Questions for Amillennialism

[Arial]

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.

It appears to me that you have confused the Davidic kingdom with the kingdom of God. You have confused the location with the covenantal identity.

As to the bold: This is asserted and depends on an unproven premise. that the Davidic kingship must be earthly, political, and localized in Jerusalem. That is the point under dispute, not a given. It artificially separates "heavenly reign" from "Davidic reign" Acts 2:30-36 on the other hand, explicitly ties God's promise to seat a son of David on the throne to Christ's resurrection and exaltation.

It mishandles Revelation genre (apocalyptic symbolism). Rev 11:115 is not merely future transfer it is a proleptic declaration. Just s Rev often announces victory before depicting it. The book contains recapitulation not strict sequence. Ie. Rev 12 and 20 where the same reign is shown from different angles. Your argument is weak as an objective exegetical argument.

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.

There are not two separate pieces of furniture. One shared throne.

"Zion". Heb 12:22-24

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

1 Peter 2:6 applies Zion language to Christ and the church.

The NT interprets Zion as heavenly not merely earthly.

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.

When Paul said Jesus was the Son of David according to the flesh he was not referring to his kingship but his biology. He was not Joseph's biological son but the firstborn son according to Jewish custom in adoption. You know that I am quite sure which means you intentionally misapply it for the sake of your argument.

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.

You really are required to prove that to be the case instead of simply a premil assumption. Ample evidence has been given to show that it is not the case.

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

That is the third time you have mis handled that scripture in that same way.

 

[Josheb]

The Revelation shows Jesus returning in the End times, or did that already happen, or is metaphor or?

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

 

[atpollard]

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

Revelation 19:11-21 is one place where it describes Jesus returning.

Rev 19:11-21 [NASB]
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it [is] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes [are] a flame of fire, and on His head [are] many crowns; and He has a name written [on Him] which no one knows except Himself. 13 [He is] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white [and] clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great feast of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, both free and slaves, and small and great."

19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse, and against His army. 20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire, which burns with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

 

[Binyawmene]

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.

The problem with your claim is that the New Testament never redefines the Davidic throne. Instead, it reaffirms the original covenantal meaning after Christ’s resurrection. Gabriel explicitly says Jesus will sit on “the throne of his father David” and reign over “the house of Jacob forever” (Luke 1:32–33), which preserves the earthly, ethnic, territorial categories of (2 Samuel 7:12–16 and Psalms 89:3–4, 29–37). After forty days of resurrection teaching, the apostles still expect the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6), and Jesus does not correct their understanding of the kingdom, only their knowledge of its timing. But catch this, Arial. But Peter then locates the fulfillment of the Davidic promises in the future “restoration of all things” spoken by the prophets (Acts 3:19–21), which includes land, people, and throne. And Jesus himself distinguishes between “My Father’s throne” (where he sits now) and “My throne” (the Davidic throne he will sit on later) in Revelations 3:21.

Here is my challenge to you. If you want to overturn the earthly, territorial, Davidic throne, you must produce:

• a text where God redefines the throne
• a text where the New Testament spiritualizes the land
• a text where “house of Jacob” becomes “the church”
• a text where “Zion” becomes “heaven”
• a text where “David’s throne” becomes “the Father’s throne”

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.'"

David distinguishes between the Father’s throne (where Christ sits temporarily, “until”) and Christ’s own throne, which the New Testament explicitly identifies as David’s throne (Luke 1:32–33). Also, Psalm 110 describes Christ’s present session at the Father’s right hand, not the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, because Jesus himself later contrasts the two thrones: “I sat down with My Father on His throne… and I will grant him to sit with Me on My throne” (Rev 3:21). Peter also affirms that Psalm 110 refers to Christ’s current heavenly position (Acts 2:34–35), while the future fulfillment of the Davidic promises awaits the “restoration of all things” spoken by the prophets (Acts 3:19–21). So, Psalm 110 shows David foresaw Christ’s temporary heavenly session (not the redefinition of the Davidic throne) and the New Testament keeps the categories distinct.

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.

