• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

It is actually 'eisegesis' to force an outside context into what is there.

Nothing is broken about Jeremiah; the new covenant is in effect in the gospels, in Hebrews, in 2 Cor 3-5. How did Paul fail to mention some future episode in such passages? How did he forget in the heat of the exchange in Acts 26? He could easily have said, 'hey guys, chill; your kingdom is coming in the distant future!' It is not there!

There is no place in the NT that I know of that a future kingdom is inserted when it would matter to the topic! Even in Rom 11, to add that feature is to miss that the Isaiah quote is historically-oriented, and that saved means justified from sins ("taken away") all through Romans. there is no reason, out of nowhere, to suddenly be obsessed with a Judaic kingdom for Israel. Nowhere else has it mattered in Romans, etc.
But when that outside context is scripture, it is no longer eisegesis. We are supposed to use scripture to interpret scripture.

As for Jeremiah, I am not talking about the new covenant. There is a verse where God specifically states that He will NOT cast Israel away. Not unless we find some way to accomplish two IMPOSSIBLE tasks.

So the Millennial kingdom doesn't matter? Israel is still in sin, if you can believe it. It is not yet gone. It is not done away with until Zechariah 12-14 are completely fulfilled. There is a kingdom for a short time, in fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament, to include those made to David and Solomon. It just happens to fit in perfectly with Jesus taking His inheritance and redeeming the creation. Are you upset that God/Jesus still cares about Israel, and will save His remnant?
 
But when that outside context is scripture, it is no longer eisegesis. We are supposed to use scripture to interpret scripture.

As for Jeremiah, I am not talking about the new covenant. There is a verse where God specifically states that He will NOT cast Israel away. Not unless we find some way to accomplish two IMPOSSIBLE tasks.

So the Millennial kingdom doesn't matter? Israel is still in sin, if you can believe it. It is not yet gone. It is not done away with until Zechariah 12-14 are completely fulfilled. There is a kingdom for a short time, in fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament, to include those made to David and Solomon. It just happens to fit in perfectly with Jesus taking His inheritance and redeeming the creation. Are you upset that God/Jesus still cares about Israel, and will save His remnant?

The only reason for my mentioning passages with the NC in them was to show it was in effect. You think it is distant future to the NT writers. I’m not a context hopper. And you can’t force a meaning from elsewhere any old time you feel like it.

That was how D’ism took over. Under the banner of ‘rightly dividing’ which was itself out of context.
 
But when that outside context is scripture, it is no longer eisegesis. We are supposed to use scripture to interpret scripture.

As for Jeremiah, I am not talking about the new covenant. There is a verse where God specifically states that He will NOT cast Israel away. Not unless we find some way to accomplish two IMPOSSIBLE tasks.

So the Millennial kingdom doesn't matter? Israel is still in sin, if you can believe it. It is not yet gone. It is not done away with until Zechariah 12-14 are completely fulfilled. There is a kingdom for a short time, in fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament, to include those made to David and Solomon. It just happens to fit in perfectly with Jesus taking His inheritance and redeeming the creation. Are you upset that God/Jesus still cares about Israel, and will save His remnant?

All the care about Israel is expressed in Rom 11:30: He has had mercy on all in Christ. This has finality to it.

Once again you don’t see the 2 programs you actually believe in. Your question means that God is going to do something different for the race-nation than he has done in Rom 11:30. The reason for the Isaiah quotes there is to show this has come to pass.
 
I don’t see where you have worked out what Acts 26 means about all this and being the last declaration, it is pretty vital that we treat it coherently.
 
The Jer 33 quote about preserving Israel is not the race-nation—otherwise the mention of the NC was a waste of time. We must be familiar with Eph 3’s unity in “Israel’s “ destiny.
 
Last edited:
I would think doing a study on how the word thousand (479 times) is used throughout the Bible.
remember God forbids numnering liter .Mankind look to thier strethg david was guilty many ded
remember thousand as if one the signified understanding not literal
The 1000 to one odds

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
1000 to one

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

As a above denotes a parable is in sight the signified tongue or poetic language with God

Psalm 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

He owns all the cattle on every hill an unknown number.

Begin with Genesis

Genesis 20:16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

Or as many that are with .1000 to 1

Genesis 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.
Thousand mions to one

One mother compared to all


Exodus 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

1000 to one

Tens in multiples, hundreds, thousands, ten thousand, a million thousand = unknown, unrevealed God does not number of dying mankind.

