A Few of the Scriptures that Make me Post-Millennial

I find the simple, most natural understanding of Scripture the best. I embrace the words of Matthew Poole on 2 Cor. 11:3 - Paul, "was afraid, lest that as the serpent by his subtlety deceived Eve, so some subtle seducers should corrupt them, and so withdraw them from the simplicity of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him." On prophecy, I try not to think or be inventive beyond that which is written, 1 Cor. 4:6.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9-10, KJV)

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." (Isa 9:6-7, KJV)

Speaking to the Jews, Jesus said:
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matt 7:14, KJV)

Speaking of the Gentiles, Jesus said:
"And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt 8:11-12, KJV)

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15, KJV)

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matt 12:28, KJV)

"And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it." (Mark 4:30-32, KJV)

"Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." (Matt 13:33, KJV)

"For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." (Acts 2:34-35, KJV)

I find the 1000 years of Revelation 20 to be the period from Acts 2:34-35 until 1 Cor 16:24-27, the time between the 1st and 2nd advents. It is to be understood in the same way as the 1000 in Psa. 50:10; 91:7; 105:8; Isa 30:17; 60:22. The symbolism of Revelation is taken mainly from the OT.

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." (1Cor 15:24-27, KJV)

I understand historic pre-mil and amil views and do not find a reason to go to battle against those brethren about that, but I do shun the convoluted imaginations of man-made prophecy schemes that have failed over and over through the past centuries.

This subject is so overdone its ridiculous.

And if you think you'll post here and not end up in "battle" with those that disagree, you're wrong. There are already countless posts, in countless threads, on this subject, arguing on the topic.

Matthew 7:13 plus Romans 8:13

Except that you have simply taken various Scriptures and cobbled together your faulty understanding of the Second Coming of Christ.

So let's be clear about Post-Millennialism first. According to Theopedia:
.The postmillennialist believes that the millennium is an era (not necessarily a literal thousand years) during which Christ will reign over the earth, not from a literal and earthly throne, but through the gradual increase of the Gospel and its power to change lives. After this gradual Christianization of the world, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. This is called postmillennialism because, by its view, Christ will return after the millennium.",

Now Revelation 19 and 20 sequentially and thoroughly refute this nonsense. So where is your "natural understanding" of Scripture? We are required to take Scripture in its plain literal and chronological sense (unless a metaphor is involved).

I'll keep waiting until someone wishes to discuss the Scriptures I base my belief on. I suspect the only ones capable of having a true biblical discussion are the brethren who are amil or historic pre-mil or other variations of post-mil. If I have "cobbled together" unrelated Scriptures, let's discuss them individually, one at a time. Let us truly study God's word, iron to iron. I've spent many hours trying to talk Scripture with a Jehovah's Witness and they can string together proof texts, but they are unable to discuss the individual texts in question. It seems that dispensaltionalists are of the same ilk, just make broad claims without much study on their claimed supporting passages. I can trace my post-mil beliefs back through the history of the body of Christ, can the dispensationalist? I can find broad agreement with my beliefs back through men of God out of the past, that is important if one is part of the body of Christ. The object of Bible discussion should be biblical truth, the truth that sets men free. I keep learning and hope to til I die!

In this post you said "historic pre-mill"(difference from post-mill as in the thread title),,, Are you meaning Premilliennialism as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism ?

I think we all aim for this goal. While I can understand some of the reasoning of post mil I always have to dismiss it for I cant make all scripture line up looking at it through these lenses, for example so much of OT testament prophecy points to Israel the nation ruling the earth under their Messiah, so while there is a spiritual kingdom which we are part of, there is also a physical kingdom spoken of.

Also when I read

Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I read of Christians (those who have died since the cross)
Who did not receive the mark of the beast nor worshipped the image which hasnt been set up yet, so this is still future, then to me it plainly says they/we will live and reign with Christ a 1000 years.