The New Testament itself distinguishes between Christ’s throne and the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21), so affirming a future Davidic throne does not mean all believers sit on one chair in Jerusalem for a thousand years. Scripture teaches that believers reign with Christ (2 Timothy 2:12; Revelations 20:4–6), not that they all occupy his throne; sharing in his rule is not the same as sharing his seat. The Davidic throne is an office, not a piece of furniture, and the kingdom is a realm, not a single chair. When Christ returns, he reigns as the Son of David over the nations (Psalms 2:6–9; Luke 1:32–33), while his people reign with him in delegated authority just as Scripture consistently portrays. So, the problem isn’t literalism; it’s a distinct biblical category.

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.

Saying “throne” is merely symbolic misses the point. Scripture distinguishes between symbolic imagery and covenantal offices. And the Davidic throne is defined by God as a real, dynastic, territorial kingship (2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalms 89:3–4, 29–37). Revelation 3:21 does not need to mention “politics” to make the distinction clear: Jesus sits now on his Father’s throne, but promises a future reign on His own throne, which the New Testament explicitly identifies as David’s throne (Luke 1:32–33). That is not symbolism; it is covenantal specificity. And Romans 1:3 does not say “according to the flesh” to deny a Davidic kingship. It affirms that Jesus is the legitimate, genealogical heir to David’s line, which is precisely why the New Testament ties his kingship to his humanity (Acts 2:30–31).

 

[Binyawmene]

It appears to me that you have confused the Davidic kingdom with the kingdom of God. You have confused the location with the covenantal identity.

Not at all. The Scriptures consistently distinguishes them. The kingdom of God is God’s universal, eternal rule (Psalms 103:19; Daniel 4:34), while the Davidic kingdom is a covenantal, dynastic, earthly reign promised to a human son of David over the house of Jacob from David’s throne in Zion (2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalms 89:3–4, 29–37; Luke 1:32–33). The New Testament preserves "not merges" these categories. Christ now reigns from the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21a), which is the kingdom of God, but will later reign from his own throne (Rev 3:21b), which is the Davidic throne. That is not confusing location and covenantal identity; it is honoring the distinctions the Bible itself makes.

As to the bold: This is asserted and depends on an unproven premise. that the Davidic kingship must be earthly, political, and localized in Jerusalem. That is the point under dispute, not a given. It artificially separates "heavenly reign" from "Davidic reign" Acts 2:30-36 on the other hand, explicitly ties God's promise to seat a son of David on the throne to Christ's resurrection and exaltation.

Except, Acts 2 does not do what you claim. Because Peter in Acts 2:30–36 is not saying Jesus is now seated on David’s throne; he says God raised and exalted him to His right hand (Ps 110:1), which is the Father’s throne, not David’s. Peter explicitly quotes Psalm 110 to show that David foresaw Christ’s heavenly session, not the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. The New Testament keeps these thrones distinct: Jesus sits now on the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21a), but will later sit on his own throne, the Davidic throne (Rev 3:21b; Luke 1:32–33). Nothing in Acts 2 relocates David’s throne to heaven; it simply affirms that the risen Christ is awaiting the time when his enemies are made his footstool—the “until” of Psalm 110 that precedes his Davidic reign. So, the premise that the Davidic throne is fulfilled in heaven is not demonstrated by Acts 2; it is imported into it.

"Zion". Heb 12:22-24

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

1 Peter 2:6 applies Zion language to Christ and the church.

The NT interprets Zion as heavenly not merely earthly.

False interpretation. Hebrews 12 and 1 Peter 2 do not redefine “Zion” by replacing the earthly Zion with a heavenly one. They simply show that Zion has both a heavenly dimension (the dwelling of God) and an earthly, covenantal location promised to the Son of David. The New Testament regularly applies Old Testament imagery to the church without canceling the original referent just as believers are called “Abraham’s offspring” (Galatians 3:29) without eliminating ethnic Israel, and the church is called a “temple” (1 Corinthians 3:16) without abolishing the future temple imagery of Ezekiel 40–48. Hebrews 12 describes access to the heavenly Jerusalem, not the relocation of David’s throne, and 1 Peter 2 applies Zion‑stone imagery to Christ and his people, not the geography of the Davidic kingdom. The New Testament never says the earthly Zion is obsolete; instead, it reaffirms that Christ will reign from Zion over the nations (Psalms 2:6–9), and Gabriel explicitly ties his kingship to David’s throne and the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32–33). So, the heavenly Zion supplements the earthly one. It does not replace the covenantal promises tied to it.

