritual like many do when it comes to eschatology. Jesus may be seated in heaven but everything he says and does has very real, tangible, physical effect here on earth. Therefore, the word "spiritual" is often misused. Care should be taken not to unwittingly assert a false dichotomy in which the physical and spiritual have no overlap.

Absolutely. I agree that “spiritual” should not be used to deny physical effects or to create a false dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical. But that’s not the issue I’m raising. The question is not whether Christ’s heavenly reign has tangible effects on earth (it certainly does), but whether his human nature is the operative mode of that reign. Amillennialism often uses “spiritual” to describe a reign that is heavenly, non‑localized, and not exercised through Christ’s human, Davidic, territorial kingship, even while fully affirming that Christ is bodily present in heaven. The issue isn’t whether spiritual and physical overlap, but whether Christ’s present reign is exercised as the Son of David in human operation, or whether that awaits the age to come.

 

[Binyawmene]

Then it is you who is saying that the resurrected Christ is not in heaven in his glorified body, if you also say he is reigning in heaven, which you have said. There is no way around it.

When I say Christ’s present reign is described by amillennialism as “spiritual, heavenly, and non‑localized,” I am referring to the mode of his reign, not to heaven itself. Heaven is a real, locative realm where Christ is bodily present. But in amillennial theology, his reign is characterized as spiritual in the sense that it is not exercised through his human, Davidic, territorial kingship. And heavenly in the sense that it is not enacted within the created, historical sphere; and non‑localized in the sense that it is not tied to a specific geographic throne, people, or land. So, the terms describe how Christ reigns in the present age, not where he is. The “spiritual” label is about the mode of kingship, not his glorified body in heaven.

Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that Christ is reigning in his human operation? Yes or No.

 

[makesends]

These covenants are not abstract or heavenly; they are genealogical, territorial, and political. And also, because I simply refuse to spiritualize these promises or relocate them to heaven, insisting instead that Christ’s human kingship must be exercised in a human sphere.

Yet you say that his glorified humanity is in Heaven. If so, and ours, too, in the end, why would that not also be a "human sphere"? That is, after all, what we are made for, and humanity's completion.

 

[Josheb]

Absolutely. I agree that “spiritual” should not be used to deny physical effects or to create a false dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical. But that’s not the issue I’m raising. The question is not whether Christ’s heavenly reign has tangible effects on earth (it certainly does),

When Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world that should not be construed to say it has no existence or place on earth. The very first command God ever uttered was to be fruitful, multiply, subdue and rule over the earth. The Great Commission is just a variation on that command.

but whether his human nature is the operative mode of that reign.

Jesus didn't stop being physical when he ascended. His "human nature" does not exist apart from, nor in contradiction to his divine nature. Care should be taken to avoid a false dichotomy. Our human nature originates in the imago dei in which we were made. The difference between Jesus and us is he is God and he is sinless. We are neither. Jesus cannot not be fully God and fully human and, therefore his reign cannot not be an "operative mode" of his entire ontology.

The premise of a non-human-nature mode is curious given the fact Jesus is wearing clothes, riding a horse, has a variety of words written on him, and is sitting on a throne. How can he be physically ruling on the physical earth as a physical king if he's not physically human while physically here and if that physicality is the case, then how would he physically be ruling without his human nature. The resurrected Jesus has flesh and bone. He walked through walls and had a guy stick his hand inside the wounds to prove it .

Amillennialism often uses “spiritual” to describe a reign that is heavenly, non‑localized, and not exercised through Christ’s human, Davidic, territorial kingship, even while fully affirming that Christ is bodily present in heaven. The issue isn’t whether spiritual and physical overlap, but whether Christ’s present reign is exercised as the Son of David in human operation, or whether that awaits the age to come.

Yes. I know what amillennialists often do. The point of my post was to observe amillennialism is not monolithic and not all amils use the term "spiritual" identically. Dispies often criticize anyone who "spiritualizes" scripture, but their version of others' spiritualizing isn't the spiritualizing others do.

The spiritual and the physical are not always mutually exclusive conditions. What is never compatible with the spiritual is the sinful flesh, not all flesh in general. Jesus had flesh and he was decidedly spiritual, even in his incarnation and throughout his earthly life and ministry (the latter of which continues from a heavenly throne).