I cannot in good conscience make the 1000yrs metaphoric for being literal lines up with the old testament promises to Israel and also a new revelation here revealed His martyred saints, and also if it is a spiritual meaning then it still cannot not apply to today can it?

I am distinguishing historic premillennialism from dispensationalism which appeared in the latter 19th century. The wikipedia article is inacccurate. The better description is: https://www.gotquestions.org/historic-premillennialism.html

Where are you seeing an inaccuracy it seems that they both are almost saying the same thing in their descriptions. Myself, I am not an dispensationist in that I see the divisions mentioned by the Church in the first several centuries the same as Irenaeus mentions in AH 5.28.3 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103528.htm as did others mentioned in both articles(historic pre-mill). Anyway I see modern dispensationism as misunderstanding those seven one thousand year days(6 plus the mill.) in that they begin and end them at incorrect times in history and confuse them as dispensations(stewardship's) in doing so.

Thanks for your response, Clayman. So often where we end up depends upon the presuppositions at the start. I approach this topic differently.

First, I do not believe any book of the NT was written after 70 AD and the destruction of the temple. It is impossible for me to believe that no NT writer would mention such a huge event as already happening. In fact, Revelation 11:1, 2 mentions the temple as if it still stood and to me that would be totally out of place if the temple had been destroyed 25 years before. So, I believe Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. When I read the reasons for dating Revelation at 95-96 AD, it sounds just like the liberals wishing to date the book of Daniel later, after the prophesied events had happened. I take Revelation as truly prophecy, but about the destruction of the temple and then the fall of the Roman Empire. There are Bible scholars who hold this view and one can be read online:

https://www.richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf

As with so many web sites, I must say I would not agree with everything on that web site, but this book presents a powerful case. I am a preterist, but NOT a hyper-preterist. I still look for 'the last day' with the return of Christ, resurrection and judgment.

When I read Revelation's own dating, I cannot project it into the future. The book is emphatic:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." (Rev 1:1-3, KJV)

That is repeated at the end of the book in Rev. 22:6, 10 so it is too clear for me to ignore.

In Rev. 20:4 I see "souls", not bodies, as if a bodily resurrection. I believe those persons are the same as mentioned previously in the book:

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." (Rev 6:9-11, KJV)

The only presentation of Revelation that has ever made any sense to me is that commentary by David. S. Clark: The Message from Patmos

https://archive.org/details/messagefrompatmo00clar/page/126/mode/2up

When it comes to the language of prophecy in the OT, I find it very symbolic using images and terms more familiar with the Jews. When I scan through the NT, I find the OT prophecies are applied to the church, the New Covenant believers. I do not know of any NT quote from the OT that indicates it is referring to a 1000 year physical reign of Jesus in a renewed or reconstituted Israel in Palestine.

"Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days." (Acts 3:24, KJV)

I try to form my understanding of prophecy based on the literal, plain speech language as my framework, then the symbolic I must view fitting within that framework. I do find so much of apocalypic language used in the NT is taken from the OT and when you read it in the OT, you see it is symbolic and not meant to be taken literally.

You do realize that all these verses fit nicely into other eschatological systems? Is there any verse that you quoted that you think contradicts premil that you think supports postmil? Why not go with the oldest interpretation we have evidence for--- premil. According to Eusebius, this was the view that some of those associated with St. John believed in, Papias, for example. Eusebius wasn't pre-mil, but he did acknowledge that.

You apparently did not read the link I gave explaining the difference between dispensationalism and historic pre-millennialism, it reads:

Historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism are two different systems of eschatology. Here are a few examples of the differences between the two:

• Historic premillennialism teaches that the church was in the fore-vision of Old Testament prophecy, while dispensationalism teaches that the church is hardly, if at all, mentioned by the Old Testament prophets.

• Historic premillennialism teaches that the present age of grace was predicted in the Old Testament. Dispensationalism holds that the present age was unforeseen in the Old Testament and thus is a “great parenthesis” in history introduced because the Jews rejected the kingdom.

