Questions for Amillennialism

[Josheb]

@JesusFan, and @atpollard,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIA

 

[Arial]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Arial]

Nothing in Acts 2 says the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt 25 fits the second category, not the first.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Binyawmene]

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

snip*

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

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

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

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

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

David himself was not resurrected and ascended:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Arial]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[atpollard]

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

Mod Hat: Content deleted to comply with Rules.
Your response to answers [is] like when some demands a verse where Jesus states “I am God” and rejects all verses provided because the exact wording is not provided.

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

The technique is the same [content deleted]. Nations and kings ON THE EARTH gathered for war against God and Jesus killed them with the sword in his mouth and carrion eaters devoured their corpses. Only YOU can claim that happens in Heaven.

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

 

[Arial]

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

This is the post that is responding to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Arial]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davids son in 2 Sam 7

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Binyawmene]

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

Here we go again,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Binyawmene]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Your entire argument depends on combining two covenants that Scripture keeps structurally distinct, as if expanding Abraham's inheritance automatically transforms David's throne, but the New Testament never makes that move. Why? Because Romans 4:13 expands Abraham’s heirship, not David’s kingship. Paul is explaining how Gentiles become Abraham’s family, not how Canaan becomes “the world.” Hebrews 11 speaks of the patriarchs’ eschatological hope, not the cancellation or transcendence of the land promise, and it never touches the Davidic covenant at all.

Your appeal to “identification” as if it equals “redefinition” fails because Hebrews 12:22 does not say Zion is now heavenly instead of earthly; it simply affirms a heavenly dimension without erasing the earthly one. And the New Testament continues to define the Davidic throne in ethnic, territorial, Israel‑centered terms (Luke 1:32–33), and it consistently distinguishes the Father’s universal rule from the Christ’s Davidic rule (Rev 3:21). Expanding Abraham’s inheritance does not relocate, dissolve, or universalize David’s throne. It simply means the Davidic King 'the Christ' will rule the nations from the land God actually promised, not instead of it.

 

[Binyawmene]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your argument keeps assuming that because Gentiles are incorporated into Abraham’s family. This basis of your claim is that the New Testament reconstitutes Israel, land, temple, nation, and throne into universalized abstractions. But none of the texts you cite actually do that. Ephesians 2 describes one new man and fellow citizens, but it never says Israel is dissolved. It says Gentiles are added to Israel’s commonwealth, not that Israel’s covenant structures are replaced. Your “trajectory list” confuses categories: Romans 4:13 expands Abraham’s heirship, not the geography of David’s throne; Ephesians 2:21–22 identifies the church as a temple but never denies a future temple; John 18:36 denies a worldly origin, not a future earthly reign; Acts 2 enthrones Christ on the Father’s throne, not David’s. None of these texts universalize or relocate the Davidic throne, which the New Testament still defines in covenantal, territorial, Israel‑centered terms (Luke 1:32–33; Rev 3:21). Incorporating Gentiles expands the people, not the promises, and the New Testament never teaches that adding nations to Abraham’s family dissolves the land, the nation, or the Davidic throne into some weird spiritual cosmic divine metaphor.

 

[Arial]

Here we go again,

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

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

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

You have not answered the second question. Post #68

What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geo/political Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?

 

[Binyawmene]

Where does the NT ever say that Christ is not yet seated on David's throne? And answer this too: What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geo/political Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?

Non sequitur questions. Your conclusion doesn't logically follow the Biblical pattern. Besides, the New Testament never needs to say, “Christ is not yet seated on David’s throne,” because it repeatedly and explicitly says where he is seated now presently "at the Father's right hand, on the Father's throne"(Acts 2:33–35; Heb 1:3; Rev 3:21). I can play that same game too. Show me where in the New Testament that the Father is seated on David's throne? But yet, Scriptures never once calls that position “David’s throne,” nor does it ever place the Father on David’s throne. What the Scriptures does teach is that the Davidic throne is always defined in covenantal, territorial, Israel‑rooted terms (2 Sam 7; Ps 89; Luke 1:32–33), and the New Testament preserves that structural pattern by distinguishing Christ’s present reign by the Father's throne from his future reign on his own throne (Rev 3:21b; Matt 25:31).

As for the purpose of the millennium and restored Israel (Acts 1:6). Scripture is explicit: it vindicates God’s covenant fidelity to Abraham and David in history (Rom 11:12, 15, 26–29), displays Christ’s rule over the nations from Zion as promised (Isa 2:1–4; Zech 14; Rev 20:4–6), and demonstrates the public, earthly manifestation of the kingdom before the final handing over of all things to the Father (1 Cor 15:24–28).