When Paul said Jesus was the Son of David according to the flesh he was not referring to his kingship but his biology. He was not Joseph's biological son but the firstborn son according to Jewish custom in adoption. You know that I am quite sure which means you intentionally misapply it for the sake of your argument.

You really are required to prove that to be the case instead of simply a premil assumption. Ample evidence has been given to show that it is not the case.

That is the third time you have mis handled that scripture in that same way.

Paul also uses it to mark genealogical, covenantal descent (Romans 9:3–5), which is precisely why Christ’s Davidic lineage matters. The New Testament repeatedly connects Jesus’ kingship to his Davidic identity (Luke 1:32–33; Revelations 22:16), not merely to his biology

And yet, Jeremiah 33 affirms the Davidic promises by explicitly declaring that David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel (Jer 33:17), grounding this covenant in the unbreakable regularity of day and night (vv. 20–21), and promising the multiplication and future restoration of David’s line alongside the Levitical priesthood (vv. 22, 24–26). The passage insists that God has not rejected Israel or David’s family and ties the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant to a real, earthly throne over a restored nation, not a spiritualized or heavenly reinterpretation. Which Jeremiah 33 reaffirms the literal, dynastic, territorial nature of the Davidic kingship and guarantees its future fulfillment in history.

 

[Arial]

Not at all. The Scriptures consistently distinguishes them. The kingdom of God is God’s universal, eternal rule (Psalms 103:19; Daniel 4:34), while the Davidic kingdom is a covenantal, dynastic, earthly reign promised to a human son of David over the house of Jacob from David’s throne in Zion (2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalms 89:3–4, 29–37; Luke 1:32–33). The New Testament preserves "not merges" these categories. Christ now reigns from the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21a), which is the kingdom of God, but will later reign from his own throne (Rev 3:21b), which is the Davidic throne. That is not confusing location and covenantal identity; it is honoring the distinctions the Bible itself makes.

Jesus is God. There is not one throne for the Father and another for the Son. You constantly violate the hypostatic union. And until you can demonstrate your assertion that the fulfilled Davidic kingdom must be an earthly human reign, you are just restating your assumed interpretation. And until you can do that there is nothing more to be said. You do not confront the ways in which I have demonstrated my position. You ignore them and repeat your own as though there is no other possibility.

The OC was made obsolete, not preserved when Christ arrived and inaugurated the NC. Why is that? Why is it new? Because the NT expands on the old bringing forth the realities that were typological and progressive in the old. In Christ! Not in geo/political/ethnic Israel! God has always reigned over all his creation and Christ was right there with him. The NT does not "merge" the two categories---it moves redemption forward.

Go back and read what I said earlier about Rev 3:21. You have that passage saying God is on one chair, Jesus is on another chair, and all the saints are on that chair with him. Use your head. And then you carry that--- "the Father's throne and Jesus' own throne" into your latest argument as though it validated your argument.

Except, Acts 2 does not do what you claim. Because Peter in Acts 2:30–36 is not saying Jesus is now seated on David’s throne; he says God raised and exalted him to His right hand (Ps 110:1), which is the Father’s throne, not David’s. Peter explicitly quotes Psalm 110 to show that David foresaw Christ’s heavenly session, not the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. The New Testament keeps these thrones distinct: Jesus sits now on the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21a), but will later sit on his own throne, the Davidic throne (Rev 3:21b; Luke 1:32–33). Nothing in Acts 2 relocates David’s throne to heaven; it simply affirms that the risen Christ is awaiting the time when his enemies are made his footstool—the “until” of Psalm 110 that precedes his Davidic reign.

Violation of the hypostatic union. Poor exegetical interpretive position. Weak in handling the word of God consistently throughout Scripture. Focus on a tiny dot on planet earth. Wouldn't it be a demotion for Christ to rule and reign and King from the place where God dwells, to being the King of Israel, limited by an actual throne and an actual geographic location? It would also be an insult to preside over bloody animal sacrifices. (I don't know if you believe that theory that exists in dispensational remil or not. But plenty do.)