• Historic premillennialism teaches a millennium after the second advent of Christ but is not much concerned with classifying other epochs of history. Usually, dispensationalism teaches seven divisions of time. The present age is the sixth such dispensation; the last one will be the millennial age after the second coming.

• Historic premillennialism is posttribulational; dispensational premillennialism usually embraces the pretribulational view.

The premillennial view of the end times is thus advanced in two different ways: historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. The Bible contains many prophecies about the future, with the New Testament speaking extensively about the return of Jesus to earth. Matthew 24, much of the book of Revelation, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16–18 are the more salient references to the second coming.

Historic premillennialism was held by a large majority of Christians during the first three centuries of the Christian era. Many of the church fathers such as Ireneaus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and others taught that there would be a visible kingdom of God upon the earth after the return of Christ. Historic premillennialism taught that the Antichrist would appear on earth and the seven-year tribulation would begin. Next would be the rapture, and then Jesus and His church would return to earth to rule for a thousand years. The faithful spend eternity in the New Jerusalem.

When Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the fourth century, many things began to change, including acceptance of historic premillennialism. Amillennialism soon became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

One of the most influential historic premillennialists was George Eldon Ladd, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. It was through Ladd’s work that historic premillennialism gained scholarly respect and popularity among evangelical and Reformed theologians of the twentieth century. Other well-known historic premillennialists include Walter Martin; John Warwick Montgomery; J. Barton Payne; Henry Alford, a noted Greek scholar; and Theodor Zahn, a German New Testament scholar.

Historic premillennialism is one system of eschatology that has support in the Protestant community. Generally, all of the premillennialist beliefs teach that the tribulation is followed by 1,000 years of peace when all live under the authority of Christ. Afterwards, in a brief, final battle, Satan is permanently conquered. The placement of the rapture in relation to the other events is one of the main differences between historic premillennialism and premillennial dispensationalism.
https://www.gotquestions.org/historic-premillennialism.html

Of course there are variations among believers in any approach to prophecy.

lol, I think that your thinking I'm defending "pre-trib rapture",,,,(I'm not) in reality many years ago I thought to mine own self after listening to the many different positions in Christianity "hmm,I wonder how the very next set of Church leaders saw all this" and I began reading the writings in what we call the Apostolic fathers. To me it just made sense that the Apostles where chosen and then as they were approaching their life's end they were putting in charge over the congregations the men that they knew held the same view as them(Polycarp for example) and then as men like Polycarp's life was ending he would have taught others what he was taught(Irenaeus for example). As time went on though it seems that by the third or fourth century that original view seemed to slip away and new ideas sprang up in it's place. Anyway I'm not pre-trib/pre-mill to the contrary I see things more closely to post tribulation,pre-mill ...

Spending the first 30 years of my life in dispensationalism I can tell you that what I quoted in the clear statements is denied by dispensationalists. Dispensationalists are waiting for Jesus to be king on the throne and reigning in some future 1000 year kingdom in Israel and deny that Christ is king and reigns now. Dispensationalists only embrace that few will be saved when the other passage expands that to include Gentiles which means many more. Dispensationalists, and the Amils I've encountered, do not believe the gospel will transform life on earth to a golden age but are pessimists. The prophecy in Isaiah 9:6, 7 reads "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end" and that was flat out denied to happen by dispensationalists, at least those I've listened to and read after. Dispensationalism, and to some extent as I understand amils, is very pessimistic and does not attribute power to the gospel to change society and the world. I do not think that at the last day, there will be more in hell than in heaven! Satan is not more powerful than God!

I'll give you an example of how dispensationalists deal with Scriptures that contradict their teaching. The MacArthur Study Bible using the NASB reads as follows:

NASB95 Josh. 21:43-45 "So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass."

