Amil can only be proved to be true if Amils accept all of the following terms and convincingly satisfy these terms.

[Rich R]

The prophets of Old foretell of an everlasting kingdom that would come when the promised Messiah Savior came. The verses and passages of Old that make reference to an "everlasting Kingdom" are not speaking of a physical Kingdom of God to come physically to this earth. All who inherit the everlasting Kingdom of God are faithful saints from both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. How can there be an everlasting Kingdom of God on THIS earth since this earth and everything on it is destined to utter destruction by fire? Where do any of the prophets ever write that the everlasting Kingdom of God they longed for would only be on this earth for one thousand years? That is not how an everlasting Kingdom can be defined.

Christ came with the everlasting Kingdom of God that all the Old Covenant prophets foretell. The problem for many is that you are looking for a physical Kingdom of God on THIS earth. But the everlasting Kingdom the prophets foretell, that Christ came to earth with is not a physical kingdom, but a spiritual Kingdom that shall not be seen with physical sight but is within the faithful. Look at all the references to the Kingdom of God in the New Testament. The Kingdom that Christ says has come, and proof that it has come should be understood as Christ went about casting out devils. Since His coming the gospel of Christ is being preached and all mankind are instructed to seek for the Kingdom of God. How could mankind seek for that which has not come?

Christ says the Kingdom of God is not NOW of THIS world for His Kingdom is not from here. The everlasting Kingdom of God is what the Law pointed to and the prophets foretold, that was preached to them as well as to we who live after His first coming.

Luke 11:20 (KJV) But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

John 18:36 (KJV) Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Luke 16:16 (KJV) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Luke 17:20-21 (KJV) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Luke 12:31-32 (KJV) But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

In Christ the promise of physical land has been greatly expanded upon. Why would faithful saints of Old or New Covenant be satisfied with Caanan since Christ promises His faithful saints shall inherit the whole new earth?

What the prophets of old actually understood was that Jesus would come as a lamb led to slaughter and then as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

1 Pet 1:11,

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.​

​

There are no shortages of verses in the OT that speak to the sufferings nor are there any shortage of verses speaking to the glory that should follow. They were a bit hazy on what would happen between the two advents, but they at least understood there would be two advents.

Had the Jews accepted Jesus during his first appearance, the kingdom would have been established forever at it was promised many times in the OT. However, they rejected the Messiah (as foretold) and so the kingdom God promised Israel was left unfulfilled. It will be fulfilled when Jesus makes his second appearance as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The key lies in recognizing that there are two different advents of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[IndianaRob]

What the prophets of old actually understood was that Jesus would come as a lamb led to slaughter and then as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

1 Pet 1:11,

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.​

​

There are no shortages of verses in the OT that speak to the sufferings nor are there any shortage of verses speaking to the glory that should follow. They were a bit hazy on what would happen between the two advents, but they at least understood there would be two advents.

Had the Jews accepted Jesus during his first appearance, the kingdom would have been established forever at it was promised many times in the OT. However, they rejected the Messiah (as foretold) and so the kingdom God promised Israel was left unfulfilled. It will be fulfilled when Jesus makes his second appearance as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The key lies in recognizing that there are two different advents of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

I’ve been reading some of your posts and you seem like a very intelligent and reasonable person. I would like to understand why you would think the kingdom of God was left unfulfilled?

Doesn’t the passage below say that the kingdom isn’t a physical kingdom? And hasn’t that kingdom already come?

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:


Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

[WPM]

You are correct in what you say about the word we translate as everlasting. In fact the Hebrew word "olam" and several variations of that word can have different meanings depending on the context. For example, Genesis 21:33 calls Yahweh, "the olam God." I'd think in that case our understanding of the word "everlasting" is appropriate. There are other usages that, as you inferred, may mean something slightly different. At least that's what I think you said.

Did God break His promise of a literal land to Abraham? I think not.

There are 2 major covenants in the OT. One was to Abraham, the other to Israel. We dare not mix them up.

