A Few of the Scriptures that Make me Post-Millennial

[Ethan1942]

I am LCMS. I really like the study bible. I also have Luther's law and gospel.
WELS has come out with another English Bible translation that I am interested in; HEV. WELS, is very conservative so I would like to read their work.

I'm not Lutheran but I like to get input from different Study Bibles. I have very conservative study Bibles, very liberal ones, RCC, the study Bible of the Orthodox Church as well and the Oxford Study Bibles and MacArthur. As to Lutherans, I do like the An American Translation by William F. Beck and I have two versions, his original of 1976 and one after some revisions had been made. I suppose doctrinally I'd be similar to the Baptists of 200-300 years ago, the Particular Baptists. I'll have to look into the HEV.WELS translation.

 

[presidente]

I take this as speaking of glory, heaven, the eternal home of God's people from both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Where does the Bible teach that heaven is the eternal home of God's people? In Revelation, the New Jerusalem descends. What about the new earth?

 

[PennEd]

I take this as speaking of glory, heaven, the eternal home of God's people from both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. So, you have the Old Covenant children of God represented by the tribes of Israel, and the New Covenant children represented by the apostles. Since "church" is not truly a biblical word, so that does not apply.

Ah..

More allegory, and private interpretations instead of just believing what Scripture says.

 

[presidente]

I take this as speaking of glory, heaven, the eternal home of God's people from both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. So, you have the Old Covenant children of God represented by the tribes of Israel, and the New Covenant children represented by the apostles. Since "church" is not truly a biblical word, so that does not apply.

Would you acknowledge that your understanding of eschatology is different from that of the apostles who, in Acts 1, asked Jesus if He would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Matthew 24:
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


let's examine these Verses carefully here.

1. clearly Verses 40 and 41 speak of 2 things
A. Jobs (in the field/grinding at the mill)
B. Believer and Sinner because ONE is taken and ONE is left.

if Verse 42 is about the Second Coming, that means Verses 40 and 41 are in the last half of the 7 year Tribulation.

but how is this possible when the Mark of the Beast is in play?

how can a Believer be with a Sinner on a JOB working and the Sinner has the Mark and the Believer does not?

Impossible!

this clearly is a Rapture event BEFORE the Second Coming!

my Bible says ALL will have to take the Mark of the Beast or be BEHEADED!

so how can a Christian be on a Job working with a Sinner when the MOB is in play and One be taken and One is left?

it cannot ever happen!

so Verse 42 [[((IS NOT))]] the Second Coming, it's a Rapture [before] the Second Coming!

 

[Evmur]

The religious humanism form of post-mil teaching died out after the attempt to bring in the kingdom of God by the civil authority. First declaring slavery in itself is sin and it must take war to stop it; then came government takeover of the schools; then woman's movement, and of course prohibition that really was a great success. God's word still stands true in every detail.

We live by God's word, not our own estimation as we humans see the world: (For we walk by faith, not by sight (2Cor 5:7, KJV)

Post-millennialists believe that the millennium happens from the 1st to the 2nd advent, or a latter portion thereof.

you need to get out of your books. The Holy Ghost sees you wiv all that stuff and says "get on with it then"

 

[Ethan1942]

Is Dispensationalism the increase of knowledge in the traditional translation of Daniel 12:4, at the time of the end?

When it is pointed out to a modernist prophecy believer that his system is a radically new idea that can't be supported in Scripture or church history, you'll sometimes hear a statement based on Dan. 12:4, expressed in a manner similar to that in the following -

A dispensationalist comment: Frank Binford Hole (1874-1964)
"Though made known to Daniel and recorded by him, it was to be as a shut book till the end time was reached. During the last century or so these things have been much studied and the light of them has shone forth. This should confirm us in the thought that the end of the age is near."

The first step in interpretation is to make sure the translation you are working with is an accurate translation of the original. That can't be determined with Dan. 12:4, even though the KJV is the traditional, and most often rendering of the verse. Other versions vary.

"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." (Dan 12:4, KJV)

“As for you, Daniel, keep secret the message and seal the book until the end time; many shall wander aimlessly and evil shall increase.” (Dan. 12:4, NAB, Revised Edition)

"But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end. Many shall be running back and forth, and evil shall increase.” (Dan 12:4, NRSV)

"But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and seal the book till the time of the end. Many will be at their wits' end, and punishment will be heavy." (Dan 12:4, NEB)

The NETS Daniel 12:4 translation of the LXX - http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf
"And you, Daniel, hide the ordinances, and seal the book until the time of consummation, until the many rage violently and the earth is filled with injustice."