Mankind is quick to fill it in them .. first. No numbering days or mankind.

Matthew 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
 
But when that outside context is scripture, it is no longer eisegesis. We are supposed to use scripture to interpret scripture.

As for Jeremiah, I am not talking about the new covenant. There is a verse where God specifically states that He will NOT cast Israel away. Not unless we find some way to accomplish two IMPOSSIBLE tasks.

So the Millennial kingdom doesn't matter? Israel is still in sin, if you can believe it. It is not yet gone. It is not done away with until Zechariah 12-14 are completely fulfilled. There is a kingdom for a short time, in fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament, to include those made to David and Solomon. It just happens to fit in perfectly with Jesus taking His inheritance and redeeming the creation. Are you upset that God/Jesus still cares about Israel, and will save His remnant?

It it is true that we are supposed to use scripture to interpret scripture, why are so many of these future experts miserable at how the apostles do just that? Shouldn't their interps naturally be worth 100x our opinions, yet, to listen to them, it is theirs that matter (and they are never the way the apostles do).
 
Hi,
I hope you are OK.

I just wondered if you ever worked up a treatment of Acts 26.
 
The only reason for my mentioning passages with the NC in them was to show it was in effect. You think it is distant future to the NT writers. I’m not a context hopper. And you can’t force a meaning from elsewhere any old time you feel like it.

That was how D’ism took over. Under the banner of ‘rightly dividing’ which was itself out of context.
I am not sure how many times I have told you... I AM NOT A DISPY. However, I did read a chunk of Ryrie's book on progressive dispensationalism. I still have it on my shelf.
 
All the care about Israel is expressed in Rom 11:30: He has had mercy on all in Christ. This has finality to it.
"30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:" There is no finality here. Paul is telling the Gentiles that they once did not believe in God, yet, now, due to the unbelief of the Jews, the Gentiles have obtained mercy. In other words, if the Jews accepted Christ, and believed, then the Gentiles would have never have found mercy. This all speaks to the ONE plan of redemption, that through Israel, all find mercy. (Through Israel's disobedience.) The actual verses of finality is: "31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

They also may obtain mercy. Sounds like a second track, doesn't it? Except it isn't because it says "these also now not believed that through your mercy..." It is all one thing... mercy. Two groups of people, one mercy.
Once again you don’t see the 2 programs you actually believe in.
How many times do I have to tell you I DON'T BELIEVE IN TWO PROGRAMS!?!?! Do you make it a practice to bear false witness?
Your question means that God is going to do something different for the race-nation than he has done in Rom 11:30. The reason for the Isaiah quotes there is to show this has come to pass.
God is going to save the remnant of the nation of Israel in the same way He saved everyone else. Through Christ. Even Zechariah makes that much clear. Paul makes that very clear. "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy." ALSO. Very important word there. Also. In addition to. In the same way. There is only one plan of redemption. One program. There is only one road to God. It goes through Christ.
 
It it is true that we are supposed to use scripture to interpret scripture, why are so many of these future experts miserable at how the apostles do just that? Shouldn't their interps naturally be worth 100x our opinions, yet, to listen to them, it is theirs that matter (and they are never the way the apostles do).
I take it that means you agree with 3 resurrections and that Satan is no longer the ruler of this world, demons no longer exist because they were destroyed in Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc. (He is clear to say that it is because that is what the apostles say in scripture.) Where you say "their interps naturually be worth 100x our opinions", is you saying that your interpretations of what they say, now what they actually say. Should we talk about the word for "robbers" again? You clearly state that it is your interpretation that states that it is actually insurrectionist, even though the same author uses a different word to say insurrectionist. When one considers all the times the author used the same word for "robber" in the same book to clearly mean robber, to say that it is insurrectionist is wrong. To say that it is insurrectionist against the fact that the same author, in the same book, uses a word that actually means insurrectionist to say insurrectionist is telling. However, I guess I must grant you your interpretation, since much of your belief would crumble if I did not.
 
I am not sure how many times I have told you... I AM NOT A DISPY. However, I did read a chunk of Ryrie's book on progressive dispensationalism. I still have it on my shelf.

Yet it is standard by them to say the NC is future.
 