So, the premise that the Davidic throne is fulfilled in heaven is not demonstrated by Acts 2; it is imported into it.

The only way it is not demonstrated in that passage is if someone already determined that the only way for the promise made to David to be fulfilled by Jesus is if he is visibly present as King in Jerusalem. But so far, no one has shown that is true. It is always assumed or presupposed into Scripture and everything to the contrary in Scripture is altered. I am going to respond to these last two posts and unless you put forth the effort to actually prove your supposition I am done. The repetition is getting beyond tiresome.

False interpretation. Hebrews 12 and 1 Peter 2 do not redefine “Zion” by replacing the earthly Zion with a heavenly one. They simply show that Zion has both a heavenly dimension (the dwelling of God) and an earthly, covenantal location promised to the Son of David. The New Testament regularly applies Old Testament imagery to the church without canceling the original referent just as believers are called “Abraham’s offspring” (Galatians 3:29) without eliminating ethnic Israel, and the church is called a “temple” (1 Corinthians 3:16) without abolishing the future temple imagery of Ezekiel 40–48. Hebrews 12 describes access to the heavenly Jerusalem, not the relocation of David’s throne, and 1 Peter 2 applies Zion‑stone imagery to Christ and his people, not the geography of the Davidic kingdom. The New Testament never says the earthly Zion is obsolete; instead, it reaffirms that Christ will reign from Zion over the nations (Psalms 2:6–9), and Gabriel explicitly ties his kingship to David’s throne and the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32–33). So, the heavenly Zion supplements the earthly one. It does not replace the covenantal promises tied to it.

Why is Heb 12 not literal but everything else is? Everything in Israel had a heavenly dimension starting with the tabernacle and the ark. They are TYPES of the things where God dwells. Everything the priest wore was symbolic. The numbers (7 days/years, 12 tribes, 12 apostles) were literal on earth and at the same time symbolic.

And when you can comprehend what simple little me says instead of misinterpreting/misstating it, then I might some consideration that you are able to do the same with Scripture. I never suggested that Heb 12 and 1 Peter 2 redefine "Zion". It is not about redefining. It is about seeing the whole big picture---the story of Redemption---Christ's story, through the historical account.

 

[Arial]

The problem with your claim is that the New Testament never redefines the Davidic throne.

I never said it redefines the Davidic throne, so I guess it is not my problem. It shows its fullness. Those who have grown so adept at twisting and using sleight of hand with the word of God in order to defend a position they are unable to prove, almost always do the same thing with the words of a debate opponent.

I might read the rest of your post tomorrow and deal with it---or not. The "conversation" has gone on long enough as far as I am concerned. Tonight, I have had enough.

 

[Josheb]

Revelation 19:11-21 is one place where it describes Jesus returning.

Rev 19:11-21 [NASB]
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it [is] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes [are] a flame of fire, and on His head [are] many crowns; and He has a name written [on Him] which no one knows except Himself. 13 [He is] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white [and] clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great feast of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, both free and slaves, and small and great."

19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse, and against His army. 20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire, which burns with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

Please do not simply quote a verse. Anyone can do that. Show me where that passage specifically and explicitly states Jesus has left heaven and is returning to the earth.

Let me show you.

Revelation 19:11-15
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and wages war. 12His eyes are a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name written on him which no one knows except himself. 13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following him on white horses. 15From his mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it he may strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; and he treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.


Notice John states the horse is being ridden in heaven, not on the earth. The armies are in heaven, not on the earth.

Modern futurists read this passage to imply Jesus leaving but that is not actually what the text states. What it explicitly states is that John is looking into heaven, not onto the earth. Futurists read the text inferentially, not as written. Nowhere in Revelation 19 does the text ever actually state Jesus has left heaven and physically come to earth.

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

Revelation 19:11-21 is one place where it describes Jesus returning.

Rev. 19 states otherwise. I asked @JesusFan that question and I asked @JesusFan that question based on something @JesusFan posted. You've attempted to answer the question but failed. Rev. 19 does not actually state Jesus has left heaven and is returning to earth. In point of fact, Revelation does not state Jesus comes to earth until chapters 21 and 22. Not before then. Chapters 21 and 22 take place after the thousand years of Chapter 20.