"But as for you, O Daniel, let the words be kept secret and the book rolled up and kept shut till the time of the end: numbers will be going out of the way and troubles will be increased." (Dan 12:4 BBE)

Even if the traditional translation were unquestionably accurate, it is presumptuous to claim it refers to modernist dispensationalism. In either translation, it makes more sense that it applies to that generation leading up to 70 AD, the early spread of the gospel and increased knowledge of the OT, or about the tribulation leading up 70 AD. This is not a new question about the text. It had been discussed in the Pulpit Commentaries Edited by Joseph Exell, written over a period of 30 years and pubished in 1890, and probably many years before that.

 

[Ethan1942]

Would you acknowledge that your understanding of eschatology is different from that of the apostles who, in Acts 1, asked Jesus if He would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel?

The apostles often misunderstood things, so I pay more attention to what was said or NOT said by Jesus Christ. There is no prophecy in the NT about the kingdom being restored to Israel. It was clearly stated to be taken away, but nothing about it being restored to Israel. You must read that into the words of Christ.

 

[John146]

The apostles often misunderstood things, so I pay more attention to what was said or NOT said by Jesus Christ. There is no prophecy in the NT about the kingdom being restored to Israel. It was clearly stated to be taken away, but nothing about it being restored to Israel. You must read that into the words of Christ.

Hetes the physical deliverance Israel was looking for prophesied by the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Again, the disciples looking forward to that day. Jesus did not rebuke them, instead told them it’s not for them to know and not to worry yet about that day but just be his witnesses.

Acts 1:
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

[Ethan1942]

Ah..

More allegory, and private interpretations instead of just believing what Scripture says.

Not "private interpretation" at all. It seems you are the one insisting upon literal when the book is so symbolic in language.

"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:" (Rev 1:1, KJV)

signified, G4591 .... from Strong's, "to indicate" ... But how was the revelation to be "signified"? I check out John's use of the word elsewhere, in his gospel to learn it is not literal, but figurative:

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." (John 12:32-33, KJV)

"Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die." (John 18:31-32, KJV)

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me." (John 21:18-19, KJV)

Improper application of literalism can send one off the tracks.

 

[Ethan1942]

Where does the Bible teach that heaven is the eternal home of God's people? In Revelation, the New Jerusalem descends. What about the new earth?

You are correct, I should not have placed "heaven" in that answer.

 

[Ethan1942]

Hetes the physical deliverance Israel was looking for prophesied by the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Again, the disciples looking forward to that day. Jesus did not rebuke them, instead told them it’s not for them to know and not to worry yet about that day but just be his witnesses.

Acts 1:
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

I do not see a physical deliverance in that passage. You put in bold text about the enemy and I do not find what you seem to imply. The enemy I find different in the NT -

"The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." (Matt 13:39, KJV)

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:19-20, KJV)

 

[Inquisitor]

"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)

What a fantastic paragraph from Isaiah 9.

Love those messianic prophecies.

People should quote messianic prophecies more often.

 

[Inquisitor]

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.

Well done.

I find Matt. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are describing the tribulation leading up to 70 AD.

A lot of folk interested in eschatology seem to just read Matthew 24. If they read Luke 21, they would see the fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus gave concerning the temple. In the desolation of the temple in AD 70.

 

[PennEd]

Not "private interpretation" at all. It seems you are the one insisting upon literal when the book is so symbolic in language.

The Bible of course uses many types of figures of speech, however the text itself, or the immediate context, differentiates "symbolism" or "allegory".
Here is such an example right from Revelation:

Revelation 9:7-10

New King James Version

7 The shape of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle. On their heads were crowns of something like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. 8 They had hair like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots with many horses running into battle. 10 They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails. Their power was to hurt men five months.

When John speaks in detailed specifics, such as Satan bound for 1000 yrs, or 12000 Jews from each Tribe, the mark of the beast, and everything surrounding that, or the Israelite stones on the walls of New Jerusalem etc..., we are NOT given license to interpret them whatever way fits our preconceived doctrines.

"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:" (Rev 1:1, KJV)

signified, G4591 .... from Strong's, "to indicate" ... But how was the revelation to be "signified"? I check out John's use of the word elsewhere, in his gospel to learn it is not literal, but figurative:

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." (John 12:32-33, KJV)

"Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die." (John 18:31-32, KJV)

"Signifying" is not some magical word that let's you use allegory and private interpretations.

In all those examples you listed, signifying merely meant the manner in which something was done.
A perfect, and certainly allowable example of an allegory would be Jesus' recitation of the serpent in the wilderness to express how He would die, AND how Salvation would be achieved.

It in NO way allows us to take clear passages and make them mean whatever we like.

 

[oyster67]

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.

This topic is both valid and appropriate for discussion. Many have fallen prey to this false teaching, and it is good that we discuss it here and now.

The Scriptures are crystal clear as to the time of the Thousand Year Reighn of Christ upon the Earth. Christ has only spent 33 years on Earth so far.

Revelation places the time of the Millennium after Christ's Second Coming and before the New Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven.

