Will Christ really reign from earthly Jerusalem for 1000 years?

1. 67

   searchinsanyposted 9 years ago

   Will Christ really reign from earthly Jerusalem for 1000 years?
   
   Joh 4:21 KJV Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
   
   Jesus said the time was coming when the Father will not be worshipped at Jesusalem!

   replyreport
2. 67

   glynch1posted 9 years ago

   Yes, Jerusalem will be the capital city of the world during the millennium. Many Old Testament prophecies clearly state that the Messiah would literally reign from this restored city. You should not take one verse out of context and try to dismiss the entire testimony of the rest of Scripture, simply because you do not like the idea of Christ reigning from an earthly Jerusalem for a thousand years.
   
   Jesus says in John 4:21 that "you" (plural--the Samaritans) won't worship the Father either at Mount Gerizim in Samaria or at Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. (Besides, they weren't truly worshiping God anyway, because they did not know Him (v. 22)]. It does not say (as you imply by your last sentence) that the Father will not be worshiped by anyone at all in Jerusalem. Not only the Father but also the other Persons in the Trinity certainly will be worshiped there.
   
   In addition, the term "the hour is coming" refers to the time when every believing individual will be a living temple.  Every individual will be a living priest.  And the sacrifice that Christ offers will be the one full final permanent sacrifice that ends all sacrifices.
   
   The point Jesus makes in the passage is that where one worships does not matter, because God is omnipresent spirit. One can worship the Trinity anywhere. One's attitude (in spirit and in truth) in worship is what is important to God.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Could you list the prophecies that proclaim the Messiah will reign from earthly Jerusalem for 1000 years?

      replyreport
   2. 67

      glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The OT prophecies do not specify the length of His reign. Revelation 20:4,6 are the only verses that specify its duration as one thousand years. Verses 2-3, 5, 7 support them.  He will reign on Earth for that period, but His kingdom will last forever

      replyreport
   3. 67

      searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Therefore, the millennium doctrine is based on one verse!

      replyreport
   4. 67

      glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No. Actually six verses. All six verses in Revelation 20 refer to a period of one thousand years during which Messiah reigns on the Earth. Six verses specifying a thousand-year period is good enough for me. Who are we to dispute them? God wrote them.

      replyreport
   5. 67

      searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Earthly Jerusalem is not mentioned in Revelation 20:1-7.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Verse 9 says that Satan and the other rebels "surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city." Scripture always refers to Jerusalem as the "beloved city." Besides, the OT specifies that Messiah will reign from the earthly Jerusalem.

      replyreport
   7. 67

      searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Revelation 20:9 takes place after the 1000 years.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So? What is your point?

      replyreport
   9. 67

      searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Revelation 20:1-7 does not mention Christ reigning for 1000 years from earthly Jerusalem.
      Revelation 20:8-9 describes the gathering of Gog and Magog to battle after the 1000 years. Dispensationalism teaches the battle is at the beginning!

      replyreport
   10. 67

       glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Readers knew Messiah's headquarters from OT (Is. 2)--no need to mention Jerusalem. Two different judgments: one is premillennial (Ezek 38-39); the other is postmillennial (Rev. 20). Ezek. invaders come from north; Rev. from four quarters of Earth.

       replyreport
   11. 67

       searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       John said Ezekiel was fulfilled at the end of the 1000 years, not the beginning and the end.

       replyreport
   12. 67

       glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Ezek and Rev describe two different events separated by over one thousand years. Ezek describes the invasion of Palestine by the king of the North-Russia (Dan. 11:40); Rev relates the postmillennial attack of all nations. Magog is just one of them.

       replyreport
   13. 67

       searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Could you provide me with your source for interpreting Daniel 11:40?

       replyreport
   14. 67

       glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Leon Wood, with help from John Walvoord and Dwight Pentecost.

       replyreport
   15. 67

       searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       These men taught that Gog & Magog is prior to the millennium, how can that be if John wrote it was after the millennium?

       replyreport
   16. 67

       glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Walvoord suggests that "the expression 'Gog and Magog' is used much as we use the term 'Waterloo' to express a disastrous battle, but one not related to the historic origination of the term."

       replyreport
   17. 67

       searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Should we accept what man teaches if it is contrary to the Scriptures? Quote 'Who are we to dispute them? God wrote them' These men taught Heaven and Earth is destroyed after the millennium, Peter wrote it as at the return of Christ...2Pet 3:10

       replyreport
   18. 67

       glynch1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       What they teach is not contrary to Scripture; your preterism is what does not fit the whole of Scripture. I have presented a few times now what I believe best interprets the facts. Neither of us will convince the other, so let's leave it at that.

       replyreport
   19. 67

       searchinsanyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you for answering my question and for taking the time to respond to my comments. GB

       replyreport