Bible Verses For Postmillennialism 

My problem with the idea that Christ is reigning now is this; He created the entire universe of AT LEAST two trillion galaxies in six days, and yet here we are two thousand years into this supposed rule of Christ, and we have over one billion Muslims, one billion Hindus, one billion Buddhists, who all deny the Deity of Christ and Him being the only Savior, over one billion Catholics who worship Mary, one billion atheists, the LGBTQ running rampant, movies that profane God and His Christ, schools and colleges that blasphem God and attribute His Glorious creation to the big bang and mock God's ultimate creation, mankind made in the image of God, to simply an evolution of monkeys to man. There is also pornography, murder, rape, child molestation, drugs, drinking and most of these are growing and getting worse by the day. I just don't see the Church getting more and more influential and powerful to usher in a time when Christ will finally appear. Also, the Bible asks a question: "Will Jesus find faith when He returns?" Just doesn't seem to fit the post millennial view that Christ is ruling and reigning now.

It sure doesn't sound like premil given that he is asking this rhetorical question expecting the answer to be an obvious yes.

@@oracleoftroy you think that his statement was optimistic that he would find faith on the Earth? It obviously emphasizes that it will be very hard to find. Also I am not a premillennialist. The second coming of Christ is the event of Matthew chapter 24 verses 30 and 31 in 1 Thesalonians chapter 4 verse 16 and 17. The wrath of God commences at the second coming of Christ. So called Rapture / resurrection of all of God's elect occurs as he approaches Earth in flaming fire with his mighty angels at which time he will call his elect from the graves first to be resurrected and then the living at the second coming who are God's elect will be immediately raised to meet him in the air to descend to Earth with him in Victory and show shall we ever be with the Lord.

@@Rbl7132 It seems that premil assumes a negative interpretation, where the text doesn't indicate that. Why shouldn't postmil assume a positive take given how they understand the promises of God to always be with his people, to grow his church and disciple the nations, to save an innumerable multitude and that his church will even lay siege to the very gates of hell? If the church is a small pebble or tiny seed that promises to grow into a great mountain or tree that fills the earth, why should be expected defeat and retreat for the church? Really, it comes down to the clearer passages rather than unclear ones like this. BilTW, I'm not saying that the text demands a postmil answer, just that it isn't a great prooftext either way, and seems more reflective of the presuppositions one brings with them than what one is reading out of the text.

@@oracleoftroy all is fulfilled at the 2nd coming of Christ. That's when he floods the world with his rule.

@@Rbl7132 His kingdom was established during his first advent. As he was casting out demons he pointed to that as a sign that the kingdom had come. Just before his assention, he declared having all authority in heaven and on earth. The mission of his church is to bring the nations into right relation with Christ through the preaching of the gospel. His second coming will mark the consumption of his kingdom and the beginning of the eternal state.

We are in the time frame described briefly in Revelation 20: Satan's Little Season

The throne of David, as in David's rightful heir.

@@brucewayne2558 the throne of David belongs to David’s rightful heir, and it also has a location: Jerusalem

@@micahmartin4762 That phrase is often assumed without specific location. Kinda like if you were the new owner Wendy's restaurants instead of Dave Thomas. We would then say that you sit in Dave's Thomas seat.

@@brucewayne2558On multiple occasions the Bible explicitly links the throne of David geographically with Jerusalem and Israel.

@@micahmartin4762 Name them

Yeah, I'm hanging I between amillinnarian and postmillennial.

Amen.... not one!

I would suggest watching all of Jeff’s sermons on Matthew 24, and any of his other postmillenial videos. This clip is part of a much longer video, and even the longer video is not meant to be delivered in an extremely informative way. He goes in to great detail in his sermons and at least for me, having been raised and believing dispensational premillennialism my entire life, was very eye-opening. Just a plain reading of Matthew 24:1-34 will at least help you see that the language is very obviously, and blatantly referring to that literal generation. Especially given the context at the beginning of the chapter is all in reference to the then built Herodian temple. This was my experience, and has put me in complete opposition to my families beliefs, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter in terms of where anyone who is in Christ is going when they die. I just wanted to suggest watching his much more comprehensive sermons on this topic if you are genuinely interested.

@@charleshall4325 I have watched them all. Jeff "starts" with the preterist belief when he preaches on this. First, it is a false dichotomy to say Jesus is a false profit, if his return wasn't first century. It's also circular logic. Second, "immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days..." did the angels go to the 4 winds to gather together the elect? If we are letting the text speak, why does he always clip his sermon short of that passage? It's because it contextualizes a rapture, that is described by Paul and John. It's not symbolism.... did it happen?