 

[Arial]

Here we go again,

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

You didn't answer my question. Instead, you shifted to arguing about "two thrones" and accusing me of category confusion. That is a deflection. The burden is still on you.

You insist that David never possessed or shared the Father's throne, and that is true, but irrelevant. The NT claim is not that David sat on the Father's throne. The claim is the Davidic king is exalted to God's right hand to reign. Exactly what we see in Ps 110 and applied in Acts 2.

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

Your argument depends on the assumption that “giving” a throne must refer to a future moment when Christ begins to sit on it, but that’s not how Scripture uses royal language. “Giving” often refers to the conferral or inauguration of kingship, not the first moment of physical occupation.

More importantly, Luke himself tells us when this happens. In Acts 2:30–36, he connects the promise to David with Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, concluding that Jesus is now enthroned at God’s right hand as Lord and Messiah. That is the moment the throne is “given.”

So Luke 1 gives the promise, and Acts 2 gives its fulfillment. You’re separating what Luke intentionally connects.

And your argument still hasn’t answered the original question: where does the New Testament ever say Christ is not yet seated on David’s throne?

So now you have three questions to answer before I will respond to further posts.

Where does the NT ever say Christ is not yet seated on David's throne?
What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?
If Acts 2 is not the fulfillment of the Davidic enthronement, then where does the NT ever identify when that promise is fulfilled?

 

[Josheb]

nt

 

[Josheb]

Mod Hat: Content deleted to comply with Rules.
Your response to answers [is] like when some demands a verse where Jesus states “I am God” and rejects all verses provided because the exact wording is not provided.

If I were asked to provide a verse where Jesus states, "I am God," I would immediately answer that question directly with, "There is no such verse." You did not do that. You could have. You should have. You did not.

• You restrict the search to “Revelation”.

LOL! It was not me who limited the conversation to the book of Revelation. It was @JesusFan. You'd know that if attention to the exchange had been paid.

• You demand an exact wording.

As should you. No one should accept and inference-only argument. No one should accept what a teacher teaches if all he teaches is inference and never predicates any of the inferences on what is explicitly stated in scripture. The question asked is valid. You couldn't/wouldn't answer the question and now I'm being criticized when the question asked is readily answered with scripture.

The technique is the same [content deleted]. Nations and kings ON THE EARTH gathered for war against God and Jesus killed them with the sword in his mouth and carrion eaters devoured their corpses. Only YOU can claim that happens in Heaven.

Well, I have scripture read exactly as written and you do not. You have to infer things not stated to make your position work. I do not.

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

Once again, it was not me who limited the field of search. I worked within the stipulated text and I answered the question. Revelation 21 states Jesus' coming. It actually states he's left heaven and come to earth.

Revelation 21:1-5, 22
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. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And 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, and 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.” 5And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” 22I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

That is the first and only time in the entire book of Revelation in which Jesus' coming is stated.* Anyone could have posted it (and should have). It is the answer to the question asked. Everybody not standing on that verse is standing on inference.

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Do not add unsubstantiated inference to the book of Revelation.

Jesus is stated to come to earth in the new city of peace after the thousand years of Rev. 20. Nowhere prior to this is Jesus stated to physically come to earth. A Christian may be amillennial, idealist, or postmillennial but s/he cannot be premillennial without running into conflict with Revelation 21:22. Revelation simply does not support that position if the book is read exactly as written.

And that is why, when @JesusFan stipulated the book of Revelation, he was asked the question he was asked.










* Rev. 14:4 has Jesus standing on Mt. Zion. If taken as written that would be a verse where he is stated to be physically on earth. However, both before and after that verse Jesus is stated to be in heaven, and the 144k are also stated to be in heaven, having been purchased from the earth. In addition, Rev. 14:1 is quote from Zechariah and when the Zechariah text is read that verse cannot be taken literally because if it were taken literally then Jerusalem and all of its inhabitants would be destroyed. There'd be no one to save. Furthermore, Hebrews 12:22 states the believer has "come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." Therefore, Rev. 21 is the only place in Revelation where the book states Jesus' coming to earth.
.

 

[Josheb]

No. Your entire argument depends on combining two covenants that Scripture keeps structurally distinct, as if expanding Abraham's inheritance automatically transforms David's throne, but the New Testament never makes that move.

