Right, I agree. But we don't know the expiration date, as it hasn't come yet... but may be very close.The Revelation 20 millennium had a beginning point as well as a specific "expiration" date.
The millennium is the fullness of God's time in bringing His elect into His Israel. This is the time in which (as Jeremiah said was then still to come, but surely coming) God is now putting His law within us, writing it on our hearts. This is in contrast to the Old Covenant, as Jeremiah quotes God as saying, in which He says that was the Covenant God made in Exodus 20, when He brought His people out of Egypt and gave the Law to them through Moses on Mt. Sinai. And this is exactly what the writer of Hebrews says in Hebrews 8. He validates what Jeremiah wrote then, even quoting his very words.....God designed this millennium span of time for a stationary, physical temple worship system to function before it was outmoded by the New Covenant being launched in AD 33.
Ohhhh... I understand your position very well. :) I actually agree with this statement ~ or would, if you were to change 'ending' to 'beginning.' :)The inauguration of the New Covenant was launched simultaneously with the ending of the millennium in AD 33.
Agree with the first half of this statement, but the second half is the complete reverse of what it should be and is.The New Covenant in Christ's blood (which has no end) brought the literal millennium years to an end.
Well, I'll say this, which in some sense is an agreement to what you say here, that the time between the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 to the time of Jesus's birth, life on earth, crucifixion, and resurrection and Pentecost is a millennium of sorts. :)The literal millennium was only the precursor to the greater and more glorious reality under the New Covenant with Christ our deathless high priest.
Well, it's not very typical on this forum, unfortunately... :) And I'm perfectly okay with anyone calling that my opinion. But it is what it is.This is quite a typical opinion - the the "First resurrection" is the spiritual awakening to life for each saint.
Ahhh... You know, 3 Resurrections, that is a valid take on that particular verse/passage, but something can be valid but not accurate at the same time. It can't be the other ways around... what is accurate cannot be invalid. But yes, something valid can possibly be inaccurate, and in this case... is. I think you would have to admit that seeing that first resurrection in Revelation 20:5 as happening continuously for all the saints over the course of the millennium is also a valid understanding of that that passage. So then, it becomes a matter of accurately assessing which valid understanding is accurate. It is the latter, because that's what matches up with the rest of Scripture. But, we can agree to disagree, if you remain where you are on this.The only problem is that the "First resurrection" in Revelation 20:5 is said to be a specific, single point on the calendar when the "remnant of the dead" came to life again.
Right. But... see above.John said this single event IS the First resurrection.
The first resurrection ~ not Jesus's, but ours ~ is not bodily. In terms of Revelation 20, that happens just prior to the scene depicted in Revelation 20:11-13 and following.Now, we as believers share in the benefits of that First resurrection event, surely. But we were not the ones raised bodily to life again at that single event in time.
Ugh. Interesting opinion... :) But I disagree. ;)That was the Matthew 27:52-53 saints and Christ - all of them the First-fruits of the "harvests" to be bodily raised to life again.
This physical resurrection already happened another time for the saints. On AD 70's day of Pentecost, to be exact - just as Daniel's very specific 1,335th day predicted the timing for this. You and I are awaiting the third resurrection "harvest" in the future at a time when the Feast of Tabernacles would have ordinarily been celebrated under the OC. It will not be soon.
Grace and peace to you.