The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[TrevorL]

Greetings again EarlyActs,

The grammar only goes to one place.

I appreciate your obscure answer, which ignores the simple, clear teaching of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 2. I await the Kingdom of God upon the earth for the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TMSO]

It is clear enough. It is the belief in a future tribulation and a remnant who actually believe are saved.

What then do you think of both Luke (Jesus) and Paul recording that the full wrath of God has come upon Israel in their time: Lk 21, 2 Th 2? There is no doubt this is expected in that generation, from the vivid description of a Roman siege in Luke.

Again, Israel, and the world. Revelation is about the redemption of the world, and the finale of the plan of redemption. God deals with the world, and completes His promises to Israel through the forefathers. Once that is over, the next age of the new creation begins. (New heavens, new earth, new jerusalem) [Part of the dealing with the world is the end of Satan's rebellion, and the final defeat of death.]

 

[TMSO]

Of all the people I have exchanged with you are the best at keeping a sequence mostly intact, but my question is your starting point. But once started, you are fine.

You might contrast it this way:
Yours: Jesus ministry--delay--future wrath on Israel--millenium--NHNE
Mine: Jesus ministry and reign--wrath on Israel--delay-- future NHNE

I have put reign in bold because Acts 2-4, 13, Eph 1, Phil 2, Heb 1 all refer to it as present, inaugurated by the resurrection, and in the imperative mood (You don't 'see' a kingdom, but it is mandatory that all rulers and ordinary folks 'honor the Son, lest He be angry.') Btw, this matches Dan 2 without any future amendments; the kingdom of God arrives, undermining 'precious metal' type statue type human kingdoms, and is the redemptive 'mountain of the Lord' toward which all nations come.

One of the fundamental questions is accepting the grammatical conclusion of Acts 2:30, that David saw the resurrection as the Davidic fulfillment. D'ism and SDAs (see "Trevor" here at CCCF) do not; the two beliefs hatched at the same time in the 1800s. Some historians refer to D'ism as American Adventism. Their answer to the grammar is that the resurrection only confirmed that a 'reign of another David' from Jerusalem would take place at some distant future time. Well, in ch 3, yes, there are distant future events, but the reign is current. Same with the expression 'until I make your enemies your footcushion.' That's future, but he has been enthroned in the imperative sense.

It is the role of preserving the Law in Adventism that also preserves a Judaic eschatology. It is intriguing that this is also found in Messianic Judaism, where their doctrinal statement shortlists say you must believe in the sacred 'eretz' (land), as essential as human sin and justification.

Revelation puts the reign AFTER the wrath and rescue of Israel, followed by a rescue of God's people at the end of the millennium. The belief is that David's "son" will reign from His seat in Jerusalem, and thus fulfill the promises God made. When looking at I Corinthians 15 I believe, that ends when Jesus finally defeats death and returns the kingdom to the Father. That occurs at the end of the millennium in Revelation 20, when death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire, after everyone else. Thus keeping with the "final enemy" Paul writes about. Death no longer has power of God's children, but everyone else is still under the sway of death.

 

[TMSO]

The two witnesses are Peter and Paul.

So, how did the people in North America see their dead bodies for 3 1/2 days in Jerusalem? And did they really start people on fire? Those are signature moves of certain Old Testament prophets, which is why it is traditionally believed that it is either Elijah and Enoch, or Elijah and Jeremiah. As far as everyone on the planet seeing them... we have the technology now. Something that, through history, no one could imagine.

 

[TMSO]

The 'sebomai' were at most synagogues when Paul went around, so they were at the festival, too.

Sebomai:
"Sebomai
seb'-om-ahee
Verb

1. to revere, to worship

Audio Pronunciation
Original Language
sevbw
Origin
middle voice of an apparently primary verb
Strong's Number
4576
TDNT Entry
7:169,1010"

By no black and white, I mean time periods. Jesus was furious and done with Jews; and Paul was early on; yet 30 years later he still tries to engage some.

Jesus was never done with the Jews. Paul is clear that what happened is the Jews rejected, so the Gentiles moved from crumbs to being given most of the plate. Remember the passage in Jeremiah where God clearly states He will not forget Israel, and will never be done with them.

There were Greeks who came to Jesus; the Syrian woman was praised for greater faith; a Roman had greater faith; a Roman was worshipping God and Peter was sent to him, etc, etc, etc.

That doesn't mean anything. Cornelius is the preview of what was to come. Hence they spoke in tongues. Why? To show that the Gentiles belong to the same church as the Jews, not some other church. From Peter's reaction, it is clear that the Jews had never considered that the Gentiles would be considered the same as them. Peter said, who can forbid these the water, who received the same Holy Spirit as they received? How as it recognized? They also spoke in tongues just like they did.