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

The Lord will reign over all creation until the LORD defeats all the Lord's enemies.

Everything that happens on earth is commanded from heaven. That is true of Psalm 110 (which is cited at least a half-dozen times in the New Testament) and the book of Revelation. Revelation does not explicitly state Jesus comes to earth until chapters 21 and 22. That is after the thousand years of chapter 20. In other words, that is post-millennial (after the millennium) ! The chief difference between commonly held amillennialism and postmillennialism is in regard to the belief in an increasingly victorious effect of the gospel. Dominionists think the gospel influence will fulfill the dominion mandate, and Reconstrctionists think that means establishing a Christian state, while classic amils are pessimistic about both and Idealists think it moot because the thousand years is a reference to cycles of good and evil occurring throughout human existence. They are all amillennial and all post-millennial in the technical meaning of the term. Any eschatology that does follow the chronology of chapters 20, 21, and 22 isn't abiding scripture .

And that's why it is best to speak of amillennialisms (plural) I don't fit neatly into any of the preconceived eschatological holes. A little hammering is needed .

 

[Arial]

But in amillennial theology, his reign is characterized as spiritual in the sense that it is not exercised through his human, Davidic, territorial kingship.

In the sense that it is not exercised through singular territorial kingship is the correct assessment. He exercises his kingship (a Davidic kingship according to the flesh) over the whole world with his divine and human natures.

And heavenly in the sense that it is not enacted within the created, historical sphere; and non‑localized in the sense that it is not tied to a specific geographic throne, people, or land.

It is enacted within the created. historical sphere, even though its seat is in heaven. The Book of Revelation consistently portrays Christ as reigning from the heavenly throne (Rev 4-5), while his rule is worked out across the whole course of redemptive history on earth. The effects of his kingship are fully historical and global, yet the reign itself is not tied to a localized, earthly throne.

Christ's present reign as seen in Rev demonstrates that the substance of the kingdom promise---the Messianic rule---is already being fulfilled within history without being tied to a geographically localized throne in Israel. Therefore, a future earthly millennial reign in Israelis not required to fulfill those promises, unless it can be shown that their fulfillment must preserve their original national and territorial form rather that their realized scope in Christ.

And he will return to dwell with us. The dwelling with us, his redeemed people of all nations, in a new and sinless creation is the goal for us, of redemption.

Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that Christ is reigning in his human operation? Yes or No.

Yes---according to his human and divine natures. One never leaves the other.

 

[Binyawmene]

In the sense that it is not exercised through singular territorial kingship is the correct assessment. He exercises his kingship (a Davidic kingship according to the flesh) over the whole world with his divine and human natures.

If you affirm that Christ exercises a Davidic kingship “according to the flesh,” then by definition of Amillennialism position that kingship cannot be non‑territorial. Because Davidic kingship is inherently tied to a throne, a people, and a land. To call it “Davidic kingship” while removing the territorial dimensions is to retain the label while emptying it of its biblical content.

It is enacted within the created. historical sphere, even though its seat is in heaven. The Book of Revelation consistently portrays Christ as reigning from the heavenly throne (Rev 4-5), while his rule is worked out across the whole course of redemptive history on earth. The effects of his kingship are fully historical and global, yet the reign itself is not tied to a localized, earthly throne.

It would appear to me that you are combining two distinct biblical thrones into one and therefore misidentified the nature of Christ’s present reign. Revelation does portray Christ reigning from heaven, but it explicitly identifies that throne as the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21), not his own Davidic throne, which Scripture consistently locates on earth in Zion and ties to the house of Jacob (2 Sam 7:12–13, 2 Sam 5:7; Ps 2:6, Psalm 89:3-4, 29, 36, Rom 1:3, Luke 1:32–33). The fact that Christ’s heavenly reign has historical effects does not transform it into the Davidic reign, because the Davidic throne is never relocated to heaven and is never described as non‑localized or spiritualized. Revelation 11 announces the future transfer of the world’s kingdom to Christ, and Revelation 19–20 narrates that transfer after his return. Nowhere does Revelation depict Christ exercising his Davidic kingship before his second coming. It appears to me that you have confused the location of Christ’s present heavenly authority with the covenantal identity of his promised earthly throne, and the distinction between the two is precisely what the biblical text insists upon.