That is incorrect. Galatians 3 explicitly connects God's covenant promises with Abraham to Jesus (there's no covenant with David without Abraham) and Acts 2 explicitly ties the covenant promises made specifically to David with Jesus and the resurrection (see also Post #37). It cannot, therefore, be argued Scripture keeps the two covenants "structurally distinct."

 

[Binyawmene]

You insist that David never possessed or shared the Father's throne, and that is true, but irrelevant. The NT claim is not that David sat on the Father's throne. The claim is the Davidic king is exalted to God's right hand to reign. Exactly what we see in Ps 110 and applied in Acts 2.

That's fine. You didn't like Peter's Scriptural argument about David. Besides, discussions about the throne is one of those dividing issues between Historical Premillennialism and Amillennialism. The topic is relevant to the OP in question of "spiritual reign" and to "whose throne." After all, Amillennialism asserts: 'Christ is already reigning and ruling on David’s throne now.' If Christ is already reigning and ruling on David’s throne, then why does Scriptures say he is waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool (Heb 10:12-13)? And it's a valid question to ask and also deserves an explanation.

Since Christ is waiting, or expecting, anticipating, looking forward to a future moment, and not yet exercising the thing he is waiting for. Then by logic this is not the language of Christ the king actively ruling over his enemies. It is the language of a king awaiting the moment when ruling over his enemies will to be made manifested. That means "ruling now" doesn't Scripturally and logically follow "waiting now." From that standpoint is gives you more questions than answers. For instance, how can Christ be ruling on David’s throne now if the New Testament says he is waiting for the very thing David’s throne is already supposed to accomplish?

Hebrews 10:12-13 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.​

​

Hebrews 2:8 ...and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.​

Notice that the 'restoration of all things' must occur first before the Father sends the Christ.

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

The universal Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is the eternal, all‑encompassing reign of God’s sovereign rule over all creation. The universal Kingdom is handed to the Father at the end (1 Cor 15:24–28), but the Davidic throne is handed to the Son by the Father (Luke 1:32) after the restoration of all things.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.​

​

Strike through by Mod. Violates the rule against misrepresenting someone's position.​

More importantly, Luke himself tells us when this happens. In Acts 2:30–36, he connects the promise to David with Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, concluding that Jesus is now enthroned at God’s right hand as Lord and Messiah. That is the moment the throne is “given.”

That's not the moment when Davidic throne is given. I already addressed the two throne categories. Davidic kingdom comes in Christ's second coming after the restoration. So, what Is “the restoration of all things”? It is the future, renewal of the entire created order, including Israel’s national restoration, the resurrection, death itself, the renewal of the heavens and earth, and the visible establishment of Christ’s Davidic kingdom on earth which is the launching point of the age to come. Not an overlap of "this present age" with "age to come" and confusing their categories. Did you notice that, Ariel? I have underlined it for you. Christ at seated on the Father's throne is not the Davidic throne. The Father and the Son have their own distinctive thrones (Revelations 3:21). The kingdom comes AFTER his will is done on earth (Matthew 6:10, Luke 1:32–33; Isaiah 9:7; Daniel 7:13–14; Revelation 11:15).

 

[Arial]

Non sequitur questions. Your conclusion doesn't logically follow the Biblical pattern. Besides, the New Testament never needs to say, “Christ is not yet seated on David’s throne,” because it repeatedly and explicitly says where he is seated now presently "at the Father's right hand, on the Father's throne"(Acts 2:33–35; Heb 1:3; Rev 3:21). I can play that same game too. Show me where in the New Testament that the Father is seated on David's throne? But yet, Scriptures never once calls that position “David’s throne,” nor does it ever place the Father on David’s throne. What the Scriptures does teach is that the Davidic throne is always defined in covenantal, territorial, Israel‑rooted terms (2 Sam 7; Ps 89; Luke 1:32–33), and the New Testament preserves that structural pattern by distinguishing Christ’s present reign by the Father's throne from his future reign on his own throne (Rev 3:21b; Matt 25:31).

That simply ignores everything that has been presented to the contrary regarding those scriptures and repeats itself. Which is neither a conversation nor an intelligent debate. In fact it violates all rules of a debater, formal or otherwise. But I have found that is the way every exchange also goes with those who deny the Doctrines of Grace or with those who deny the deity of Jesus. That is neither meant as a red herring to change the conversation or as an insult. It is simply a cold, hard, observable fact. It is a tactic to avoid confronting anything that the person disagrees with.