The Second Coming...
Revelation 19
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

The beginning of the Millenium...
Revelation 20
1And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3And 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.
4And 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.


The Final Rebellion immediately following the Millenium...
Revelation 20
7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Great White Throne Judgement...
Revelation 20
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

The New Jerusalem Comes down out of Heaven...
Revelation 21
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


-

 

[John146]

I do not see a physical deliverance in that passage. You put in bold text about the enemy and I do not find what you seem to imply. The enemy I find different in the NT -

"The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." (Matt 13:39, KJV)

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:19-20, KJV)

Israel had enemies, plural, all throughout the OT. Rome was the current enemy. They could not serve God without fear being under the leadership of Roman authority. When you allegorize scripture you can make it say anything you want. That's the problem with not allowing scripture to be honest. We must take it literal.

The disciples asked about this restoration.

 

[Ethan1942]

Dispensationalism is an autonomous approach to Scripture, the true "private interpretation".

Directed at ALL dispensationalists, not anyone in particular, concerning Acts 1:6-8: 7

Baptist - Charles Haddon Spurgeon
"They had not got rid of their old ideas concerning a kingdom visible among men, they still clung to the idea of a temporal kingdom for Israel. There were a kingdom already established by Christ; but in the sense in which they understood the word, they were sadly in error."

Methodist - Adam Clarke
"That the disciples, in common with the Jews, expected the Messiah's kingdom to be at least in part secular, I have often had occasion to note. In this opinion they continued less or more till the day of pentecost; when the mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit taught them the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ. The kingdom had now for a considerable time been taken away from Israel; the Romans, not the Israelites, had the government. The object of the disciples' question seems to have been this: to gain information, from their all-knowing Master, whether the time was now fully come, in which the Romans should be thrust out, and Israel made, as formerly, an independent kingdom."

Presbyterian - Albert Barnes
"The apostles had entertained the common opinions of the Jews about the temporal dominion of the Messiah. They expected that he would reign as a prince and conqueror, and would free them from the bondage of the Romans...And as they did not doubt now that he would restore the kingdom to Israel, they asked whether he would do it at that time? They did not ask whether he would do it at all, or whether they had correct views of his kingdom; but, taking that for granted, they asked him whether that was the time in which he would do it. The emphasis of the inquiry lies in the expression, “at this time,” and hence, the answer of the Saviour refers solely to the point of their inquiry, and not to the correctness or incorrectness of their opinions. From these expectations of the apostles we may learn:
(1) That there is nothing so difficult to be removed from the mind as prejudice in favor of erroneous opinions.
(2) that such prejudice will survive the plainest proofs to the contrary.
(3) that it will often manifest itself even after all proper means have been taken to subdue it. Erroneous opinions thus maintain a secret ascendency in a man’s mind, and are revived by the slightest circumstances, even long after it was supposed that they were overcome, and in the face of the plainest proofs of reason or of Scripture."

Roman Catholic - George Haydock
"Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel? Some of them, as St. John Chrysostom observes, had still their thoughts upon a temporal kingdom of the Messias. Christ, to divert them from such imaginations, tells them, their business is to be witnesses of his doctrine and miracles, particularly of his resurrection, even to the utmost bounds of the earth, to all the nations of the world. (Witham)"

All four statements above are easily read at: studylight.org/commentaries

Isn't it the height of arrogance to admit that Christ put teachers in the church, and then go off separating oneself from the historic teachings of the church? Does the Holy Spirit illuminate the Scriptures more clearly for dispensationalists than it has to the majority of the body of Christ in years past? If I'm diagnosed with cancer, I'm not staying with the first opinion and prognosis, I'm going to at least get a second opinion. Yet it was many years that I never even considered that my dispensationalist teachers may be totally in error about prophecy, as well as other matters.

 

[presidente]

The apostles often misunderstood things, so I pay more attention to what was said or NOT said by Jesus Christ. There is no prophecy in the NT about the kingdom being restored to Israel. It was clearly stated to be taken away, but nothing about it being restored to Israel. You must read that into the words of Christ.

There were promises about David's throne in the historical books (in 'The Prohets'). There are prophecies about the restoration of Israel.

The word 'kingdom' is also used in Micah 4, for example.

8 And you, O tower of the flock,
The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,
To you shall it come,
Even the former dominion shall come,
The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem.”
(NKJV)

Luke 24:45 says,
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
(NKJV)

Might that not include eschatalogical predictions?

And of course there is this from Acts 1.
6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
(NKJV)

Who can read that and conclude that the apostles followed an a-mil or post-mil eschatology. Clearly, they believed in a restoration to the kingdom of Israel. And Jesus encourages them. Why would He say it was not for them to know the times or seasons which the Father had put in His own power if there were no time or season for what they asked about? Do you think He was discouraging them in their delusions.