There are lines in Isaiah that say that certain nations were moved around parallel to Israel being brought back from Egypt. Daniel's gospel was believed by Persian maji and they preserved that for centuries until their star calculators said it was time to go to Israel, etc, etc, etc. Nineveh repented.

I don't know that the maji knew all of that. They were a school of astrology which had exceptional knowledge of cosmology, even more than we have. I see it as proof of the creation having been all created by God. God didn't find us. Space did not already exist. He created it all, and the magi could point out major events in history just by seeing signs in the stars. And there were other kings born under the same sign. The unity of God's creation. (There "astrology" was NOT what we call astrology today.)

As for Ninevah, they also went apostate and were destroyed. They went back to their sin.

 

[TMSO]

No, I don't. That honorary title goes to the 144,000 First-fruits (the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected ones) and Christ the First-fruits. This was the "First resurrection" - the first mass group resurrection event which took place in AD 33. The others individuals raised on a case-by-case basis were not called the "First resurrection" event.

"20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have [d]fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming." So Christ is the firstfruits, and then we have the first resurrection at Christ's coming, which Revelation places before the millennium. So your first resurrection was around 967BC. The resurrection to eternal torment is at the end of the millennium, so in 33 AD. Why would you do that to those people?

The title "First-fruits" is plural, meaning a massive group raised at one time. But out of that First-fruits group, Christ was in addition given the totally unique title of "the First-born" and the "First-begotten" because He was the first to ascend to the Father in that resurrected, glorified human body form. All the others raised to an immortal glorified body did not ascend to the Father until later in AD 70, including those few OT resurrections as well as the single case of the translated Enoch. Revelation 15:8 tells us when these were finally allowed entrance into heaven's temple, which was when the 7 plagues were all finished back in AD 70.

Firstfruits is NOT a title. It speaks of the first produce of the season. If you get only one apple, it is firstfruits of the season. In the case of Jesus, it is in relation of the dead coming to life. The reason why Paul is clear in the passage that He speaks solely of Christ is because Christ is preeminent. SO "Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming." However, it says, afterward those who are Christ's at His second coming. When is this? Before the millennium in Revelation 20. The first resurrection.

"4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for [a]a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

The problem you have is that you state that the millennium started around 967BC. So, the first resurrection happened a thousand years before Jesus' resurrection, on your timeline. And... no mention of the 144000 here. Where they are mentioned they are alive. And it happens to be in contradiction to the mark of the beast. They have the mark of God on their foreheads. (What coin would that be?) They are missionaries in the latter half of the tribulation. They are unaffected by the tribulation because they have God's mark, God's seal.

No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Elijah was writing a prophecy about King Jehoram and that he gave it to Elisha. Elijah writes AFTER the fact of King Jehoram's acts of sin. He does not write that King Jehoram will commit these acts in the future. He writes of these acts of the king as already done and deserving of pending judgment for them.

Then I give a logic proof, because my stance is rational. Elijah was a prophet who wrote prophecy. He did not tell people what was happening when it is happening. He prophesied about the future. So he told Elisha what was going to happen, and Elisha wrote it down, and said it was from Elijah because... it was. The word according to Elijah.

Besides, Christ said in John 3:13 that "no man hath ascended up to heaven" as of that point.

Well, there goes your theory about Enoch. Oh wait, you are going to say that Enoch was an exception to this as well, since you need him to be. You don't need Elijah to be, so he isn't. Is that how we are supposed to handle scripture?

This means the LXX account of Elijah's transport by the whirlwind into the sky is correct when it says "And Elijah was taken AS IT WERE INTO HEAVEN". Not that he really did ascend to God's presence in heaven, but was merely transported into the atmospheric heaven to another location on earth where he wrote the letter to King Jehoram later on. He died as all other men die - the one-time death appointment for all men, save the lone example of Enoch's translation.
Please don't quote tradition as proof, which is so often twisted far from the truth.

Both Enoch and Elijah are not exceptions to any scripture. Again, they will be the two witnesses who die at the end of their "season" (time of witness). Three and a half days later, they will get up, here a voice from heaven, and are translated to heaven to await the judgement with everyone else. So, both Enoch and Elijah were taken from Earth for this. This event could not have happened in the first century, because there is no way Romans in Great Britian (all of them) are going to be able to get to Jerusalem to see the dead witnesses in the streets, and John says that everyone in the world sees them. You have to include Rome, and Rome extended far to the north. How bout the Romans in Spain? How long would it take them to travel to Jerusalem to see the witnesses? How long would it take for them to find out the witnesses were killed? However, in today's day and age, it is simple for the whole world to see the event. And it is only getting easier each day. Tiktok, facebook, youtube, world news, etc. Information can instantaneously travel the whole world, and that includes VIDEO. So everyone can see an event as it happens. At no other time has this ever happened, and people couldn't even imagine it being possible. John saw it as it was happening (That is, everyone in the world being able to see it.)