@@ENDofREGULATION30 To be fair, just doing a plain reading of the passage, it is certainly written with easily identifiable language pertinent to only that present time. For instance, you cannot flee from a worldwide event as Jesus instructs the disciples to when these things start to take place. Judea, is not symbolic of the world, and no first century would have understood it that way. This would not be a false dichotomy, because truth is by definition exclusive. If Jesus gave a false prophecy, He would be a false prophet by the standard God set in Deuteronomy 18:22. Here is how I would understand the dispensational premillennialists position as it relates to the Olivet discourse: Jesus was either giving a prophecy with language that was overtly “present tense” in terms of those who would experience it, and based on that, the argument is made that all of these things would take place in whatever future generation was around when these things began to unfold. Here would be my criticism: - This position concludes that when the prophets spoke of salvation and judgement on the covenant breakers, he really meant the entire world - The usage of the near demonstrative “this” rather than “that” is denotative proof that Jesus is not talking about a future far off generation, and nobody would read it that way unless they were, as you accused Jeff of, presupposing their eschatological beliefs into the text - The temple was, as a matter of historical record, destroyed within one literal 40 year generation in AD 70. One would need to argue why the context of this passage is all in reference to the completion of all events orated in the Olivet discourse, verses 1-34, before the destruction of the Herodian Temple. The alternative position often held by dispensational premillennialists is that the word used for “generation” in the Greek could have also meant “race.” Although, admittedly this is a much weaker argument on the side of premillennialism, here would be my criticism: - Entire races of people don’t just disappear, so Jesus would not have needed to say it. It’s extremely ambiguous - Proper hermeneutics would require an in depth understanding of how the author used the word for “generation” elsewhere. The Greek word for generation used here is “genea” and of its several usages by Matthew, it always refers to one literal 40-year generation. - It doesn’t make any amount of logical sense for Jesus to be pronouncing judgment on Jerusalem specifically, when He actually intends for the reader to understand this passage as a depiction of the coming destruction on the entire world, but that the Jewish race will not cease to exist at the time worldwide judgment comes. It would not be reasonable to only include language specifically applicable to the Jewish people, but intend it for the world. As for your question about the angels gathering from the four winds, when taken with the understanding that Jesus is not by any means talking about a future generation, then there is no way to deduce that this is in anyway related to the rapture. The same word for “angels” is also used for “messengers.” The word for “gather” is the same used in Matthew 23:37, where Jesus laments his longing to “gather” His covenant people together, but they were unwilling. I think you ought to be careful when asserting that something you simply don’t understand in its context must be related to the rapture and end of time. It’s a dishonest way of studying the scripture. This passage is Jesus declaring that through His messengers, He will finally be able to “gather” His children together, who would be the elect, and be as a hen is to her eggs. There is no need to agree with me, I completely understand frustration and confusion that comes when looking into other eschatological frameworks. If you have Christ, that’s enough. And if you believe that the scriptures more accurately and logically teach whatever view you hold, maintain your convictions unless you see it fit to move elsewhere. My response is only to help clarify some of the main contentions postmillennialists have with the premillennialist method of interpretation as it relates to Matthew 24, and to show that when looking at the passage you also read into it your presuppositional bias. That’s all fine, but it’s not fine to critique others of something we do ourselves.

@@ENDofREGULATION30Amen, all scripture should be able to withstand reproach. There needs to be a level of skepticism and caution when dealing with broad interpretations of prophetic scripture. Dig deep and make sure!

Test the Scriptures yourself brother

Me too. It's hard to be optimistic these days, but I am believing the LORD to increase his kingdom here.

@Scribeintheinkhow so?

I’d read John Gill’s view on this if you want another interesting perspective. It’s basically a somewhat Optimistic Premillennialism.

Jason Peters No it boils down to your biblical literacy. Biblically literate Christians know that the bible is a premil book. Non biblically literate Christians do not in a lot of cases

@@christiansoldier77 So let me get this straight… there has been no biblically literate Christians until relatively recent history? You see, although there has been pre-mills, they were far, and few in between, historically speaking (but even that’s debatable). What we know is that premillennialism wasn’t really a thing until about around 1800. So not to long ago! And if your referring to dispensational premillennialism, then you need to know that it’s an even more recent development. So if your comments stand, basically God raised up no biblically literate Christians until roughly 200 years ago? Just making sure I’m tracking with you. However, feel free to retract your statement if you like.