The one made to Israel was two way involved land, the promised land of Canaan to be precise. It was a bilateral agreement. Israel had their part and God had His part. Although Israel didn't keep up their part (the golden calf straight out of the gate), God still stayed true to His part. He gave them the promised land. But Israel was so disobedient the God was eventually unable (or unwilling?) to keep up His part and Israel lost their land. Thus the land inherited by Israel does not fit the meaning of the word "olam" in any way. It wasn't even in the parking lot of the ballpark, let alone the ballpark itself.

But there was another entirely different covenant that had a promise of land, namely, the one to Abraham. That one was unilateral. Abraham was asleep when God observed the usual ceremony that ratified a covenant. Only God passed between the split carcass. What is doesn't say is exactly when Abraham would inherit that land. I maintain that it will be fulfilled at the second appearance of Christ, which is exactly what the Apostles understood as they watched Jesus ascend into the air. There are tons of verses in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, et. al. that support such and idea. Same with all of the NT. The all speak of a future fulfillment of a land, the land promised to Abraham. So, no, God did not break His promise to Abraham. It just hasn't been fulfilled yet.

No. There are a lot of OT texts pertaining to the ceremonial law that were terminated at the cross. The land promises closely correlate.

There is no mention of any land promises in the NT. That is because Christ is man's inheritance under the new covenant.

 

[covenantee]

You are correct in what you say about the word we translate as everlasting. In fact the Hebrew word "olam" and several variations of that word can have different meanings depending on the context. For example, Genesis 21:33 calls Yahweh, "the olam God." I'd think in that case our understanding of the word "everlasting" is appropriate. There are other usages that, as you inferred, may mean something slightly different. At least that's what I think you said.

Did God break His promise of a literal land to Abraham? I think not.

There are 2 major covenants in the OT. One was to Abraham, the other to Israel. We dare not mix them up.

The one made to Israel was two way involved land, the promised land of Canaan to be precise. It was a bilateral agreement. Israel had their part and God had His part. Although Israel didn't keep up their part (the golden calf straight out of the gate), God still stayed true to His part. He gave them the promised land. But Israel was so disobedient the God was eventually unable (or unwilling?) to keep up His part and Israel lost their land. Thus the land inherited by Israel does not fit the meaning of the word "olam" in any way. It wasn't even in the parking lot of the ballpark, let alone the ballpark itself.

But there was another entirely different covenant that had a promise of land, namely, the one to Abraham. That one was unilateral. Abraham was asleep when God observed the usual ceremony that ratified a covenant. Only God passed between the split carcass. What is doesn't say is exactly when Abraham would inherit that land. I maintain that it will be fulfilled at the second appearance of Christ, which is exactly what the Apostles understood as they watched Jesus ascend into the air. There are tons of verses in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, et. al. that support such and idea. Same with all of the NT. The all speak of a future fulfillment of a land, the land promised to Abraham. So, no, God did not break His promise to Abraham. It just hasn't been fulfilled yet.

You fail to recognize the Scriptural significance of the jurisprudence regarding Wills and Testaments.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things. Unbelieving Israel is not an heir. Galatians 4:30-31.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that we who are in Christ are joint heirs with Him.

But it is clear and plain:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ.

 

[Rich R]

I’ve been reading some of your posts and you seem like a very intelligent and reasonable person. I would like to understand why you would think the kingdom of God was left unfulfilled?

Doesn’t the passage below say that the kingdom isn’t a physical kingdom? And hasn’t that kingdom already come?

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:


Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

In addition to the two verses you quoted, there are no less 32 times the words "kingdom of heaven" are used.

First of all, one thing being "of" another thing, doesn't necessarily mean that the one thing is "in" the other thing. In other words, the kingdom is "of" heaven, but that is not that same thing as being "in" heaven.

I need to get a bit technical here, but it's not really complicated and easily verified.

it is generally accepted by scholars that the Greek language is the most precise language ever. It's kind of like the language we use in legal documents in that sense. They really nail down the meaning of the words and ideas they communicate. As you probably already know, the very early NT documents were written in Greek.