And my comments about Enoch being introduced later as Melchizedek are based on the information we have in scripture about this man in Genesis and Hebrews, and the quotes from Enoch in Jude and Peter. Nothing else.

Then why can I find what you are saying in 3 Enoch? Nowhere in scripture does it say that Enoch is Melchizedek. In fact, in Hebrew tradition, it is Shem or the son of Noah's brother Nir. 3 Enoch is the only place outside of Mormonism, to find what you are saying in a book. And that was supposedly written by a mystic. It isn't even written in apocryphal form, being completely different in structure from 1 and 2 Enoch.

There really is no point is discussing this if you if you disregard God's own definition of when an "at hand" prophecy is fulfilled in Ezekiel 12:21-28.

"21 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb that you people have about the land of Israel, which says, ‘The days are prolonged, and every vision fails’? 23 Tell them therefore, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I will lay this proverb to rest, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel.” ’ But say to them, ‘ “The days are at hand, and the [c]fulfillment of every vision. 24 For no more shall there be any false[d] vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. 25 For I am the Lord. I speak, and the word which I speak will come to pass; it will no more be postponed; for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word and perform it,” says the Lord God.’ ”"

What days are prolonged? Well, no longer. The days that they speak of are at hand, and (of those) the fulfillment of every vision. (The fulfillment of those visions they say failed. How do we know? "for in your days, I will say the word and perform it." How many centuries was this before Jesus? What about those prophecies? Zechariah made prophecies about Christ that were not fulfilled at the time. God is telling them that He will no longer put off His prophecies of destruction and exile of Israel. And He didn't.

I believe that Paul taught that under the terms of the New Covenant, there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female.

You believe... falsely. Paul was saying that in the church there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female. In the church. Outside the church, the Jews are our enemies for the sake of the gospel. Remember when Paul said that? In the church, we have the enmity that separated the Greeks and Jews put to death in the body of Christ. We don't have that outside the church. (Unless you are a universalist and everyone is saved...)

 

[TMSO]

This mystery of God was pronounced as finished in Revelation 10:7 - by the time the 7th angel had sounded. And that was back in AD 70 when "the power of the holy people" was shattered, and all those "weak and beggarly elements" of segregated categories was manifested openly as having been destroyed. In God's mind, there is no longer a division between Jew and Gentile. You and I are not Gentiles. We are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus in the One Fold with One Shepherd.

We are Gentiles. We are also part of the church, where we do not see in these terms. We are not yet in the one fold, because there are still lost sheep of Israel, and still those of another fold being brought in. Again, the finality of the church is the future, where all there is is the body of Christ. When this world is done and gone.

Paul refers to these multiple ages from several perspectives of the chronological timeline of human history.

There were multiple ages in the past from Paul's perspective (1 Cor. 10:11 "Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the ends of THE AGES has come." And Hebrews 9:26 "...He has appeared once for all at the end of THE AGES to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

"6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us [a]tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now [b]all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our [c]admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."

So, since there is no more sin anymore... wait, what do you mean there is still sin in the world? If it is the end of the ages, then sin should be gone. I still think this speaks of a timeframe that does not officially end until this world ends, and sin is truly gone. That is, the end does not come until He successfully destroys sin completely.

There were also multiple ages that were coming in the future from Paul's perspective; the ages of eternity were also included within this classification. As in Ephesians 1:21's distinction between the end of the Old Covenant Age and "the COMING ONE" that was soon to arrive. And after that coming age was full established, Paul also predicted multiple ages to follow. As in Ephesians 2:6-7, "And hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. That in the AGES (plural) TO COME he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus."

Which is obviously not us having eternal life in heaven. That is the age to come (or even ages) are in eternity.

The Revelation 20 millennium was the 4th millennial age of human history, which "expired" and was "finished" with the First Resurrection event back in AD 33.


That was a present tense verb Jesus used in His statement. "No man knoweth the day nor the hour..." was a present tense situation at the time Jesus spoke those words, but it would not always remain so.

Jesus is always present tense, hence before Abraham was, He is. You are quick to deny when it comes to your beliefs. Based on this, Abraham knew. Moses knew. They are past tense, and this is only present. Paul knew exactly when, since he was not "present" when Jesus said this.

Once the believers saw the two events take place in the same season of time which Daniel had predicted in Daniel 12:11-13, they were then able to count down the days until Christ's return, which were 1,335 days from the start of those two predicted events. Jesus told those of his first-century audience that if they read Daniel, they would understand the timing of what He was predicting. We looking back on those two events taking place in the same season can determine what day Christ Jesus returned back in the first century. And it was Pentecost day in AD 70.