"30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:" There is no finality here. Paul is telling the Gentiles that they once did not believe in God, yet, now, due to the unbelief of the Jews, the Gentiles have obtained mercy. In other words, if the Jews accepted Christ, and believed, then the Gentiles would have never have found mercy. This all speaks to the ONE plan of redemption, that through Israel, all find mercy. (Through Israel's disobedience.) The actual verses of finality is: "31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

They also may obtain mercy. Sounds like a second track, doesn't it? Except it isn't because it says "these also now not believed that through your mercy..." It is all one thing... mercy. Two groups of people, one mercy.

How many times do I have to tell you I DON'T BELIEVE IN TWO PROGRAMS!?!?! Do you make it a practice to bear false witness?

God is going to save the remnant of the nation of Israel in the same way He saved everyone else. Through Christ. Even Zechariah makes that much clear. Paul makes that very clear. "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy." ALSO. Very important word there. Also. In addition to. In the same way. There is only one plan of redemption. One program. There is only one road to God. It goes through Christ.

If you use ‘now’ three times in a row, it’s pretty final and not in the future when the other program comes back as they say.

Listen to the Isaiah quote again; he is clearly reporting historically. The Redeemer came.

The one plan was for all to believe now, for all to be missionaries now. It is 2 programs to make either group contingent on the other.

The Gentiles were always meant to receive the Gospel. There is no such thing as they might not have if Jews believed. If MOREJews believed at first, there would have been more effective missionaries. This more Gentiles would have believed.
 
I take it that means you agree with 3 resurrections and that Satan is no longer the ruler of this world, demons no longer exist because they were destroyed in Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc. (He is clear to say that it is because that is what the apostles say in scripture.) Where you say "their interps naturually be worth 100x our opinions", is you saying that your interpretations of what they say, now what they actually say. Should we talk about the word for "robbers" again? You clearly state that it is your interpretation that states that it is actually insurrectionist, even though the same author uses a different word to say insurrectionist. When one considers all the times the author used the same word for "robber" in the same book to clearly mean robber, to say that it is insurrectionist is wrong. To say that it is insurrectionist against the fact that the same author, in the same book, uses a word that actually means insurrectionist to say insurrectionist is telling. However, I guess I must grant you your interpretation, since much of your belief would crumble if I did not.

Check a literary lexicon. They steal to accomplish political goals. Money laundering to stockpile for the revolt was well known; when push came to shove, they assassinated the high priest in the 60s to stop his opposition. There were things like this which the Christians agreed upon with the temple staff.
 
I will check on ‘leisters’ again next week; I noticed it while translating Josephus. I’m on a trip. My hunch is that the good Sam reference actually works the other way. Like the guys who got killed when the tower fell on them in all ch 13. He meant the generation would perish like misguided rebels. It did.
 
I take it that means you agree with 3 resurrections and that Satan is no longer the ruler of this world, demons no longer exist because they were destroyed in Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc. (He is clear to say that it is because that is what the apostles say in scripture.) Where you say "their interps naturually be worth 100x our opinions", is you saying that your interpretations of what they say, now what they actually say. Should we talk about the word for "robbers" again? You clearly state that it is your interpretation that states that it is actually insurrectionist, even though the same author uses a different word to say insurrectionist. When one considers all the times the author used the same word for "robber" in the same book to clearly mean robber, to say that it is insurrectionist is wrong. To say that it is insurrectionist against the fact that the same author, in the same book, uses a word that actually means insurrectionist to say insurrectionist is telling. However, I guess I must grant you your interpretation, since much of your belief would crumble if I did not.

I do not agree with the fantasy that Satan is no longer effective.

The kingdom of God is an imperative; the Son was enthroned, Davidically, and the gift of the Spirit demonstrated this world wide (in the Roman sense.)

The imperative is very hard to coney but no different from the verb tense from which I borrowed it. Yes it is imperative; but obviously men do not generally follow that, not to mention Satan denies it.
 
"30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:" There is no finality here. Paul is telling the Gentiles that they once did not believe in God, yet, now, due to the unbelief of the Jews, the Gentiles have obtained mercy. In other words, if the Jews accepted Christ, and believed, then the Gentiles would have never have found mercy. This all speaks to the ONE plan of redemption, that through Israel, all find mercy. (Through Israel's disobedience.) The actual verses of finality is: "31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

They also may obtain mercy. Sounds like a second track, doesn't it? Except it isn't because it says "these also now not believed that through your mercy..." It is all one thing... mercy. Two groups of people, one mercy.

How many times do I have to tell you I DON'T BELIEVE IN TWO PROGRAMS!?!?! Do you make it a practice to bear false witness?

