It makes no difference whether one is premillennialist, amillennialist or postmillennialist, if one is looking for a future coming of Christ to reign on earth, that one is looking for Jesus to reign in a physical body, on a physical throne, in physical Jerusalem, in a physical Kingdom. This is simply undeniable. If you are looking for the Second Coming of Christ to occur sometime in the future, and, if he is to reign on this earth or a new earth, that is your hope—a physical King, a physical throne, a physical Jerusalem, and a physical Kingdom. The only problem with that idea is that it isn’t Biblical. It cannot be supported with scripture. The whole doctrine is eisegesis not exegesis.
Consider Paul’s letter to the Colossians, in which he told the brethren there not to let anyone judge them: “in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath” (Colossians 2:16). In other words, the Colossians weren’t keeping Torah, but some Judaizers there wanted to bring the believers into subjection of the Law. That is, they wanted believers to become circumcised, but Paul told his readers not to be intimidated by those Jewish teachers. Why? What was Paul’s argument?
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17; emphasis mine)
Paul argued that the things under the Old Testament were shadows or types of things to come. The Body that cast the shadow is Christ. That is, it is Christ who is the Reality, while everything under the Old Testament, including circumcision, looked to Christ—they were shadows or types of Christ. Therefore, if they had received Christ (Colossians 2:6), they had already been circumcised in him, but not on the 8th day as was done to physical Israel, but theirs was a circumcision made without hands to the putting off of the body of flesh or the body of sin (Colossians 2:11).
Under the Old Covenant, one could not be a citizen of the Kingdom of Israel unless he was circumcised. The kingdom was passed on through marriage and giving in marriage. The kingdom was physical, and it was populated through physical means. This would not be so for the Kingdom of God under Christ. Believers were circumcised without hands (meaning by God), but not to the cutting of the flesh, but to the casting off of the body of sin (flesh), which was rebellion against God. The Kingdom wasn’t spread through marriage and procreation, but through preaching the Gospel. The word of God was planted in the hearts of men, and men ceased there rebellion by turning to God. This is not a physical kingdom spread through physical means. The nature of the former kingdom was identified through physical circumcision, but the nature of the latter was identified through spiritual circumcision.
According to scripture, we are a Kingdom of priests (Revelation 5:10), and the writer of Hebrews says we are to offer a ‘sacrifice of praise’, which under the Old Covenant meant to bring food to be offered by the Levitical priesthood on a physical altar (Leviticus 7:12). However, under the New Testament, the ‘sacrifice of praise’ was the fruit of our lips (Hebrews 13:15). The nature of the kingdoms were very different. One could be seen with the eyes, and said to be ‘here’ or ‘there’, but the other could not be observed, and neither could one point to it and say: “here it is” or “There is where the kingdom is” (cf. Luke 17:20-21).
Finally, the physical Temple with its physical priesthood and its physical sacrifices was the absolute center of the physical kingdom. However, when writing to his brethren who were being persecuted by the Judaizers in Asia Minor, Peter told his readers they were: “living stones, (who) are built up a spiritual house (i.e. spiritual Temple), an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1Peter 1:5; parenthesis mine). Do you see the contrast? How, therefore, is it logical or Biblical to look for Jesus to return in a physical body, to reign on a physical throne, in physical Jerusalem in a physical kingdom? If, then, Jesus’ Kingdom is spiritual (as is supported in the scriptures) then there is absolutely no reason not to believe he returned in 70 AD, when he came in the person of Titus and the Roman armies to judge Jerusalem and destroy the Temple, thus ending the Old Covenant, and establishing the New, just as he promised to do (cf. Matthew 26:64).
Smoodock's Blog 