Apparently the sacrificial system resumed 132-135AD, so... Daniel 12:11-13 may be speaking of another time. From a Jewish website "For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time." There were some groups still basically doing this up to a few years ago, as they wait for the temple to be rebuilt.

I've no problem using lexicons, but they are not inspired. I read the constant use in scripture of the term "Earth" or "Land" in the OT and the NT where it refers to the promised land which the Israelites were given to dwell in. Anything else outside those borders of the "four corners of the land" in Israel the Jews considered as Gentile, classified as "the sea" in Isaiah 60:5. God many times addresses the specific land of Israel itself as "Earth" (Jeremiah 22:29-30). And Revelation was written by a Jew, making multiple references to OT prophecies and terminology. When John makes a distinction between "sea" and "land / earth" in Revelation, most of the time he is referring to Gentile versus Jewish categories. At least, up until he pronounces that "there is no more sea".

I see. You interpret it within your beliefs, and not as given. (Granted, I have known this since we started...)

? No, I'm not Mormon. Soon always means soon - an event which will transpire within a very short time for the ones who are originally addressed.

I brought it up for chosen, and for your Enoch beliefs.

And the context indicated an imminent return of Christ to those whom Hebrews 10:37 was addressing. Which happened on AD 70's Pentecost day.

I take it you have a reference that states it was 70AD on pentecost right? Preferably complete with a certified autograph of the person who recorded it in 71 AD, or even the day after pentecost 70AD.

 

[TMSO]

Greetings again TMSO and EarlyActs,

I do not accept that everyone (else) is destroyed at Christ's return.

Perhaps if I defined who everyone else is. Everyone else are those who worshiped the beast and his image, and have taken the mark of his name. I hope that clears up what I mean. Scripture is clear that everyone who attacks Israel is destroyed/killed at Christ's return, and it is pretty clear that every last one is part of the army of the beast and his image. None of the elect/remnant will be part of the attack, and the Bible is clear about the end for those who worship the beast and his image, and take his mark. ALL will suffer eternal torment where the smoke of said torment rises in the presence of God and the Lamb for all eternity.

Acts 2:30 speaks of the exaltation of Jesus to sit at the right hand of God Psalm 110:1, Revelation 3:21-22. Jesus is yet to return and sit upon the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years Isaiah 2:1-4. I have a lot of reference books too and we need to use them wisely.

That is how I understand it. Jesus return before the millennium is when He makes His enemy His footstool. The end of the millennium is when He utterly defeats the final enemy Paul speaks of, death. After which He returns the kingdom to the Father, that God is all in all. (That is a very rough paraphrase. If I got something wrong from the verses in I Corinthians 15, just let me know.)

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[EarlyActs]

Greetings again EarlyActs,

I appreciate your obscure answer, which ignores the simple, clear teaching of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 2. I await the Kingdom of God upon the earth for the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

The apostles interpreted these things after 40 days of instruction by Christ. In Acts 2-4, there are 3 clear declarations that the resurrection was the enthronement, and the "footstooling" of enemies is future, but the enthronement sets up an 'imperative' kingdom: a thing we must do, a thing the world must do. ( believe Ps 110 is handled 3x there, and Dan 2 of course is 'handled' every time there is a saying that the kingdom/reign of God is 'there.' It is no guarantee of success or of external signs of a kingdom, but it is current and present, and Dan 2 does not to need to be broken up.

They wouldn't have quoted--prayed!--Ps 2 unless He was enthroned! That's why they have the agonizing question.

I have outgrown many 'systems' in my life and I urge you to take the challenge you are facing. It can be rough, and friends will make their worst choices, but it is so worth it.

 

[EarlyActs]

Again, Israel, and the world. Revelation is about the redemption of the world, and the finale of the plan of redemption. God deals with the world, and completes His promises to Israel through the forefathers. Once that is over, the next age of the new creation begins. (New heavens, new earth, new jerusalem) [Part of the dealing with the world is the end of Satan's rebellion, and the final defeat of death.]

But you must have noticed in the intro of the Rev, that it is a revelation of Christ (about Him). Let me explain the apocalyptic background:

this form of Judaistic literature was written during the disappointing centuries of Israel after the return from exile. The intention of most of them was to provide a 'behind-the-scenes' explanation of the dismal circumstances.

But there is a theme developed when Christ comes that while the OT said 'the time is coming' He said 'it is fulfilled.' Rather than solve the dismality problem, it heightened it, because there's nothing worse than saying things are great when they are even worse.