Christ's present reign as seen in Rev demonstrates that the substance of the kingdom promise---the Messianic rule---is already being fulfilled within history without being tied to a geographically localized throne in Israel. Therefore, a future earthly millennial reign in Israelis not required to fulfill those promises, unless it can be shown that their fulfillment must preserve their original national and territorial form rather that their realized scope in Christ.

The black and bold in the above quote affirms "what appears to me" is exactly what you are suggesting. You are under the assumption that his present reign is his Davidic Kingship.
The Davidic kingship cannot be considered fulfilled until Christ sits on his own throne, not his Father’s throne, and reigns from Zion as Scripture repeatedly promises. Besides, Christ exercises his Davidic kingship “over the whole world” without a localized throne misunderstands the very thing that makes the Davidic kingship Davidic. A kingship “according to the flesh” requires a human sphere of operation, a territorial throne, and a covenant‑defined people, none of which Scripture ever relocates to heaven or universalizes into an abstract, non‑localized rule. The present heavenly reign is real, but it is not the Davidic reign; the Davidic throne is Christ’s own throne, and Revelation explicitly says He is not yet seated on it (Rev 3:21).

And he will return to dwell with us. The dwelling with us, his redeemed people of all nations, in a new and sinless creation is the goal for us, of redemption.

It is absolutely true that Christ will return to dwell with his redeemed people in a new and sinless creation, but that future reality does not replace or cancel the promised Davidic reign. Scripture presents two phases of Christ’s eschatological presence: First, his Davidic reign on earth after his return (Ps 2; Ps 110; Jer 33; Luke 1:32–33; Rev 19–20), and then his dwelling with us in the new creation (Rev 21:3). The mistake in the statement is assuming that the final state is the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, when the covenant itself promises a human, territorial, throne‑centered kingship exercised “according to the flesh” over Israel and the nations, something Revelation places before the new creation, not after it. Christ dwelling with his people forever is the goal of redemption, but it is not the same thing as the Davidic kingship. The Davidic throne is part of the historical administration that leads to the final state, not the final state itself. The future new‑creation dwelling does not eliminate the earthly Davidic reign.

Yes---according to his human and divine natures. One never leaves the other.

Davidic kingship is "according to the flesh." But it's good to know that you agree with Christ reigns according to the human operation.

 

[Arial]

If you affirm that Christ exercises a Davidic kingship “according to the flesh,” then by definition of Amillennialism position that kingship cannot be non‑territorial. Because Davidic kingship is inherently tied to a throne, a people, and a land. To call it “Davidic kingship” while removing the territorial dimensions is to retain the label while emptying it of its biblical content.

You have yet to demonstrate that the eternal kingship of a son of David on the throne is inherently tied to a throne, a people (as in an ethnic people), and a land, in its fulfilment in Christ. Of course, when the Israelites in the OT heard that prophecy they would take it that way. They could not see into the future. Could not see beyond where they were. We do know because that Son has now come, did the work of redemption and returned to heaven (which is the term used to describe the dwelling place off God). There is no need to assume the same interpretation that the Jews in Jesus' day did. They were wrong just as they were very wrong about many of their interpretations---even of the Law. If you can demonstrate without assumptions imposed into Scripture that it is absolutely necessary for the kingship of Jesus to be as you say, then I will maybe rethink my position.

There is indication that David himself did know for he is the one who said, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.'"

Revelation does portray Christ reigning from heaven, but it explicitly identifies that throne as the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21), not his own Davidic throne, which Scripture consistently locates on earth in Zion and ties to the house of Jacob (2 Sam 7:12–13, 2 Sam 5:7; Ps 2:6, Psalm 89:3-4, 29, 36, Rom 1:3, Luke 1:32–33).

A bit literalistic in your interpretation. Your way has all believers sitting on one throne with Jesus when he returns to Israel for a thousand years.

Consider that "throne" is an expression of the place of power and authority. So, it is symbolic (representative) but it it not just symbolic. The imagery is symbolic, but the reality is concrete and real. Bottom line, neither that scripture nor the others demonstrate your position. And nowhere in that passage in Rev 3 is a political kingdom mentioned. The OT references pertain to the OC and expand into the NC in Christ. And in Rom 1:3 "according to the flesh" Paul is not referring to a fleshly political reign. He is referring to the fact that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, but heir according to the custom of adoption.