@@isaias9516 Umm... No, the original church fathers who learned from the apostle John were premil. They were looking for an earthly return of Christ. It want until Origen came along a couple hundred years later that they started over metaphorizing the scripture which lead to Augustine leading the amil movement. Dispensationalism I'd a rather recent add on to premillennialism but it is also incorrect like amil and postmil. Saying that premil believers were "few and far between" is irrelevant because the Catholic church made amil the dominant believe for the last several hundred years. However any real deep reading and understanding of the bible can only lead to a premil viewpoint because the bible literally spells out the premil position in plain language not so with the other viewpoints

@@christiansoldier77 While I am aware of that history and thus said that they were few and far in between. I also said that what they actually believed has been debated. Look into those debates for yourself. I think you’d find them interesting, given your apparent interest in these matters. And I would simply respectfully disagree with you about your statements regarding the natural reading of Scripture. This is coming from someone who was a long time pre-miller myself. I was actually led away from it by recognizing inconsistency within my own hermeneutic. It wasn’t until I sought to be consistent that I departed from my premillennialism.

@@isaias9516 There aren't any consistencies you just dont understand it. Plus amil and postmil are filled with consistencies. My understanding of the history of eschatology is correct . You need to do more studying

I, personally, believe we are in the time frame described in Revelation 20 in which satan is loosed from the pit to deceive the nations.

It's a 250 year time frame which started when the US began, in the 1700s (which is why the Statue of Liberty is actually a depiction of Lucifer, and the statue had broken chains on the feet to symbolism satan being loosed from being chained at the bottomless pit). So we are in the tail end of "Satan's Little Season"

​@@lightbeforethetunnel nope

@@jeremycremeans1854 I deleted that because I mis-spoke. Thanks for pointing out that I said was incorrect.

Sure doesn't sound like the devil is bound right now does it?

And 1 Peter 5:8-9

Nope, the Rapture and 2nd Advent are the SAME EVENT, they are not to be temporally separated by a mythical 7-year period (taken from a fallacious interpretation of Dan. 9:24-27, 'cuz, apparently, Dispensational Futurists can't do math).

The Bible hints that the world lasts a week, and we know that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.

@Dakota Bledsoe If it's a euphemism then why is it also in reverse ie; a thousand being like a day? A week is the totality of a thing, most obviously the original creation itself. Remember that the word week itself is not exclusively for a 7-day period, even though we only use it for that in modern communication. Thus it would make sense that creation also lasts a "week". Consider that the 7th day wasn't closed in the same format as the first 6 in Genesis, I think that is a lovely reminiscence of the great rest with Jesus- who is our Sabbath- that the last period is an unending heavenly mode unlike the struggle of the first 6. Which is to say; once 6000 years are elapsed, this fallen world world shall end with the abolition of death. *2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.* Peter response to this incredulous inquiry is that a day is as a thousand years, and that the seemingly long wait is because God is unwilling that any of us perish. Jesus himself said we won't discern the day or hour, but a wider pinpoint is manifestly possible... we should be able to pick the year since the Holy Bible contains extensive details about genealogies etc.

The Apostle Paul knew that the Antichrist would not arise until after the Fall of the Roman Empire (476 AD). "...that day (2nd Advent/Coming of Christ) will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction... Only he who now restrains it (The Roman Empire was "restraining" the Antichrist from gaining power) will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming (the 2nd Advent/Coming of Christ)." [2 Thes. 2:1-12, ESV]. So, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) wrote: "...the time when the reign of Antichrist began ...It is certain that the twelve hundred and sixty days, or years (notice the "day=year principle" in Edwards?)...did not commence before the year of Christ four hundred and seventy-nine (the Fall of the Roman Empire; which was in 476 AD, technically)..." [Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. I, "History of the Work of Redemption," ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1/works1.xii.vi.viii.html.]. Preterists and Futurists are BOTH in error. Both are abandonments of the Reformation. Both were part of the Jesuit-led Counter Reformation. Questions? Let me know. *Soli Deo Gloria*

So you believe that Jesus already sent His angels to gather together all His elect? And do you believe that when Jesus said His coming would be like in the days of Noah He was talking about His coming in judgement against Jerusalem? That's a hard one for me. But it's also a hard one for me to believe all of Matt 24 is end time prophecy as well.