But the NT was actually going two different directions than Judaism expected. 1, the glory was in Christ, in the redemptive event called the Gospel. That is a bit embarrassing if you are on the crucify-ing side of things. But if you saw the prophets the way the apostles were taught, you knew that things really were being fulfilled substantially, but not the way Judaism and its Zionism expected. There really was a new temple and all the nations were coming to celebrate 'Christ our passover.' (I Cor 5). The Lamb had been enthroned and was worthy of all praise, honor and riches, Rev 4-6.

2, there was an empirical event coming at the end of the generation, announced over and over by Christ, and it was the dark side of Dan 9, which our modern friends pine to avoid. That dark side was the utter demolition of the country. It would be cathartic if our modern 'prophecy' friends would realize this had to happen to clarify things, but they avoid it like a disease.

So the Rev clearly has these two elements and not those of Judaistic apocalyptic--which only fueled the hopeless zealot movements. (Failure to note this is the main flaw of current beliefs that Jesus was for social revolution or a freedom fighter, etc).

It did explain things from 'behind the scenes' but Judaism rejected both: the Gospel event was foolishness, and the destruction of the country was so painful to think about that even Caiaphas tried to circumvent it, in Jn 12.

 

[EarlyActs]

Revelation puts the reign AFTER the wrath and rescue of Israel, followed by a rescue of God's people at the end of the millennium. The belief is that David's "son" will reign from His seat in Jerusalem, and thus fulfill the promises God made. When looking at I Corinthians 15 I believe, that ends when Jesus finally defeats death and returns the kingdom to the Father. That occurs at the end of the millennium in Revelation 20, when death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire, after everyone else. Thus keeping with the "final enemy" Paul writes about. Death no longer has power of God's children, but everyone else is still under the sway of death.

But 3x in Acts 2-4 we are told he already has been enthroned. Remember, we are not looking for 'external signs, so that you would say 'here it is' or 'there it is' because the reign of God is among you.' (in the gospels). This is also why Acts 1 says not to look for 'the restored kingdom of Israel.' We have an 'imperative' kingdom, not one that has a date fixed to it and offices and buildings. (The resurrection is a date, of course; but you mean at some future time like Acts 1).

Then there is the question of wrath: Jesus (Luke 21) and Paul both say the wrath of God on Israel was upon them. In Mt 23, Jesus says the house is already desolate. That's pretty early on!

Here is a great question: if Acts 1 says not to seek that, what does it allow us to seek? That is the answer.

 

[EarlyActs]

So, how did the people in North America see their dead bodies for 3 1/2 days in Jerusalem? And did they really start people on fire? Those are signature moves of certain Old Testament prophets, which is why it is traditionally believed that it is either Elijah and Enoch, or Elijah and Jeremiah. As far as everyone on the planet seeing them... we have the technology now. Something that, through history, no one could imagine.

Who said the Rev is about the future? It is about those times, like all other apocalyptic was. It was an explanation of what was actually going on, not what it looked like. Both Peter and Paul were humiliatingly exhibited in Rome, as far as I know. The news went all over.

btw, to be a 'witness' you actually had to have been with Christ after the resurrection. It is not as loose a term as people think today.

 

[EarlyActs]

Sebomai:
"Sebomai
seb'-om-ahee
Verb

1. to revere, to worship

Audio Pronunciation
Original Language
sevbw
Origin
middle voice of an apparently primary verb
Strong's Number
4576
TDNT Entry
7:169,1010"

Jesus was never done with the Jews. Paul is clear that what happened is the Jews rejected, so the Gentiles moved from crumbs to being given most of the plate. Remember the passage in Jeremiah where God clearly states He will not forget Israel, and will never be done with them.

That doesn't mean anything. Cornelius is the preview of what was to come. Hence they spoke in tongues. Why? To show that the Gentiles belong to the same church as the Jews, not some other church. From Peter's reaction, it is clear that the Jews had never considered that the Gentiles would be considered the same as them. Peter said, who can forbid these the water, who received the same Holy Spirit as they received? How as it recognized? They also spoke in tongues just like they did.

I don't know that the maji knew all of that. They were a school of astrology which had exceptional knowledge of cosmology, even more than we have. I see it as proof of the creation having been all created by God. God didn't find us. Space did not already exist. He created it all, and the magi could point out major events in history just by seeing signs in the stars. And there were other kings born under the same sign. The unity of God's creation. (There "astrology" was NOT what we call astrology today.)

As for Ninevah, they also went apostate and were destroyed. They went back to their sin.

Peter knew his message was 'for all those who were near and who were far away.' In ch 3 he repeats the masthead Genesis quote that 'in the Seed, all nations of the earth would be blessed.' Christ died for the world's sins. What's the question? Remember, he had the recapitulation problem; he was human and feared for his life when Judaizers pressured him not to be with Gentiles, Gal 2. He had to be confronted about it by Paul. But in Acts 15 Paul affirms him by saying he was the first to reach them, even though Gal 2 says what it says (that Peter went to Jews). And James says they all knew this from Amos 9 (that all people were to be reached).