Every noun in a Greek sentence has what is called a "case." You can tell which case a particular noun is by different suffixes to the noun. Prepositions is another way to determine the relationship between two nouns, such as kingdom and heaven/God. When they meant for something to be "in" something else, they would either us the preposition "en" which means "in." If the kingdom was meant to be "in" God either the preposition "en" would appear before the word "God" ofr"God" would be in what's called the "vocative" case. None of the 35 verses I mentioned, nor the two you mentioned, meet either condition. In other words, none of them say the kingdom is "in" God or heaven.

Instead, they put the words "God" or "heaven" in all these verses in what's called the "genitive" case. Basically the genitive case is used to describe the character or nature of something else. It's kind of like an adjective. That's somewhat of an over simplification, but it communicates the basic meaning. The crux of the matter is that all these verses are more or less saying the kingdom will have godly or a heavenly character or nature. But they say nothing about where that kingdom will be.

Hopefully, all of that is understandable. Like I said, you can find plenty of information on the internet about Greek noun cases, particularity the genitive and locative case. I doubt greatly you will come across anything that would be contrary to what I said about them

Revelation 21:1-2 is pretty clear that the new Jerusalem will come down from heaven. It won't be in heaven. Instead it'll come down to the renewed earth. I have to get technical here again, but it's not too complicated. The word "from" is the Greek preposition "ek" which means something comes from the inside to the outside of something else. In this case, the new Jerusalem will from the "inside" of heaven. The main thing to understand is that it will not be "in" heaven at all. It is specificlly saying it will be outside of heaven, That fits with tons of verses in the OT, starting with God's promise to Abraham to give him a land that could be seen with his eyeballs.

 

[Rich R]

You fail to recognize the Scriptural significance of the jurisprudence regarding Wills and Testaments.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things. Unbelieving Israel is not an heir. Galatians 4:30-31.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that we who are in Christ are joint heirs with Him.

But it is clear and plain:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ.

Good points. I do understand all of that. Thanks for bringing them up.

Here's a verse to ponder:

Jer 31:31,

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.​

​

We tend to think that God made His new covenant with the church. But that's not what Isaiah said. He said that sometime in the future He will make a new covenant with the, "house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

The fact is there is nowhere that says God made any covenant at all with the church. We will certainly be benefactors of the new covenant He will make with Israel (we are heirs with Abraham), but the covenant itself was not made with the church.

By the way, Isaiah 31:31 is not the only verse that speaks of a new covenant with Israel. There are others.

 

[covenantee]

Good points. I do understand all of that. Thanks for bringing them up.

Here's a verse to ponder:

Jer 31:31,

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.​

​

We tend to think that God made His new covenant with the church. But that's not what Isaiah said. He said that sometime in the future He will make a new covenant with the, "house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

The fact is there is nowhere that says God made any covenant at all with the church. We will certainly be benefactors of the new covenant He will make with Israel (we are heirs with Abraham), but the covenant itself was not made with the church.

By the way, Isaiah 31:31 is not the only verse that speaks of a new covenant with Israel. There are others.

On the Day of Pentecost when the Church was born with the conversion of 3,000 Jews and Gentiles,
who experienced the New Covenant?

 

[WPM]

In addition to the two verses you quoted, there are no less 32 times the words "kingdom of heaven" are used.

First of all, one thing being "of" another thing, doesn't necessarily mean that the one thing is "in" the other thing. In other words, the kingdom is "of" heaven, but that is not that same thing as being "in" heaven.

I need to get a bit technical here, but it's not really complicated and easily verified.

it is generally accepted by scholars that the Greek language is the most precise language ever. It's kind of like the language we use in legal documents in that sense. They really nail down the meaning of the words and ideas they communicate. As you probably already know, the very early NT documents were written in Greek.