Revelation 21:1-4, 22-23
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." ........... 22I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

The Lamb (Jesus) is the temple in the New Jerusalem that comes down from God out of heaven. That is where the book of Revelation actually, factually, specifically, explicitly states Jesus has left heaven. Everything in the entire book of Revelation is commanded from the throne in heaven (or from horseback while riding in heaven). Everything that happens in the heavens and on the earth is commanded from heaven. The book of Revelation repeatedly states the Lamb is in heaven, the Lamb is in heaven, the Lamb is in heaven, and nowhere does it state he's left until chapter 21.

Revelation 19:11-21 is one place where it describes Jesus returning.

Read it again more carefully. Read what is actually stated, not what some eschatological doctrine says the passage means. There's no report he came to earth.

So, @JesusFan, learn from this exchange. You have stated, "The Revelation shows Jesus returning in the End times, or did that already happen, or is metaphor or?" Everyone here agrees the revelation of Revelation shows Jesus returning in the End Times. We do not all agree where the revelation of Revelation states that fact.

It is not in Revelation 19.

The Revelation shows Jesus returning in the End times, or did that already happen, or is metaphor or?

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

Cite the verse and we can examine together to see whether or not it happened already and/or whether it is a metaphor or not. We'll make sure not to conflate the two or turn them into a false dichotomy, too.

 

[TMSO]

Does Scripture say his reign must be bodily---as in visible---and localized in order for him to be reigning? No. It explicitly says he is reigning now from heaven---which btw is localized. I have given you the scriptures that show his kingship is being carried out by the work of the Spirit.

Not in such words, but the Davidic covenant is to be fulfilled. Can you show a verse that explicitly states that he is reigning now from heaven, in the way you state? Did He remove the Father from the throne, or is He seated at the Father's right hand?

Let's say the king of an earthly land sent his army out to conquer another kingdom. Does the fact that it is not the king himself who goes to war mean that the kingship is now taken from him and rests with his armies?

A shaky question considering, such as with David, he often went out with his armies. However, often if the army lost, the kingdom was defeated. So, I guess that makes this a good question.

Or suppose he sends a messenger to a debtor demanding payment of the debt. Is the messenger now the king?

Not as stated, however, they may hold the same authority as the king in dealing with the debtor. The whole purpose of ambassador. Notice that Jesus didn't simply send His disciples out, but gave them authority. And, as apostles, gave them not just authority, but power. Consider Paul. He sentenced Ananias and Saphhira to death, and heaven carried out the sentence. There is also a reason why beating up a king's servant was considered the same as beating up the king.

Supposed he is king of Timbuctoo but decides to reside in Abrasha. Does that make him no longer king of Timbuctoo?

We have an actual case study for this in the Bible. Daniel. Beltshazzar was not the king of Babylon, yet he was. Why was he not the king of Babylon? His father was the king of Babylon. Why was Beltshazzar king of Babylon? Well, his father resided elsewhere, so he did not exercise any authority as king at those times, which happened to be the majority of the time. This whole situation was actually used to undermine the authenticity of the book of Daniel. Beltshazzar never existed, and most certainly not as king of Babylon... until one day they found out that he did exist, and he did serve as king in the stead of his father. His father is not mentioned in scripture, but in history he is.

The church itself (Gods called out ones) is spiritual and invisible. Does it then cease to be the church?

I fail to see how this has any logical connection to the above argument. What about Israel? Just because there is a remnant of Israel that is part of, yet separate from the nation of Israel, since they aren't the church, did they cease to exist? The church is made up of believers. These of the remnant are not believers... yet. Hence, they aren't part of the church.

 

[atpollard]

Please do not simply quote a verse. Anyone can do that. Show me where that passage specifically and explicitly states Jesus has left heaven and is returning to the earth.

I quoted the whole passage because one needed to read the whole passage.