 

[EarlyActs]

Sebomai:
"Sebomai
seb'-om-ahee
Verb

1. to revere, to worship

Audio Pronunciation
Original Language
sevbw
Origin
middle voice of an apparently primary verb
Strong's Number
4576
TDNT Entry
7:169,1010"

Jesus was never done with the Jews. Paul is clear that what happened is the Jews rejected, so the Gentiles moved from crumbs to being given most of the plate. Remember the passage in Jeremiah where God clearly states He will not forget Israel, and will never be done with them.

That doesn't mean anything. Cornelius is the preview of what was to come. Hence they spoke in tongues. Why? To show that the Gentiles belong to the same church as the Jews, not some other church. From Peter's reaction, it is clear that the Jews had never considered that the Gentiles would be considered the same as them. Peter said, who can forbid these the water, who received the same Holy Spirit as they received? How as it recognized? They also spoke in tongues just like they did.

I don't know that the maji knew all of that. They were a school of astrology which had exceptional knowledge of cosmology, even more than we have. I see it as proof of the creation having been all created by God. God didn't find us. Space did not already exist. He created it all, and the magi could point out major events in history just by seeing signs in the stars. And there were other kings born under the same sign. The unity of God's creation. (There "astrology" was NOT what we call astrology today.)

As for Ninevah, they also went apostate and were destroyed. They went back to their sin.

PLease try for one topic per post, thanks.

re the Jews. Yes, since Jesus never gave up on them, there is little black and white time periods. The lostness was that they didn't see their mission through him, as the apostles would later explain and cultivate. The Judaizers tried to fight that too, as we see in far reaches like 2 Corinthians--the ministry of death.

 

[EarlyActs]

Sebomai:
"Sebomai
seb'-om-ahee
Verb

1. to revere, to worship

Audio Pronunciation
Original Language
sevbw
Origin
middle voice of an apparently primary verb
Strong's Number
4576
TDNT Entry
7:169,1010"

Jesus was never done with the Jews. Paul is clear that what happened is the Jews rejected, so the Gentiles moved from crumbs to being given most of the plate. Remember the passage in Jeremiah where God clearly states He will not forget Israel, and will never be done with them.

That doesn't mean anything. Cornelius is the preview of what was to come. Hence they spoke in tongues. Why? To show that the Gentiles belong to the same church as the Jews, not some other church. From Peter's reaction, it is clear that the Jews had never considered that the Gentiles would be considered the same as them. Peter said, who can forbid these the water, who received the same Holy Spirit as they received? How as it recognized? They also spoke in tongues just like they did.

I don't know that the maji knew all of that. They were a school of astrology which had exceptional knowledge of cosmology, even more than we have. I see it as proof of the creation having been all created by God. God didn't find us. Space did not already exist. He created it all, and the magi could point out major events in history just by seeing signs in the stars. And there were other kings born under the same sign. The unity of God's creation. (There "astrology" was NOT what we call astrology today.)

As for Ninevah, they also went apostate and were destroyed. They went back to their sin.

It is fairly common biblical and archeological knowledge that 'read the stars' in the Abrahamic narrative is to practice what the post-Cataclysm world knew of astronomy. There were 12 sectors of the sky, one for Israel. There were assigned roles to the major objects. There was the understanding of ascending (births) and waning. They had devices that could show when alignments would happen. Their knowledge brought them to Bethlehem about 2 AD.

The 2 AD alignment meant: a God-king would be born in the house of Israel for the whole world, although the duality can be shifted to read: a king will be born in the house of Israel, a bridge God provides for man to heaven/salvation. This was why Jesus asked the young disciple, wait til you see the Son of Man ascending and descending on angels, Jn 1.

They knew from Genesis about the star of Shiloh, through Daniel. But they also knew a lot of precise stuff about the times from him, like the 490 years. Obviously the Messiah of the stars had to come by that period and be known. This matched what they knew about 'reading/calculating' the stars.

It was no surprise that Dan 2 would mention a reign of God that toppled the human precious metal statue of Neb. This also 'aligned.' So now you had 3 things affirming the same thing, which is prob why Neb admitted so much about the kingdom, after being humiliated about it. The three were Genesis, the stars themselves and new revelation through Daniel with timestamps on it (following the 4th kingdom, the 490 years).

Abraham saw (ie read the star meaning) Christ's day and rejoiced (Jn 8). In fact, that was how he knew his 'seed' would be millions--by faith in the same message. The Gospel of Christ always has this component--that it is not spread or transmitted by human descent but by a person believing that Christ was the Seed which the believer is located "in." Gal 3.