Every noun in a Greek sentence has what is called a "case." You can tell which case a particular noun is by different suffixes to the noun. Prepositions is another way to determine the relationship between two nouns, such as kingdom and heaven/God. When they meant for something to be "in" something else, they would either us the preposition "en" which means "in." If the kingdom was meant to be "in" God either the preposition "en" would appear before the word "God" ofr"God" would be in what's called the "vocative" case. None of the 35 verses I mentioned, nor the two you mentioned, meet either condition. In other words, none of them say the kingdom is "in" God or heaven.

Instead, they put the words "God" or "heaven" in all these verses in what's called the "genitive" case. Basically the genitive case is used to describe the character or nature of something else. It's kind of like an adjective. That's somewhat of an over simplification, but it communicates the basic meaning. The crux of the matter is that all these verses are more or less saying the kingdom will have godly or a heavenly character or nature. But they say nothing about where that kingdom will be.

Hopefully, all of that is understandable. Like I said, you can find plenty of information on the internet about Greek noun cases, particularity the genitive and locative case. I doubt greatly you will come across anything that would be contrary to what I said about them

Revelation 21:1-2 is pretty clear that the new Jerusalem will come down from heaven. It won't be in heaven. Instead it'll come down to the renewed earth. I have to get technical here again, but it's not too complicated. The word "from" is the Greek preposition "ek" which means something comes from the inside to the outside of something else. In this case, the new Jerusalem will from the "inside" of heaven. The main thing to understand is that it will not be "in" heaven at all. It is specificlly saying it will be outside of heaven, That fits with tons of verses in the OT, starting with God's promise to Abraham to give him a land that could be seen with his eyeballs.

Ek means out of or from. The New Jerusalem comes out of or from heaven. Simple! No need to explain that away.

 

[covenantee]

Good points. I do understand all of that. Thanks for bringing them up.

Here's a verse to ponder:

Jer 31:31,

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.​

​

We tend to think that God made His new covenant with the church. But that's not what Isaiah said. He said that sometime in the future He will make a new covenant with the, "house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

The fact is there is nowhere that says God made any covenant at all with the church. We will certainly be benefactors of the new covenant He will make with Israel (we are heirs with Abraham), but the covenant itself was not made with the church.

By the way, Isaiah 31:31 is not the only verse that speaks of a new covenant with Israel. There are others.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Paul was addressing the Church at Corinth, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

Both were made able ministers of the new testament.

 

[WPM]

Good points. I do understand all of that. Thanks for bringing them up.

Here's a verse to ponder:

Jer 31:31,

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.​

​

We tend to think that God made His new covenant with the church. But that's not what Isaiah said. He said that sometime in the future He will make a new covenant with the, "house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

The fact is there is nowhere that says God made any covenant at all with the church. We will certainly be benefactors of the new covenant He will make with Israel (we are heirs with Abraham), but the covenant itself was not made with the church.

By the way, Isaiah 31:31 is not the only verse that speaks of a new covenant with Israel. There are others.

Israel is the old covenant ekklesia, congregation, assembly, gathering or church.

 

[Keraz]

The AMill false teaching rebutted:

Hosea 6:2 prophesies the 2000 year Christian age, our revival, then the 1000 years when we will live in His sight.
The formula for a day in heaven, being the equal to 1000 years earth time, is in: Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8

There is also the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 13:32, where He says: Today and tomorrow I shall be working...and the next day I shall come into My reward.
He then says: Nevertheless, [notwithstanding, or in spite of this...] I must go on today and tomorrow and the following day, for I must perish in Jerusalem. Luke 13:33
Jesus is NOT talking about the same time periods in both of these verses. If people like to think that; they make Him to be rather confused and unnecessarily repetitive.
No; He Prophesied in verse 32, how He will work for the Christian age of 2000 years. Now at 1992 years since He said that. Jesus does answer prayers, He does cure some people, He does appear to those who cry out to Him, etc.

The 'next day' is Gods reward to Jesus for His sacrifice, His reign over the world for the next thousand years, Psalms 2:7-9 Revelation 20:1-7 backs these scriptures up!
The AMill belief is illogical and unscriptural. It is a lie that denies Jesus His reward.