God is going to save the remnant of the nation of Israel in the same way He saved everyone else. Through Christ. Even Zechariah makes that much clear. Paul makes that very clear. "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy." ALSO. Very important word there. Also. In addition to. In the same way. There is only one plan of redemption. One program. There is only one road to God. It goes through Christ.

If you thought there was one program , you would seek the unity of the church at one time and place, as Eph 1 says. Once again the futurists do not realize the end of Eph 1 is about the present, the verb ‘when the times would be fulfilled’ being about how previous ages (previous to the NT) saw Paul’s present. Like they don’t about Rom 11.

Thus the mystery in ch 3A is not that there would be this unified body of believers, but how: in the Gospel, v6, not the Law.

Rom 11 allows for the failure of Israel but there is no way that back and forth was planned nor that if Jews had believed, Gentiles would not. Totally ridiculous. ‘in the Seed, all the nations would be blessed ‘ is quoted some 10x and Gen 12:3 not at all.
 
If you use ‘now’ three times in a row, it’s pretty final and not in the future when the other program comes back as they say.

Listen to the Isaiah quote again; he is clearly reporting historically. The Redeemer came.

The one plan was for all to believe now, for all to be missionaries now. It is 2 programs to make either group contingent on the other.

The Gentiles were always meant to receive the Gospel. There is no such thing as they might not have if Jews believed. If MOREJews believed at first, there would have been more effective missionaries. This more Gentiles would have believed.
It is difficult for you to understand that that is exactly what would have happened if the Jews had accepted the Messiah. You yourself speak of two programs. I am saying it was ALWAYS one program, where the Jews were ALWAYS intended to reject the Messiah. That would be because I am calvinistic. God determined everything.

What the verse I posted said is that the Jews are NOW NOT believing, that through the mercy the Gentiles received, the Jews may also obtain (future tense) mercy. It is all one program. Of course, if one believes that God was surprised that the Jews rejected Christ, then you can say that God threw together another program. I don't believe that, but you are more than free to believe that.

You are correct that the Gentiles were always meant to receive the Gospel, however, you are wrong in saying that they might not have if the Jews did not reject their Messiah. It isn't even something we should talk about, because, as I said, there is only one program, and there has only been one program. God did not have a program for if the Jews received the Messiah, and a program for if they rejected the Messiah. The program always had the Jews rejecting the Messiah. In Deuteronomy, God tells the Israelites through Moses the blessings for following God, and the curses for rejecting God. Then God told Moses to teach the Israelites a song about what WILL happen to them (curses) since they WILL reject God. God did not say that Israel might reject God. He was clear that they will reject Him. The only question one can ask is "when"?

Even though God knew that the Israelites would reject, He never stopped them from condemning themselves. How is that not evil? God let the Israelites destroy themselves. He knew it would happen, and did nothing to stop it. Why? God's position as creator. He can do whatever He wants. Who can judge Him? His created? Who can speak back at Him? Us? Even Paul said nope to that. Who are you, oh man, to speak back at your creator?

There is ONE program, the one God set up before the foundation of the world. The only reason to say more than one program is if one does not believe God is sovereign, or that God has not determined/does not determine what happens in His creation. And that is a whole other field of study.
 
If you thought there was one program , you would seek the unity of the church at one time and place, as Eph 1 says. Once again the futurists do not realize the end of Eph 1 is about the present, the verb ‘when the times would be fulfilled’ being about how previous ages (previous to the NT) saw Paul’s present. Like they don’t about Rom 11.
Why would I do that? There is one program. That program is that salvation would come through the Jews, and it would come to the Gentiles through the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews, and the Jews would find mercy through the mercy shown to the Gentiles. One program. There was not another program set up for in case the Jews did not reject the Messiah. There has only ever been one program, that which God determined before the foundation of the world. The Jews would reject the Messiah, the Gentiles would, through this rejection, accept the Messiah, and through this mercy shown by God, the remant of Israel may obtain mercy. One program.
Thus the mystery in ch 3A is not that there would be this unified body of believers, but how: in the Gospel, v6, not the Law.
The mystery of the Old Testament is the church. The mystery of Christianity is that we are saved at all, and how. It is a mystery to us, for we do not know the mind of God. Only the Holy Spirit knows the mind of God, as our spirit knows our mind. Salvation has been called a miracle, because it is solely the work of God.
Rom 11 allows for the failure of Israel but there is no way that back and forth was planned nor that if Jews had believed, Gentiles would not. Totally ridiculous. ‘in the Seed, all the nations would be blessed ‘ is quoted some 10x and Gen 12:3 not at all.
Again, one plan. The Jews WILL reject, the Gentiles WILL accept, and the remnant of Israel WILL be saved. As it is put in Romans 11, by the disobedience of the Jews, the Gentiles became obedient, and by the mercy shown to the Gentiles, the Jews that NOW DO NOT BELIEVE, may obtain mercy. Those of Israel who are saved, are the remnant, the elect within Israel. It isn't that difficult to understand what Paul is saying. If you believe God is sovereign and determined what occurs within His creation, then it is blatantly obvious that there has ever only been one plan. That plan always had Israel reject, and through that, always had the Gentiles accept, and through that acceptance, through the mercy shown to the Gentiles, the remnant of Israel obtains mercy. Just what do you have against the Jews anyway?
 