As typical with dispensationalists, they contradict the word of God, as MacArthur's note reads:

"But God's people failed to exercise their responsibility and possess their land to the full degree in various areas."

MacArthur ignores making a comment on the following 2 chapters later:

NASB95 Josh. 23:14 “Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed."

That is the way dispensationalists contradict God's word!

Yes it is a blown doctrine ... the world was never going to be christianized. Right up to when Jesus returns the world will be in rebellion.

He quotes the scripture himself which says before He hands over the kingdom to the Father He must first reign until all His enemies are put under His feet. That IS what the 1,000 year reign is.

Is the devil bound? is he in prison? no.

I actually cannot figure out what you think. I've found your writings rather confusing. As to the early church beliefs, I still must stick to the Scriptures. Pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib mean nothing to me because I find Matt. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are describing the tribulation leading up to 70 AD. The arguments over the tribulation I find baseless as I also reject the idea of a "rapture". I find the word "rapture" three times in the REB and once in the Weymouth, but having nothing at all to do with the second coming.

"Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." (John 12:27, 31, KJV)

"But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house." (Matt 12:28-29, KJV)

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"(Heb 2:14, KJV)

James P. Boyce, (1827-1888), founder of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - Rev. 20 Boyce was post-mil
http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/boyce/aos/chapter40.htm

(1.) We must be careful how we receive any interpretation which does not accord with the rest of Scripture. Before doing so, we should examine thoroughly both the interpretation we wish to accept, and the views attained from other parts of the Word of God. We know that Scripture cannot contradict itself, when rightly interpreted. All its parts must, therefore, be carefully compared to see in what interpretation they agree.

(2.) If, after the best efforts to harmonize this with the other portions of God's Word, it should seem to be irreconcilable with them, the apparent interpretation of this passage should yield to that of others; Not so much because it is one only, as compared with a great number; but because it is found in a book of highly figurative prophecy, in which the literal interpretation is not so justly to be pressed, as in others, which are not of this character, and in which the literal meaning is more apt to be the mind of the Spirit.

(3.) The language of this passage, however, is, at least, in some respects, opposed to the idea of two resurrections of the body; the first, that of the saints to reign with Christ for a thousand years, and the second, that of the wicked to judgement.

(a.) Because those who are represented as belonging to the first resurrection, are not spoken of as clothed in resurrection bodies; but, on the contrary, John declares simply that he saw "the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, etc." v. 4.

(b.) It is not only not said that those who partake of the first resurrection are not among the dead, who are subsequently delivered up by death and Hades to be judged, v. 13, but it is implied that they are among these by the universal terms used when John says that he "saw the dead, the great and small, stand before God," v. 12. But, if this be true, then there must be either two resurrections of the bodies of the saints, or one of the resurrections at least cannot be of the body.

(c.) Especially is it not taught that the resurrection to judgement is confined to the wicked, nor that the first resurrection is of the bodies of all the saints; because along with the books "which were opened," "another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works," v.12; "and if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire," v.15. This language implies that, among those then raised and judged, there were some whose names were written in the book of life. Consequently, reference must here be made to the general resurrection and judgement, taught elsewhere as contemporaneous, and the first resurrection cannot be that of the body; or only some of the saints partake of the first resurrection; or there must be two resurrections of the bodies of the saints. The first of these is the only interpretation that accords with what is elsewhere taught.

(4.) The interpretation of this passage which makes it harmonious with all other Scripture is,

(a.) That the resurrection is a spiritual resurrection of the soul from the death of sin, of which Scriptures elsewhere speak so plainly as being a passage from death unto life. See John 5:24-26; Rom. 6:2-7; Eph. 2:1, 5; 5:14; Phil. 3:10, 11; Col. 2:12, 13; 1 John 3:14; 5:11, 12.

(b.) That the second death, which has no power over those which have part in the first resurrection, constitutes the punishment of those condemned at the judgement day, which consists in their being cast, both body and soul, into a lake of fire.