 

[WPM]

The AMill false teaching rebutted:

Hosea 6:2 prophesies the 2000 year Christian age, our revival, then the 1000 years when we will live in His sight.
The formula for a day in heaven, being the equal to 1000 years earth time, is in: Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8

There is also the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 13:32, where He says: Today and tomorrow I shall be working...and the next day I shall come into My reward.
He then says: Nevertheless, [notwithstanding, or in spite of this...] I must go on today and tomorrow and the following day, for I must perish in Jerusalem. Luke 13:33
Jesus is NOT talking about the same time periods in both of these verses. If people like to think that; they make Him to be rather confused and unnecessarily repetitive.
No; He Prophesied in verse 32, how He will work for the Christian age of 2000 years. Now at 1992 years since He said that. Jesus does answer prayers, He does cure some people, He does appear to those who cry out to Him, etc.

The 'next day' is Gods reward to Jesus for His sacrifice, His reign over the world for the next thousand years, Psalms 2:7-9 Revelation 20:1-7 backs these scriptures up!
The AMill belief is illogical and unscriptural. It is a lie that denies Jesus His reward.

Talk about twisting scripture. You obviously have nothing.

 

[jeffweeder]

The AMill belief is illogical and unscriptural. It is a lie that denies Jesus His reward.

So, you think Jesus' reward is to reign over a millennium that ends up with billions in open rebellion despite his manifested glory. Talk about illogical and unscriptural.

He reigns now saving a great number of people that nobody can count.

 

[Douggg]

So, you think Jesus' reward is to reign over a millennium that ends up with billions in open rebellion despite his manifested glory. Talk about illogical and unscriptural.

He reigns now saving a great number of people that nobody can count.

The one thousand years of Revelation 20 is after Jesus returns, and begins His reign here on earth over the nations. Jesus will rule with a rod of iron during that time, that there will be no rebellion by the kings of the earth.

Psalms 2 is about Jesus's Second Coming. Psalms 2:6 is the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24, "to anointed the most Holy", i.e. Jesus as King of Israel (God's holy hill of Zion being the temple mount in Jerusalem) and of the world. Psalms 2:7, God the Father begets Jesus as King that day of His return. Psalms 2:8 is the expanse of His rule here on earth over the nations.

Psalms 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ezekiel 39:17-20 is also about Armageddon that Psalms 2:1-3 the kings of the earth take council together to make war on Jesus and His armies of heaven. Revelation 19:17-18, at Jesus's Second Coming, corresponds to Ezekiel 39:17-20.

Ezekiel 39:21 is Jesus setting His glory among the heathen - at His Second Coming, which in verse 21 it says He has just executed judgment on the kings of the earth and their armies gathered to make war on Him and His armies in Revelation 19:19-21.

Ezekiel 39:21 21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

Revelation 19:
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The thousand year reign of Jesus here, present on the earth, ruling from Jerusalem, is literal. And will begin following His Second Coming.

 

[Keraz]

Talk about twisting scripture. You obviously have nothing.

He reigns now saving a great number of people that nobody can count.

The usual disparaging one liners. Better, I suppose; that the lengthy raves usually spouted by AMill nutters.

Explain Luke 13:32-33. Did Jesus just unnecessarily repeat Himself? .......................Where else does He do that?
Was He referring to the same things? .........................Those 2 verses have different outcomes.
What is the reward mentioned?........................Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice to Redeem mankind. Does He not deserve a reward?

Psalms 2 is about Jesus's Second Coming. Psalms 2:6 is the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24, "to anointed the most Holy", i.e. Jesus as King of Israel (God's holy hill of Zion being the temple mount in Jerusalem) and of the world. Psalms 2:7, God the Father begets Jesus as King that day of His return. Psalms 2:8 is the expanse of His rule here on earth over the nations.

Yes; that tenet of Daniel 9:24 remains unfulfilled, as do all of them.

 

[IndianaRob]

In addition to the two verses you quoted, there are no less 32 times the words "kingdom of heaven" are used.