@@bobbyadkins6983 find some scholarly books, maybe bart ehrman. The apolcopyltic second temple text have nothing to do with jesus, The suffering servant was israel not a messiah. There is a lot to learn

Jesus said He's coming back and is going to rid His kingdom of all evil. He used difference parables explaining that.

how?

@@Milkmilk725 how? How is apostasy different than world revival? How does the reign of Antichrist and beheadding of Christians and world religion differ from world revival? Really?

One verse to refute Pre Millennialism John 6v15 King James Bible "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." Because Premils thinks the kingdom was postponed they than move to the cross which Eph 1v4 refutes it Premil brings shame to the gospel

Full of conclusions and no reasoning. Classic case of flattening all the versed that don't agree with your traditions.

@jeremycremeans1854 Oh hello....when will Christ return in your view? And you believe he returned in flaming fire in 70ad?

How so?

God promises the nations will be drawn to Himself through Christ. This is the decree of God. The gospel is functional in this work.

I’ve never found him confusing, but I understood the position before I ever heard him. Read “paradise restored” by David chilton, incredibly concise exposition of the position through scripture. Amill is closest to the truth in name, but most amills may as well be dispys. Premill (or Chiliasm) is rediculous and should be rejected the way Calvin did, with laughter. Also, he never says he is smart for believing postmill, that’s you not liking him or his position.

He makes perfect sense to me! If you don't don't find his arguments for most mill compelling maybe try offering a better argument so that we can compare what a compelling one looks like? Go!

@@noanapoleon474 it’s hard for dispy guys to understand because the presuppositions are completely different. Postmill isn’t primarily focused on what happens in our future, that’s part of it, but it’s primary focus is the redemptive story told through covenants throughout scripture. Dispy/Premill is focused on the end of the world being soon and in our immediate future, so going to Psalms instead of trying to figure out what the Mark of the beast or who the 2 prophets are doesn’t compute to them.

I fully Preterism. That's what makes sense

It doesn’t take long to read Revelation… there’s a lot of time in a day, to read through Revelation is not speed-reading 🤦🏻‍♂️

Reading it everyday to get well familiar with it is not disrespectful. I've read all of Revelation in a day. It's pretty easy to do without speed reading.

Hey there brother. I think the context of this verse that you’ve sighted is based on the beatitudes which was Jesus’ instruction to crowds of people who would want to be His disciples. On that note, the Jews and the Greeks believed on a lot of ways to get to a heaven-like place. Mostly they based it on sacraments, good works, observing holidays and just being good. When Jesus told them that He was the way, the truth and the life, Jesus knew that the solution would be hard for people of that day to just believe in Him and walk in the Holy Spirit everyday. Because for many people that time, it was a lot easier to just be good and observe sacraments and give alms. And very hard to believe in the Son of Man claiming to be God and walking with Him in Spirit and in truth.

He was speaking to the Jews of that day the majority of which rejected him. Only a remnant of true Jews believed and were saved.

The binding of Satan for a thousand years is a difficult one for me in accepting it.

Well there are passages about Jesus ruling the world with a rod of iron. It could be that he rules over unregenerate people.

​@bobbyadkins6983 We are in the timeframe described briefly in Revelation 20 in which satan is loosed from the pit to deceive the nations for a short season (250 years or so)

There is no end of this world. The apostles asked Jesus about the end of the Mosaic age in Matthew 24, and Jesus answered that question.

@@michaelcarr8932 mosaic age? They asked about the end of the age and His coming. You have to ask yourself how did they view the age? Was the age defined as the mosaic age? Or are you imposing that on the text? They viewed the age the way Jews did, as ruled by Gentile kingdoms until the Messiah comes and restores the kingdom to Israel, and reigns from sea to sea.

@@chrislabrec Christ isn’t reigning?

@@Jus4kiks what kind of reign are you asking about? you mean reigning where all peoples and nations obey and He rules with a rod of iron? And His righteousness extends from sea to sea? And He has vindicated His name in the sight of all nations when He saves/restores His people Israel? No, He is not reigning in that way yet, but will at His second coming. Are you talking about reigning as in He is in sovereign control of all Creation? Yes, He is reigning in that way, always has and always will. That did not begin at His ascension and seating at the right hand of the Father.

@@chrislabrec Christ tells us the kingdom grows like a mustard seed - you teach that it just plops down as a fully matured tree - isn't that strange?