Yes, the astrological use of the same heavenly signs was abhorrent to God, and reduced it to 'fortune-telling' or 'divination.'

You have an interesting way of wanting to differ but actually agreeing (unwittingly, it seems).

See Larson's doc THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM.

 

[EarlyActs]

Sebomai:
"Sebomai
seb'-om-ahee
Verb

1. to revere, to worship

Audio Pronunciation
Original Language
sevbw
Origin
middle voice of an apparently primary verb
Strong's Number
4576
TDNT Entry
7:169,1010"

Jesus was never done with the Jews. Paul is clear that what happened is the Jews rejected, so the Gentiles moved from crumbs to being given most of the plate. Remember the passage in Jeremiah where God clearly states He will not forget Israel, and will never be done with them.

That doesn't mean anything. Cornelius is the preview of what was to come. Hence they spoke in tongues. Why? To show that the Gentiles belong to the same church as the Jews, not some other church. From Peter's reaction, it is clear that the Jews had never considered that the Gentiles would be considered the same as them. Peter said, who can forbid these the water, who received the same Holy Spirit as they received? How as it recognized? They also spoke in tongues just like they did.

I don't know that the maji knew all of that. They were a school of astrology which had exceptional knowledge of cosmology, even more than we have. I see it as proof of the creation having been all created by God. God didn't find us. Space did not already exist. He created it all, and the magi could point out major events in history just by seeing signs in the stars. And there were other kings born under the same sign. The unity of God's creation. (There "astrology" was NOT what we call astrology today.)

As for Ninevah, they also went apostate and were destroyed. They went back to their sin.

re Nineveh
There is no indication that the repentance is disingenuous. That would make a ridiculous account out of it. Any people's faith can fall apart in a generation.

 

[EarlyActs]

Revelation puts the reign AFTER the wrath and rescue of Israel, followed by a rescue of God's people at the end of the millennium. The belief is that David's "son" will reign from His seat in Jerusalem, and thus fulfill the promises God made. When looking at I Corinthians 15 I believe, that ends when Jesus finally defeats death and returns the kingdom to the Father. That occurs at the end of the millennium in Revelation 20, when death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire, after everyone else. Thus keeping with the "final enemy" Paul writes about. Death no longer has power of God's children, but everyone else is still under the sway of death.

Just to repeat, your sequence, but not the starting point, is right. The reign is after the wrath, although you could say that he announced the necessity of it at the same time. The announcement of the wrath on Israel is as early as mid-ministry in Luke 13. In Mt 23 it is declared that the house is already desolate. That's loaded! In the wedding parable of 22, the king burns down the city of those who don't come to the wedding (is that not an odd thing to say about a wedding if you were not precisely directing it at Jerusalem?). That and Eph 5 show that the 'wedding' has taken place.

The term for the woman in late Rev is the term used for a Levite's unfaithful wife. A picture of the old covenant. The wedding to the true bride follows her 'stoning'--note the visionary reference to 100 lb stones that destroy the 'woman' Jerusalem. That was the size used by Roman catapults.

re death: anyone who believes has been transferred from death to life, Jn 5, 11, which is prob why Rev 20 and the two deaths/resurrections is a bit elusive. Meanwhile, Lewis says, death operates the way rumors did in WW2 intelligence. While the facts of it were not true, the emotive power was used for all the purposes that could possibly be gained.

 

[3 Resurrections]

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have [d]fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming." So Christ is the firstfruits, and then we have the first resurrection at Christ's coming, which Revelation places before the millennium. So your first resurrection was around 967BC. The resurrection to eternal torment is at the end of the millennium, so in 33 AD. Why would you do that to those people?

To clarify your total misunderstanding of what I wrote...Christ was definitely part of the "First-fruits" resurrection event, along with the 144,000 "First-fruits unto God and to the Lamb" - namely, the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised to life again that same day. This was the "First resurrection" event in AD 33 (not 967 BC, as you think I wrote). Out of that First-fruits group / "FIRST resurrection" event, Christ was the only one who was called "the First-born" and the "First-begotten of the dead", because He was the very first one to ascend to the Father in that glorified, resurrected state. Not even Enoch or Elijah had done this yet, according to Christ in John 3:13. The rest of the First-fruits group raised from the dead on that day remained behind on the earth for a time to serve the evangelistic and edification purposes in the early church. They were waiting on Christ's second coming, when they would then be allowed to ascend to heaven with Christ and the other newly-resurrected believers, which ended up taking place in AD 70 on that year's Pentecost day, according to Daniel 12:11-13's prediction for the 1,335th day.

We are told in Revelation 20:5 that the millennium was finished when the "First resurrection" (in AD 33) had taken place, and that Satan's deception was then loosed at the end of that millennium when it had "expired". The "FIRST resurrection" was that of the "FIRST-fruits", namely, Christ and the 144,000 Matthew 27:52-53 saints (in AD 33). Nothing but "blessed and holy" righteous ones were included in that "FIRST resurrection".