In the King James Bible “kingdom of heaven” is mentioned 33 times while “kingdom of God” is mentioned 70 times.

If you’re into bible numbers then you know these number are significant. It has nothing to do with our conversation though lol, but I thought I would share it with you.

First of all, one thing being "of" another thing, doesn't necessarily mean that the one thing is "in" the other thing. In other words, the kingdom is "of" heaven, but that is not that same thing as being "in" heaven.

I agree with this, there is a kingdom of heaven on earth which is not the kingdom in heaven.

I need to get a bit technical here, but it's not really complicated and easily verified.

it is generally accepted by scholars that the Greek language is the most precise language ever. It's kind of like the language we use in legal documents in that sense. They really nail down the meaning of the words and ideas they communicate. As you probably already know, the very early NT documents were written in Greek.

I understand what you’re saying and yes I understand the NT was written in Greek.

Every noun in a Greek sentence has what is called a "case." You can tell which case a particular noun is by different suffixes to the noun. Prepositions is another way to determine the relationship between two nouns, such as kingdom and heaven/God. When they meant for something to be "in" something else, they would either us the preposition "en" which means "in." If the kingdom was meant to be "in" God either the preposition "en" would appear before the word "God" ofr"God" would be in what's called the "vocative" case. None of the 35 verses I mentioned, nor the two you mentioned, meet either condition. In other words, none of them say the kingdom is "in" God or heaven.

I understand a little about how the Greek and Hebrew languages work but your explanation is excellent and I agree with your conclusions.

I agree, all instances of the kingdom are on this earth.

Instead, they put the words "God" or "heaven" in all these verses in what's called the "genitive" case. Basically the genitive case is used to describe the character or nature of something else. It's kind of like an adjective. That's somewhat of an over simplification, but it communicates the basic meaning. The crux of the matter is that all these verses are more or less saying the kingdom will have godly or a heavenly character or nature. But they say nothing about where that kingdom will be.

Hopefully, all of that is understandable. Like I said, you can find plenty of information on the internet about Greek noun cases, particularity the genitive and locative case. I doubt greatly you will come across anything that would be contrary to what I said about them

Yes I understand and I agree. I’m not knocking the Greek language stuff but I came to the exact same understanding as you from the English language.

Revelation 21:1-2 is pretty clear that the new Jerusalem will come down from heaven. It won't be in heaven. Instead it'll come down to the renewed earth. I have to get technical here again, but it's not too complicated. The word "from" is the Greek preposition "ek" which means something comes from the inside to the outside of something else. In this case, the new Jerusalem will from the "inside" of heaven. The main thing to understand is that it will not be "in" heaven at all. It is specificlly saying it will be outside of heaven, That fits with tons of verses in the OT, starting with God's promise to Abraham to give him a land that could be seen with his eyeballs.

I also agree with this. In the book of Revelation Heavenly Jerusalem is in heaven and then it comes down from heaven to the earth.

The way I understand it, the book of Revelation was given to John in symbolic language. In other words intangible things like the kingdom of heaven (the earthly kingdom in the gospels) are given tangible qualities in the book of Revelation.

The way I see it, Heavenly Jerusalem coming down in the book of Revelation is the same as thing as the kingdom of heaven in the gospels.

Maybe I’m not understanding the last part of your post but I can’t see how what you wrote is proving that the Heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation is something other than the kingdom of heaven in the gospels.

 

[IndianaRob]

On the Day of Pentecost when the Church was born with the conversion of 3,000 Jews and Gentiles,
who experienced the New Covenant?

The church wasn’t born on Pentecost, Christ was in the church in the wilderness. The church has always existed but it is hidden in the Old Testament writings. Joel 2 tells us when the church was revealed.

Jol 2:16 Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

That also tells us when the day of the Lord WAS.

 

[rwb]

What the prophets of old actually understood was that Jesus would come as a lamb led to slaughter and then as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

1 Pet 1:11,

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.​

​

There are no shortages of verses in the OT that speak to the sufferings nor are there any shortage of verses speaking to the glory that should follow. They were a bit hazy on what would happen between the two advents, but they at least understood there would be two advents.