If you thought there was one program , you would seek the unity of the church at one time and place, as Eph 1 says. Once again the futurists do not realize the end of Eph 1 is about the present, the verb ‘when the times would be fulfilled’ being about how previous ages (previous to the NT) saw Paul’s present. Like they don’t about Rom 11.

Thus the mystery in ch 3A is not that there would be this unified body of believers, but how: in the Gospel, v6, not the Law.

Rom 11 allows for the failure of Israel but there is no way that back and forth was planned nor that if Jews had believed, Gentiles would not. Totally ridiculous. ‘in the Seed, all the nations would be blessed ‘ is quoted some 10x and Gen 12:3 not at all.
To explain more in depth, I understand the purpose of Paul's writing in Romans 11 to be dealing with pride in the Gentiles. Paul explaisn the situation in more than one way. For one, he says that by the disobedience of the Jews, the Gentiles became obedient, that through the mercy shown to the Gentiles, the now non-believing Jews may obtain mercy. Then you have the olive tree. For the olive tree, the Jews are said to be natural branches of the cultivated olive tree, while the Gentiles are foreign branches from wild vines. What is one thing Paul is clear about? The Jews are ALWAYS natural branches to the tree, while the Genitiles are ALWAYS foreign branches. The Gentiles never become natural branches.

I truly believe that Paul's purpose in writing that portion is to call the Gentiles to humility, and that they should not haughtily exalt themselves above the Jews. They are only "guests". They are foreign branches. Paul says would it not be more natural to remove the foreign branch, and reattach the natural branch to its olive tree? The olive tree and natural branches go all the way back into the old testament. It is Israel, the Jews, the natural branches, the chosen people of God. We, as Gentiles, have no standing before that. It is by God's mercy that any were grafted into the tree after natural branches were removed for unbelief. Paul brings it full circle to his whole statement on the rejection of the Messiah. Room was made in the tree for the foreign branches, for the Gentiles, due to the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews. Due to... unbelief. So, one must be humble when approaching God, and one must always consider one's place. One can be removed as easily as one was grafted in, and one of the natural branches is more easily reattached then a foreign branch. (And it is more natural to NOT attach a foreign branch, but attach the natural branch to its tree.)

In the church, Jews and Gentiles are one, however, we must not forget how we came to be in the church. It was not by anything we have done. We must not forget that Israel will always be the chosen people of God, going back to the Old Testament. We must not forget that it is by God's mercy that we are counted with them, though we are not one of them. That we are considered equal with them, while not being them. We must never forget our position, and as such, become proud and haughty, and exalt ourselves above the Jews. (As Gentiles). There is A LOT to consider when dealing with this topic. Such as the extreme amount of hatred/envy towards the Jews throughout the history of the church. Luther hated the Jews almost as much as he hated the pope. This hatred was not without reason, however, it is something that Paul's words stand to condemn. The Jews are only our enemy for the sake of the gospel. That is it. The Catholic church took that to a whole new level out of hate. That hate came from how the Jews treated the Christians in the first and second centuries. All the Jews had to do was claim that Christianity was a branch of Judaism, and there would have been no persecution of the Christians because of the Jews. There would be other reasons, but not the Jews. However, the Jews refused to claim Christianity as part of Judaism, and thus set Rome against the Christians. Judaism was the only religion that Rome allowed to be freely practiced outside of Rome's official religious beliefs. So some/many Christians had an axe to grind with the Jews.
 
Back
Top