• Jesus was riding a horse in heaven
• Jesus had a sword in his mouth to "strike down the NATIONS"
• The kings of the Earth assembled to make war against Him.
• "And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse"

Did the army from Earth charge into Heaven, or did Jesus have a REALLY LONG SWORD in his mouth?
It was there ... you chose not to read it.

 

[JesusFan]

Please do not simply quote a verse. Anyone can do that. Show me where that passage specifically and explicitly states Jesus has left heaven and is returning to the earth.

Let me show you.

Revelation 19:11-15
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and wages war. 12His eyes are a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name written on him which no one knows except himself. 13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following him on white horses. 15From his mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it he may strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; and he treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.


Notice John states the horse is being ridden in heaven, not on the earth. The armies are in heaven, not on the earth.

Modern futurists read this passage to imply Jesus leaving but that is not actually what the text states. What it explicitly states is that John is looking into heaven, not onto the earth. Futurists read the text inferentially, not as written. Nowhere in Revelation 19 does the text ever actually state Jesus has left heaven and physically come to earth.

Rev. 19 states otherwise. I asked @JesusFan that question and I asked @JesusFan that question based on something @JesusFan posted. You've attempted to answer the question but failed. Rev. 19 does not actually state Jesus has left heaven and is returning to earth. In point of fact, Revelation does not state Jesus comes to earth until chapters 21 and 22. Not before then. Chapters 21 and 22 take place after the thousand years of Chapter 20.

Revelation 21:1-4, 22-23
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." ........... 22I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

The Lamb (Jesus) is the temple in the New Jerusalem that comes down from God out of heaven. That is where the book of Revelation actually, factually, specifically, explicitly states Jesus has left heaven. Everything in the entire book of Revelation is commanded from the throne in heaven (or from horseback while riding in heaven). Everything that happens in the heavens and on the earth is commanded from heaven. The book of Revelation repeatedly states the Lamb is in heaven, the Lamb is in heaven, the Lamb is in heaven, and nowhere does it state he's left until chapter 21.

Read it again more carefully. Read what is actually stated, not what some eschatological doctrine says the passage means. There's no report he came to earth.

So, @JesusFan, learn from this exchange. You have stated, "The Revelation shows Jesus returning in the End times, or did that already happen, or is metaphor or?" Everyone here agrees the revelation of Revelation shows Jesus returning in the End Times. We do not all agree where the revelation of Revelation states that fact.

It is not in Revelation 19.

Cite the verse and we can examine together to see whether or not it happened already and/or whether it is a metaphor or not. We'll make sure not to conflate the two or turn them into a false dichotomy, too.

Has the Lord Jesus returned yet and stood upon the Mount of Lives, as per Zechariah 14:4?

 

[JesusFan]

I quoted the whole passage because one needed to read the whole passage.

• Jesus was riding a horse in heaven
• Jesus had a sword in his mouth to "strike down the NATIONS"
• The kings of the Earth assembled to make war against Him.
• "And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse"

Did the army from Earth charge into Heaven, or did Jesus have a REALLY LONG SWORD in his mouth?
It was there ... you chose not to read it.

He had to be coming to earth, as those bodies were there and had to be cleaned up and taken of the battle field

 

[Arial]

Saying “throne” is merely symbolic misses the point.

I explicitly stated that it was NOT merely symbolic. If you find it necessary to turn my statements upside down in order to make your case, then something is wrong with your case.

Scripture distinguishes between symbolic imagery and covenantal offices.

That is overstated and misleading. Scripture does distinguish genres, but it does not keep "symbol" and "covenantal reality" in separate boxes like that. Thrones, Ziion temple, priesthood etc. are often: covenantal realities express through symbolic imagery.

For example, in Rev throne imagery equals real kingship. In Hebrews temple imagery equal real priesthood. "Symbolic" does' not mean "non-covenantal" and {covenantal" does not mean "non-symbolic". You force a false dichotomy.

And the Davidic throne is defined by God as a real, dynastic, territorial kingship (2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalms 89:3–4, 29–37). Revelation 3:21 does not need to mention “politics” to make the distinction clear: Jesus sits now on his Father’s throne, but promises a future reign on His own throne, which the New Testament explicitly identifies as David’s throne (Luke 1:32–33). That is not symbolism; it is covenantal specificity.