Had the Jews accepted Jesus during his first appearance, the kingdom would have been established forever at it was promised many times in the OT. However, they rejected the Messiah (as foretold) and so the kingdom God promised Israel was left unfulfilled. It will be fulfilled when Jesus makes his second appearance as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The key lies in recognizing that there are two different advents of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

This is all true! The prophet foretells that the Messiah would be as a Lamb led to slaughter, but not once does any prophet ever consider the Messiah must come two times before the physical Kingdom of God would be manifested upon THIS earth where He would physically reign as King of kings and Lord of lords for literally one thousand years?

It appears to me the prophet understood that Messiah dying to atone for the sins of His people would not prevent fulfillment of the everlasting Kingdom of God from being fulfilled when He finally came (fulfilled, but not yet complete). Unlike the Pharisees of Old who were looking for a manifestation of a physical Kingdom of God on THIS earth, the prophets appear to have some understanding of the Messiah ushering in a SPIRITUAL Kingdom when He came.

Even Abraham seemed to understand that we should not look for a material Kingdom of God upon the earth. For Abraham did not hope to inherit physical land, he could have returned to. He looked for a city whose builder and maker is God, considering himself a stranger and pilgrim on the earth. He desired something far better, something physical eyes cannot see, because what he desired and looked for was not physical, but spiritual. He desired a heavenly home prepared by God. How could Abraham not have understood that death of the Messiah would NOT mean that He must return a second time for the everlasting Kingdom of God to come? After all he willingly offered up his one and only son, Isaac, knowing that God would raise him even from the dead that the promise of the Messiah through him would be fulfilled. Just as the death of Isaac could not prevent the promises of God to Abraham, neither does the death of Christ prevent the everlasting Kingdom of God from being made manifest when the prophesies of His coming were fulfilled by His coming.

Hebrews 11:8-10 (KJV) By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Hebrews 11:13-19 (KJV) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

When Christ comes again it will not be to set up an earthly physical Kingdom of God on the earth. It will be to usher in a new age, a new earth where all things shall be made new again, not for one thousand years but forever. Knowing the Messiah would come and give His life, does not mean the prophets looked not only for Him to come, but also that He would come a second time. The prophets wrote understanding when Messiah came the everlasting Kingdom of God would come with Him and that even His death would not prevent or delay the Kingdom of God from spiritually being within His faithful body of believers.

The fact that Israel rejected Christ when He came, does not mean the promise of the Kingdom of God was left unfulfilled. The Kingdom of God that Israel in unbelief were looking for had come. And was taken from them and given to a nation (holy nation) that would bring forth fruits thereof. That holy nation would be of both Jew and Gentile of faith who are called out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Matthew 21:43-46 (KJV) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

Matthew 23:37-38 (KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

1 Peter 2:9-10 (KJV) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

 

[Rich R]

You fail to recognize the Scriptural significance of the jurisprudence regarding Wills and Testaments.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things. Unbelieving Israel is not an heir. Galatians 4:30-31.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that we who are in Christ are joint heirs with Him.

But it is clear and plain:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ.

I never saw anything about spiritual jurisprudence regarding Wills and Testaments in the scriptures.

Notice to whom Hebrews is written:

Heb 1:1,

On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets.​

​

The fathers are Jews and God never spoke through the prophets to the Gentiles and the church wasn't even around then.

The only other place that mentions a New Covenant is Jeremiah, another book written to Israel. Could it be that Hebrews, a book written to Jews is referring to Jeremiah, another book written to Jews? Furthermore, if you read all of Jeremiah 31 it is obvious none of it has come to pass.

All the other verses mentioned promises, but a promise is not a covenant.

 

[Rich R]

Israel is the old covenant ekklesia, congregation, assembly, gathering or church.

Yes it is. And at some point God will make a New Covenant with Israel and with Judah, as per Jer 31:31. I wouldn't add anything to such a simple declaration.