(c.) The thousand years of the binding of Satan is a period of time, of unknown, perhaps of indefinite length, possibly from the time of Christ's conquest of Satan, in his death, resurrection, and ascension, or possibly from some other period, even perhaps of a later epoch in the history of Christianity, during which Satan is restrained from the exercise of the power he might otherwise put forth against man; the thousand years terminating at some time prior to the day of Christ's second coming; at which time Satan shall be loosed to consummate his evil deeds by such assaults upon the saints as shall bring down the final vengeance of God at the appearing of Christ in glory.

(d.) The judgement and the resurrection, in Rev. 20:12, 13, are general, and are those of the last day which immediately follow the coming of Christ.

Robert L. Dabney, (1820-1898) Southern Presbyterian Pastor and Theologian on the pre-mil
https://www.grace-ebooks.com/library/Robert Dabney/RLD_Systematic Theology.pdf

Its advocates boast that they alone interpret the symbols of prophecy
faithfully. But when we examine, we find that they make no nearer
approach to an exact system of exposition; and that they can take as
wild figurative licenses when it suits their purposes, as any others.
The new interpretations are usually but violations of the familiar and
well–established canon, that the prophets represent the evangelical
blessings under the tropes of the Jewish usages known to
themselves.
3d. The pre–Advent scheme disparages the present, the dispensation
of the Holy Spirit, and the means committed to the Church for the
conversion of sinners. It thus tends to discourage faith and
missionary effort. ’Whereas Christ represents the presence of the
Holy Spirit, and this His dispensation, as so desirable, that it was
expedient for Him to go away that the Paraclete might come. John
16:7. Pre–Adventism represents it as so undesirable that every saint
ought to pray for its immediate abrogation. Incredulity as to the
conversion of the world by the "means of grace," is hotly, and even
scornfully, Inferred from visible results and experiences, in a temper
which we confess appears to us the same with that of unbelievers in
2 Peter 3:4: "Where is the promise of his coming?" etc. They seem
to us to "judge the Lord by feeble sense," instead of "trusting Him
for His grace." Thus it is unfavorable to a faithful performance of
ecclesiastical duties. If no visible Church, however orthodox, is to
be Christ’s instrument for overthrowing Satan’s kingdom here—if
Christ is to sweep the best of them away as so much rubbish, along
with all "world–powers," at His Advent—if it is our duty to expect
and desire this catastrophe daily; who does not see that we shall feel
very slight value for ecclesiastical ties and duties? And should we
differ unpleasantly from our Church courts, we shall be tempted to
feel that it is pious to spurn them. Are we not daily praying for an
event which will render them useless lumber?
Collides with Scriptural Facts.
4th. Their scheme is obnoxious to fatal Scriptural objections: That
Christ comes but twice, to atone and to judge; (Heb. 9:28). That the
heavens must receive Christ until the times of the restitution of all
things. (Acts 3:21). That the blessedness of the saints is always
placed by Scripture in "those new heavens and new earth," which
succeed the judgment. That on this scheme the date of the world’s
end will be known long before it comes; whereas the Scripture
represents it as wholly unexpected to all when it comes: That only
one resurrection is anywhere mentioned in the most express didactic
passages, so that it behooves us to explain the symbolical passage in
Rev. 20:4–6Revelation 20:4 to 6, in consistency with them: That the
Scriptures say, (e. g.,1 Cor. 15:23; 2 Thess. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13), that
the whole Church will be complete at Christ’s next coming. And
that then the sacraments, and other "means of grace," will cease
finally. The opinion is also beset by insuperable difficulties, such as
these: whether these resurrected martyrs will die again; whether they
will enjoy innocent corporeal pleasures; whether (if the affirmative
be taken) their children will be born with original sin; if not, whence
those apostate men are to come, who make the final brief falling
away just before the second resurrection, etc. On all these points the
pre–Adventists make the wildest and most contradictory surmises.