I will have to come back to this post.

 

[Josheb]

Because Davidic kingship is inherently tied to a throne, a people, and a land. To call it “Davidic kingship” while removing the territorial dimensions is to retain the label while emptying it of its biblical content.



It would appear to me that you are combining two distinct biblical thrones into one and therefore misidentified the nature of Christ’s present reign. Revelation does portray Christ reigning from heaven, but it explicitly identifies that throne as the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21), not his own Davidic throne, which Scripture consistently locates on earth in Zion and ties to the house of Jacob (2 Sam 7:12–13, 2 Sam 5:7; Ps 2:6, Psalm 89:3-4, 29, 36, Rom 1:3, Luke 1:32–33). The fact that Christ’s heavenly reign has historical effects does not transform it into the Davidic reign, because the Davidic throne is never relocated to heaven and is never described as non‑localized or spiritualized.

That is true only in the mindset of the modern futurist. All of that is incorrect. The verse that explains ALL the prophecies about a "Davidic throne" is Acts 2:30.

Acts 2:29-31
29Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne. 31he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to the grave, nor did his flesh suffer decay.


God's promise to seat one of David's descendants on his throne was NEVER about a physical chair. Never. Jews understood it that way, but they were mired in disobedience and its effects. Their theology was corrupt. When Christians look back to the Old Testament style kingship, they are Judaizing Christianity. The problem starts in 1 Samuel 8. That is where we find the Jews rejecting God in favor of an earthly, fleshly king. That is where we find God unequivocally stating He does not want Israel to have a king other than God. The whole chapter should be read, but here is the critical statement by God summarizing the problem.

1 Samuel 8:7-8
7The 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. 8Like 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.

In other words, God never wanted Israel to have a monarch. Yes, God conceded the matter and, yes, God did later work through the monarchy and the symbolism thereof but that does not change the fact He never wanted an earthly monarchy, He took the monarchy to be a willful display of rebellion, viewed the matter idolatrous and injurious to His people. Not a single king of Israel was righteous. That includes David. David was an adulterer and a murder. If he hadn't been monergistically chosen by God and placed his faith in God's anointed one he'd have never been worth a mention.

God never wanted a king for Israel, other than Himself. Fast forward to 2 Samuel 7. There we find God telling David he can't build God's temple because he's a murderer (a man with blood on his hands). We find God telling David three men will build His temple. One of the men will be God Himself. One of the men will be considered by God to be a son of God's. The other man would be a descendant of David, and he would be a man of peace and to him the throne would be everlasting. God then named his next son Peace (Solomon means peace), even though God told David to name the boy Jedidiah. Yes, many people in scripture have two names but Jedidiah is never given a second name by God. His other name comes from the disobedient murderous monarch of a monarchy God never wanted. David naming his son Solomon was another uncited act of disobedience, a rejection of what God had said. Besides, although this was not disclosed in the Old Testament reason tells us God does not dwell in houses built by human hands. This is parallel to thinking a building could be tall enough to reach heaven. David did not understand the temple of God is God's people. No Jew in David's day would have remotely considered the possibility the Almighty God would come down to earth and live as a human, much less a human who would be murdered (as David had done to Uriah) while innocent and then come back from the grave. Such a thing was incomprehensible and would remain so if it hadn't been explained to us in the New Testament.

2 Samuel 7:11-17
11The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. 12When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever. 17In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

• It is a house, not a temple, and the house, the building of the house, and the house builder are directly correlated to the throne.
• Verse 11 states it is God who would build the house
• Verse 12 tells us it is the descendant's kingdom, not David's.
• Verse 13 states it is the descendant who will build the house.
• Verse 14 states that descendant will be like a son to God. A son of God would be the house builder.

Verse 16 is the critical verse. Verse 16 is the reference for Acts 2:30!!! A house, a kingdom, and a throne will stand forever.

• When God promised to seat one of David's descendants on the throne God spoke of the resurrection (not a gold clad wooden chair.)
• God does not dwell in houses made by human hands.
• The temple of God - the temple He build, His son built, and the descendant of David built - the people of God who have placed their faith in the resurrected Son.