I do not care for Bible interpretations that rely on my believing the interpreter knows better than the apostles or knows better than the Lord Jesus.

 

[presidente]

Dispensationalism is an autonomous approach to Scripture, the true "private interpretation".

Directed at ALL dispensationalists, not anyone in particular, concerning Acts 1:6-8: 7

Baptist - Charles Haddon Spurgeon
"They had not got rid of their old ideas concerning a kingdom visible among men, they still clung to the idea of a temporal kingdom for Israel. There were a kingdom already established by Christ; but in the sense in which they understood the word, they were sadly in error."

Methodist - Adam Clarke
"That the disciples, in common with the Jews, expected the Messiah's kingdom to be at least in part secular, I have often had occasion to note. In this opinion they continued less or more till the day of pentecost; when the mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit taught them the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ. The kingdom had now for a considerable time been taken away from Israel; the Romans, not the Israelites, had the government. The object of the disciples' question seems to have been this: to gain information, from their all-knowing Master, whether the time was now fully come, in which the Romans should be thrust out, and Israel made, as formerly, an independent kingdom."

Presbyterian - Albert Barnes
"The apostles had entertained the common opinions of the Jews about the temporal dominion of the Messiah. They expected that he would reign as a prince and conqueror, and would free them from the bondage of the Romans...And as they did not doubt now that he would restore the kingdom to Israel, they asked whether he would do it at that time? They did not ask whether he would do it at all, or whether they had correct views of his kingdom; but, taking that for granted, they asked him whether that was the time in which he would do it. The emphasis of the inquiry lies in the expression, “at this time,” and hence, the answer of the Saviour refers solely to the point of their inquiry, and not to the correctness or incorrectness of their opinions. From these expectations of the apostles we may learn:
(1) That there is nothing so difficult to be removed from the mind as prejudice in favor of erroneous opinions.
(2) that such prejudice will survive the plainest proofs to the contrary.
(3) that it will often manifest itself even after all proper means have been taken to subdue it. Erroneous opinions thus maintain a secret ascendency in a man’s mind, and are revived by the slightest circumstances, even long after it was supposed that they were overcome, and in the face of the plainest proofs of reason or of Scripture."

Roman Catholic - George Haydock
"Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel? Some of them, as St. John Chrysostom observes, had still their thoughts upon a temporal kingdom of the Messias. Christ, to divert them from such imaginations, tells them, their business is to be witnesses of his doctrine and miracles, particularly of his resurrection, even to the utmost bounds of the earth, to all the nations of the world. (Witham)"

All four statements above are easily read at: studylight.org/commentaries

These are really incriminating posts for a-mil and post-mil commentators. I assume these are all referring to the fact that these verses in Acts 1 do not fit with their views, and they try to find a way to fit their round peg fit into the hole.

Again the verses in question from Acts 1,
6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
(NKJV)

And of course there is no scripture where the apostles change their opinion. Amil is just an interpretive system added later.

Isn't it the height of arrogance to admit that Christ put teachers in the church, and then go off separating oneself from the historic teachings of the church? Does the Holy Spirit illuminate the Scriptures more clearly for dispensationalists than it has to the majority of the body of Christ in years past? If I'm diagnosed with cancer, I'm not staying with the first opinion and prognosis, I'm going to at least get a second opinion. Yet it was many years that I never even considered that my dispensationalist teachers may be totally in error about prophecy, as well as other matters.

Your first question there is good one, but you need to put it to the first century, or perhaps a bit earlier, teachers who abandoned the historical millennial teachings of the church. If you look at the earlier commentary on it, it is along the lines of millennialism, whether or not the millennium is specifically mentioned in an author's commentary. One of the posters referenced several early commentators quotes.

Two that come to mind are Papias. I have read that the 4th century historian and bishop, contemporary with Constantine as I recall, Eusebius was amillennial in his beliefs. But he acknowledged Papias, who he said knew John, held to a millennial belief, then tried to paint him as sort of well-meaning but ignorant. Others in John's circle held to similar beliefs.

You can also read Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho, where he believed in a restoration of Jerusalem with the prophets being there, etc.

There was an early view along the lines of a restored kingdom, millennialism, etc. At some as allegorical interpretation grew in popularity, amillennialism took hold.

Augustine was known to be an amillennialist, and he probably had a lot to do with the spread of the idea since his writings were so popular in the west. He had a strange interpretation of a passage in II Corinthians, in which he interpreted literal interpretations to be 'of the letter', and came up with the bizarre idea of the 'spirit of the law' which is not in the text, and that allegorical interpretation was spiritual. So literal interpretations were deemed to be low, and allegory more spiritual. He was apparently influenced by Ambrose on those ideas, rather than originating them all by himself.

Why would you reject the interpretation of the apostles and the earliest generations of Christians. Do you know of any second century amillennial teachings?