It is correct that 2 Sam7:12-16 and Psalm 89 present a real dynasty, tied to David's line, expressed in earthly kingship. But here is the issue which you refuse to confront or answer. It assumes the form of the promise must remain unchanged in fulfillment.

The NT repeatedly shows expansion/transformation of OT categories (temple, priesthood, Israel, Zion).

With Rev 3:21 you claim it teaches a present reign on the Father's throne and a future reign on a different "Davidic" throne. But the text does not say that. What does do is draw an analogy, not a timeline contrast. (Christ conquered and sat on the Fathers throne. Believers conquer and sit on Christ's throne. It is shared victory and authority, not two separate phases of kingship.

If you look at Rev 22:1,3 "the throne of God and the Lamb" the thrones are collapsed, not separated thrones. One shared throne not two thrones and/or two locations. There is not the Father's throne now vs Christ's throne later.

You misuse Luke 1:32-33 "the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David...". You assume this must be future and earthly but Acts 2:30-36 says the promise to David is fulfilled in the resurrection and exaltation to God's right hand. It locates David's throne in Christ's present reign. Your arguments are circular because you do not address the issue by proving what you assume: the promise of the Davidic throne must remain unchanged in fulfillment.

And Romans 1:3 does not say “according to the flesh” to deny a Davidic kingship.

Once again you twist my statement. This time by importing something I never stated. You claim I said Paul used the expression "according to the flesh" to deny a Davidic kingship and I said no such thing. He was simply answering a possible objection before it came. Which might be on the order of "But I thought God was his Father not Joseph!"

 

[Arial]

Here is my challenge to you. If you want to overturn the earthly, territorial, Davidic throne, you must produce:

• a text where God redefines the throne
• a text where the New Testament spiritualizes the land
• a text where “house of Jacob” becomes “the church”
• a text where “Zion” becomes “heaven”
• a text where “David’s throne” becomes “the Father’s throne”

Interesting that you would offer such a challenge to me when you have consistently failed to address my challenge to you. To show explicitly (not just through quoting scriptures that you have interpreted your assumption into) that the form of the promise must remain unchanged in fulfillment. I have not asked you to do that in exactly those words, but the that is the issue at hand.

It is also interesting that you structure your challenge by using words that don't actually apply to my stated position and posts. Words such as "overturn" the earthly territorial Davidic throne. I have never said it was overturned and my position does not overturn it. "Redefines". "House of Jacob becomes the church. Zion becomes heaven. David's throne becomes the Father's throne. NT spiritualizes the land. For me to respond to your challenge by simply quoting a scripture/scriptures or exegesis would be for me to agree with the terms you have applied to my position. In the same way if you were to ask me if I have stopped beating my dog and I answered yes. So, I will correct your terminology as I go.

Here is my challenge to you. If you want to overturn the earthly, territorial, Davidic throne, you must produce:

The NT does not "overturn" the OT promises; it shows how they are fulfilled, intensified, and located in Christ.

a text where God redefines the throne

Amillennialism does not redefine the throne and neither does Scripture. What the NT does is identifies the fulfillment of the Davidic promise. The throne is not "redefined"---it is located in Christ's present reign at God's right hand (Acts 2:30-36).

a text where the New Testament spiritualizes the land

The NT does not say "land now means X" and neither does Amillennialism. Romans 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
The promise grows from land of Canaan to the whole world. Heb 11L13-16---a better, heavenly country. The land promise is not denied but fulfilled in a greater reality.

a text where “house of Jacob” becomes “the church”

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.

a text where “Zion” becomes “heaven”

This one the NT does explicitly. Heb 12:22 "You have come to Mount Zion---the heavenly Jerusalem"
Zion---the heavenly reality believers now belong to.

a text where “David’s throne” becomes “the Father’s throne”

"Becomes" is an incorrect representation. It is identified in fulfillment. (Rev 3:21)“I… sat down with my Father's on his throne”

22:1“the throne of God and of the Lamb” Not two thrones but one shared throne.

All of this has previously been presented to you. You simply reinterpret the scriptures given to fit your unproven and unsupported premise.

So, now: I challenge you to demonstrate that the form of a promise must remain unchanged in its fulfillment.