As for the purpose of the millennium and restored Israel (Acts 1:6). Scripture is explicit: it vindicates God’s covenant fidelity to Abraham and David in history (Rom 11:12, 15, 26–29), displays Christ’s rule over the nations from Zion as promised (Isa 2:1–4; Zech 14; Rev 20:4–6), and demonstrates the public, earthly manifestation of the kingdom before the final handing over of all things to the Father (1 Cor 15:24–28).

That does not answer the question. You give real theological purposes but not clearly redemptive purposes. Look again at how I framed my question. "What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?"
The scriptures you present are demonstrative/ vindicatory/ revelatory but not clearly redemptive in effect.

The redemptive aspect pertains to how sin is dealt with, how people are reconciled to God, how the curse is undone. how the final state is achieved.

"Vindicates God's covenant fidelity" is about God's reputation, not salvation. How does that redeem anyone?

"Displays God's rule" is about visibility not accomplishment. What does this display accomplish that Christ's current reign does not?

"Public manifestation before the end" is about timing/sequence, not necessity. Why is this stage required for redemption rather than the immediate transition to the new creation?

Are these things necessary for redemption, or simply fitting demonstrations?

If they are necessary, where does the NT teach that redemption is incomplete without a millennium?

If they are not necessary, then the millennium is not part of the redemptive plan but an added display.

And just to touch on Romans 11---it doesn't actually require a millennium phase, a restored land system or a Davidic throne in Jerusalem. You expand the text beyond what it says. The same with 1 Cor 15:24-28. That text actually fits more naturally with one continuous reign and then consummation.

So, I ask the question again. Now that you know what I was asking for you will be able to give an answer.

"What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?

 

[Josheb]

After all, Amillennialism asserts: 'Christ is already reigning and ruling on David’s throne now.'

Scripture asserts Christ is already reigning and ruling. Logic dictates that necessity as well.

If Christ is already reigning and ruling on David’s throne, then why does Scriptures say he is waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool (Heb 10:12-13)?

Making his enemies a footstool is evidence of his rule. Their being made a footstool is an inevitability. Why? Because he rules!

And it's a valid question to ask and also deserves an explanation.

No, it's not a valid question. It's the kind of question a devil's advocate would ask when trying to find an inconsistency in scripture.

Did God really say.....?

Since Christ is waiting, or expecting, anticipating, looking forward to a future moment, and not yet exercising the thing he is waiting for.

Please provide the verse stating Jesus is not yet exercising the thing he is waiting for. Please do not say, "look around," because that is a post hoc and extra-biblical response that does not provide the scripture that is being requested.

Then by logic this is not the language of Christ the king actively ruling over his enemies...

The lapse in logic is arguing Jesus is not currently reigning and ruling when scripture repeatedly states he is NOW king.

Luke 19:37-40
And as soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the [r]miracles which they had seen, shouting: "Blessed is the king, the one who comes in the name of the LORD; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” And yet some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples!” Jesus replied, “I tell you, if these stop speaking, the stones will cry out!”

Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.

This is a fulfillment of prophecy. Are these people mistaken, deluded, or lying? If not, then Jesus is King, King of all other kings, and he was King at least as far back as his entry into Jerusalem. Within the week Jesus would asserting his sovereignty in a manner not possible by any other king. He'd be conquering sin and death.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

If Jesus does, in fact, have all authority, then he is NOW king and, again, King over all other kings. He and he alone has all authority. He has the authority over everything and the power to implement that authority. This authority is explicitly stated to be on the earth. If Jesus has all the authority but does not use it, then he is a poor steward of that authority. If he is a poor steward, then he is neither Lord nor Savior. He cannot have the authority and not use it. He may not use it the way you or I think it should be used, or the way some post-scriptural eschatological doctrine assumes it must be used, but that's a problem on our end, not God's word.

Ephesians 1:18-21
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of his calling, what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the boundless greatness of his power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under his feet and made him head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Jesus has all rule, authority, power, and dominion and that dominion includes the earth. Everything is subject to him.

Philippians 2:9-11
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross. For this reason also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

His name is above all others. Every knee will bow. That's not simply an eschatological statement. If any other ruler from any point in history, from any geography on the planet were summoned before Jesus that ruler would be compelled to kneel before Christ. Why? Because Jesus NOW has the name above all other names. Jesus is now exalted and his exaltation is explicitly stated to apply on earth.

Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through him and for Him.

Everything was created for him, both in the heavens and the earth - even all the other dominions, rulers, and authorities.

This is just a sampling of the many verses declaring Jesus is NOW king over and on the earth.