The next, second resurrection event at Christ's second coming in AD 70 included both the just and the unjust, who were judged according to their works. This was the resurrection which Paul told Felix was "about to be" in Acts 24:15, which caused Felix to tremble concerning the "judgment about to be" (Acts 24:25).

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again TMSO,

Perhaps if I defined who everyone else is. Everyone else are those who worshiped the beast and his image, and have taken the mark of his name. I hope that clears up what I mean.

I have a different perspective. I consider that there is the initial Battle of Armageddon and the outcome of this is those armies will be destroyed, the Jews in the Land converted and the start of the Kingdom of God established. Even this will take much transition in the Land. The faithful who are the new kings and priests will preach to the nations, and the nations are encouraged to accept Christ and His Kingdom. This will be done over many years and some nations and individuals will submit and others will oppose Christ. Those that submit will become the mortal nations and individuals during the 1000 years.

That is how I understand it. Jesus return before the millennium is when He makes His enemy His footstool. The end of the millennium is when He utterly defeats the final enemy Paul speaks of, death. After which He returns the kingdom to the Father, that God is all in all. (That is a very rough paraphrase. If I got something wrong from the verses in I Corinthians 15, just let me know.)

Yes I agree in general, but I have a strong conviction of a period of transition at the beginning of the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TMSO]

But you must have noticed in the intro of the Rev, that it is a revelation of Christ (about Him). Let me explain the apocalyptic background:

Why is it important? It is the full Revelation of all the Jews had expected of Him, the Messiah. He is being fully revealed for who He is.

this form of Judaistic literature was written during the disappointing centuries of Israel after the return from exile. The intention of most of them was to provide a 'behind-the-scenes' explanation of the dismal circumstances.

This is why God specifically has John say it is prophecy right? Because it isn't? "1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must [a]shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

But there is a theme developed when Christ comes that while the OT said 'the time is coming' He said 'it is fulfilled.' Rather than solve the dismality problem, it heightened it, because there's nothing worse than saying things are great when they are even worse.

And going to be even worse. Have you read Revelation? (Yes, that is humor cranked to 11..) It is Jesus taking back creation. That scroll with seven seals is the title deed to earth/creation, from God to the Son, His inheritance. (Scrolls with seven seals are legal documents, usually a last will and testament, except the Father will never die.) So it is the judgement/punishment of unregenerate men, and the purging of the Earth of sinful humanity, and sin. Part of that is cleaining house of the previous leadership.

But the NT was actually going two different directions than Judaism expected. 1, the glory was in Christ, in the redemptive event called the Gospel. That is a bit embarrassing if you are on the crucify-ing side of things. But if you saw the prophets the way the apostles were taught, you knew that things really were being fulfilled substantially, but not the way Judaism and its Zionism expected. There really was a new temple and all the nations were coming to celebrate 'Christ our passover.' (I Cor 5). The Lamb had been enthroned and was worthy of all praise, honor and riches, Rev 4-6.

It is going exactly in line with Judaism, however, the timeline is not in keeping with their beliefs. This is Jesus being revealed in all His Messianic glory. Establishing His Kingdom. Before He can establish His Earthly Kingdom, He must take Earth back. We see Him do that in Revelation 20.

2, there was an empirical event coming at the end of the generation, announced over and over by Christ, and it was the dark side of Dan 9, which our modern friends pine to avoid. That dark side was the utter demolition of the country. It would be cathartic if our modern 'prophecy' friends would realize this had to happen to clarify things, but they avoid it like a disease.

This was the punishment of the non-elect, unregenerate Jews. Those who utterly reject Jesus as Messiah. However, there are a lot of prophecies that show that Jerusalem will be thriving again before the end. God would not leave Israel desolate.

So the Rev clearly has these two elements and not those of Judaistic apocalyptic--which only fueled the hopeless zealot movements. (Failure to note this is the main flaw of current beliefs that Jesus was for social revolution or a freedom fighter, etc).

It did explain things from 'behind the scenes' but Judaism rejected both: the Gospel event was foolishness, and the destruction of the country was so painful to think about that even Caiaphas tried to circumvent it, in Jn 12.

Consider Jesus pronouncement at the end of Matthew 23: "37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”"

What is Jesus saying? Jerusalem (Israel) will not see Jesus anymore until they accept Him fully as Messiah. (That last bit is one of the messianic titles.) So, can Jesus come back to Earth to be seen by all and Israel, before they accept Him as Messiah? Zechariah 12 says they accept Him as Messiah at His return. Have you seen this yet? Is it a safe bet that Jesus has not returned yet?