John 2:20-22
20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?


The modern futurist view of the throne dismisses all of this as spiritualization. Spiritualization or not it i s the plainly read word of God.

Nowhere does Revelation depict Christ exercising his Davidic kingship before his second coming.

ROTFLMBO!!!!

First, the Bible never uses the phrase "Davidic kingship." That's a man-made label for a man-made concept. Second, Sure it does! The entire book of Revelation is about Jesus exercising his "Davidic" kingship! Third, logically, if Jesus is God, then there has never been a single moment anywhere in creatin when Jesus was not also king. It is logically impossible to have a God who is not also a King. Hence the god-forsaking problem of 1 Samuel 8! Fourth, there is no warrant for limiting the matter solely to the book of Revelation. The attempt is a red herring. The fact is the rest of the New Testament repeatedly states all power and authority is Christ's, and it makes that clear in multiple places, in multiple wordings, in multiple contexts. It leaves no place whatsoever for Jesus not to be the King of all creation NOW. Fifth, if we're going to limit the sources to only the book of Revelation then nowhere does Revelation state Jesus physically comes to earth until chapters 21 and 22, which is after the millennium. Sixth, there is a gapping inconsistency within modern futurism when it says Jesus is now acting in his priestly role but not his kingly one. That's sheer nonsense. It's a blatant false dichotomy. Jesus can be both and simultaneously both and if he can exercise his priestly role over the earth now, then he can also exercise his kingly role now. If he is not exercising his kingship then there is no reason for him to come to earth.

Scripture covers that last point.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

The Lord will sit at the LORD's right hand until the LORD makes a footstool of the Lord's enemies. As I believe I noted previously, this verse is quoted or otherwise referenced at least a half-dozen times in the NT. This verse is repeatedly used to explain OT prophecy and what would happen eschatologically. Everything in Psalm 110 is commanded from the throne in heaven. Jesus is stated to be seated in heaven, remaining there until his enemies are defeated and everything that happens on earth is commanded from while Jesus remains there, not here on earth. The exact same thing happens in Revelation. Everything that happens in Revelation is commanded from the throne in heaven (or from the back of a white horse that is seen in heaven, not on earth. Everything that happens in the heavens and on earth is commanded from heaven. Jesus is not stated to be on earth anywhere in Revelation until chapters 21 and 22.

So if you're going to talk about what Revelation does not say, pay attention to the fact it never states Jesus is physically on earth until after the millennium has come and gone.

Stop Judaizing Christian eschatology. Christians are not Jews and Judaism has a bad eschatology.

 

[JesusFan]

That is true only in the mindset of the modern futurist. All of that is incorrect. The verse that explains ALL the prophecies about a "Davidic throne" is Acts 2:30.

Acts 2:29-31
29Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne. 31he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to the grave, nor did his flesh suffer decay.


God's promise to seat one of David's descendants on his throne was NEVER about a physical chair. Never. Jews understood it that way, but they were mired in disobedience and its effects. Their theology was corrupt. When Christians look back to the Old Testament style kingship, they are Judaizing Christianity. The problem starts in 1 Samuel 8. That is where we find the Jews rejecting God in favor of an earthly, fleshly king. That is where we find God unequivocally stating He does not want Israel to have a king other than God. The whole chapter should be read, but here is the critical statement by God summarizing the problem.

1 Samuel 8:7-8
7The 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. 8Like 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.

In other words, God never wanted Israel to have a monarch. Yes, God conceded the matter and, yes, God did later work through the monarchy and the symbolism thereof but that does not change the fact He never wanted an earthly monarchy, He took the monarchy to be a willful display of rebellion, viewed the matter idolatrous and injurious to His people. Not a single king of Israel was righteous. That includes David. David was an adulterer and a murder. If he hadn't been monergistically chosen by God and placed his faith in God's anointed one he'd have never been worth a mention.

God never wanted a king for Israel, other than Himself. Fast forward to 2 Samuel 7. There we find God telling David he can't build God's temple because he's a murderer (a man with blood on his hands). We find God telling David three men will build His temple. One of the men will be God Himself. One of the men will be considered by God to be a son of God's. The other man would be a descendant of David, and he would be a man of peace and to him the throne would be everlasting. God then named his next son Peace (Solomon means peace), even though God told David to name the boy Jedidiah. Yes, many people in scripture have two names but Jedidiah is never given a second name by God. His other name comes from the disobedient murderous monarch of a monarchy God never wanted. David naming his son Solomon was another uncited act of disobedience, a rejection of what God had said. Besides, although this was not disclosed in the Old Testament reason tells us God does not dwell in houses built by human hands. This is parallel to thinking a building could be tall enough to reach heaven. David did not understand the temple of God is God's people. No Jew in David's day would have remotely considered the possibility the Almighty God would come down to earth and live as a human, much less a human who would be murdered (as David had done to Uriah) while innocent and then come back from the grave. Such a thing was incomprehensible and would remain so if it hadn't been explained to us in the New Testament.

2 Samuel 7:11-17
11The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. 12When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever. 17In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

• It is a house, not a temple, and the house, the building of the house, and the house builder are directly correlated to the throne.
• Verse 11 states it is God who would build the house
• Verse 12 tells us it is the descendant's kingdom, not David's.
• Verse 13 states it is the descendant who will build the house.
• Verse 14 states that descendant will be like a son to God. A son of God would be the house builder.

Verse 16 is the critical verse. Verse 16 is the reference for Acts 2:30!!! A house, a kingdom, and a throne will stand forever.

• When God promised to seat one of David's descendants on the throne God spoke of the resurrection (not a gold clad wooden chair.)
• God does not dwell in houses made by human hands.
• The temple of God - the temple He build, His son built, and the descendant of David built - the people of God who have placed their faith in the resurrected Son.

John 2:20-22
20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?


The modern futurist view of the throne dismisses all of this as spiritualization. Spiritualization or not it i s the plainly read word of God.

ROTFLMBO!!!!

First, the Bible never uses the phrase "Davidic kingship." That's a man-made label for a man-made concept. Second, Sure it does! The entire book of Revelation is about Jesus exercising his "Davidic" kingship! Third, logically, if Jesus is God, then there has never been a single moment anywhere in creatin when Jesus was not also king. It is logically impossible to have a God who is not also a King. Hence the god-forsaking problem of 1 Samuel 8! Fourth, there is no warrant for limiting the matter solely to the book of Revelation. The attempt is a red herring. The fact is the rest of the New Testament repeatedly states all power and authority is Christ's, and it makes that clear in multiple places, in multiple wordings, in multiple contexts. It leaves no place whatsoever for Jesus not to be the King of all creation NOW. Fifth, if we're going to limit the sources to only the book of Revelation then nowhere does Revelation state Jesus physically comes to earth until chapters 21 and 22, which is after the millennium. Sixth, there is a gapping inconsistency within modern futurism when it says Jesus is now acting in his priestly role but not his kingly one. That's sheer nonsense. It's a blatant false dichotomy. Jesus can be both and simultaneously both and if he can exercise his priestly role over the earth now, then he can also exercise his kingly role now. If he is not exercising his kingship then there is no reason for him to come to earth.

Scripture covers that last point.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

The Lord will sit at the LORD's right hand until the LORD makes a footstool of the Lord's enemies. As I believe I noted previously, this verse is quoted or otherwise referenced at least a half-dozen times in the NT. This verse is repeatedly used to explain OT prophecy and what would happen eschatologically. Everything in Psalm 110 is commanded from the throne in heaven. Jesus is stated to be seated in heaven, remaining there until his enemies are defeated and everything that happens on earth is commanded from while Jesus remains there, not here on earth. The exact same thing happens in Revelation. Everything that happens in Revelation is commanded from the throne in heaven (or from the back of a white horse that is seen in heaven, not on earth. Everything that happens in the heavens and on earth is commanded from heaven. Jesus is not stated to be on earth anywhere in Revelation until chapters 21 and 22.

So if you're going to talk about what Revelation does not say, pay attention to the fact it never states Jesus is physically on earth until after the millennium has come and gone.

Stop Judaizing Christian eschatology. Christians are not Jews and Judaism has a bad eschatology.

he comes back at Armageddon and his very appearance slays the Antichrist, the Lawless one of Satan though