End Times Q&A (Part 2 of 3)
March 14th, 2007
Today’s post is continued from yesterday — responding to questions we received during the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference.
*****
5. Can you say more in defense of your understanding of Acts 1:6–8?
The fact that Jesus (in v. 7) does not deny the disciples’ expectation of a literal, earthly kingdom involving Israel is highly significant. It suggests that their understanding of the promised kingdom (in v. 6) was correct, except for the time of its coming. If they were mistaken about such a crucial point in His kingdom teaching, His failure to correct them is mystifying and deceptive. A far more likely explanation is that the apostles’ expectation of a literal, earthly kingdom mirrored the Lord’s own teaching (from the previous 40 days) and the plan of God clearly revealed in the Old Testament.
This article, by Michael Vlach, further explains why we believe the premillennial understanding of Acts 1:6–8 is preferred.
Dr. Vlach’s article concludes as follows:
Acts 1:6 seems to be significant evidence for the nonsupersessionist view. The fact that these disciples had immediately experienced forty days of kingdom instruction from the risen Jesus (see Acts 1:3) makes it unlikely they could be so wrong about the nature of the kingdom and national Israel’s relationship to it. Plus, Jesus’ answer, although not an explicit affirmation of their hope, appears to assume the correctness of their expectation. As Scot McKnight states:
Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity.
We thus conclude with Paul W. Walaskay that Jesus said nothing that “dampened the hope of his disciples for a national kingdom.” Acts 1:6–7, therefore, is evidence for the restoration of the nation Israel.
*****
6. What is the “fullness of the Gentiles” versus the “times of the Gentiles”? How do these phrases relate to a premillennial paradigm?
The “fullness of the Gentiles” (Romans 11:25) refers to the complete number of Gentiles chosen by God to come to salvation during the church age. After the “fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (meaning the church age has ended), “all Israel” (the entire nation that survives the Great Tribulation) “will be saved.”
For a thorough defense of this interpretation of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26, see Matt Waymeyer’s thesis here (or his shorter journal article here) or Michael Vanlaningham’s article here. Also, for a treatment of the entire section (Romans 9 – 11) please see this study by S. Lewis Johnson.
The “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) is a phrase unique to Luke. It has been a time which, in accord with God’s purpose, Gentiles have dominated or threatened Jerusalem. The era has also been marked by vast spiritual privileges for the Gentile nations.
Regarding Luke 21:24 (and its connection to Romans 11:25), Thomas Ice writes this:
Luke 21:24 ends by saying that Jerusalem will be under Gentile domination “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” The little word “until” clearly denotes that there will be a time when the current domination of Jerusalem by the Gentiles will come to an end. The current “times of the Gentiles” in which we currently live will indeed come to an end in the future. Thus, the end of verse 24 serves as a transitional period between the prophecy that refers to the past A.D. 70 event (Luke 21:20-24) and the prophecy that looks to a future fulfillment at Christ second coming (Luke 21:25-28). We now live in the “times of the Gentiles.”
A clear connection is established between Luke 21:24 which speaks of the current era of “the times of the Gentiles” being fulfilled and coming to an end and Romans 11:25 which speaks of “the fullness of the Gentiles” having “come in.” Both passages speak of Israel’s redemption (Luke 21:28; Romans 11:26–27). When we consider that the Old Testament pattern which says that Israel will pass through the tribulation, repent toward the end when they recognize Jesus as the Messiah, experience conversion, and then the second coming will occur to rescue them from their enemies, it follows that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26) in connection with the tribulation. This is exactly the pattern of Luke 21:25–28.
Preterist Ken Gentry believes Romans teaches a future conversion of Israel, yet he does not associate it with the tribulation as Scripture repeatedly does. Dr. Gentry declares, “The future conversion of the Jews will conclude the fulfillment (Rom. 11:12–25).” Yet only a futurist interpretation does justice to a harmonization of these passages that are clearly connected (Online Source).
*****
7. How would you respond to those who say the number “one thousand” in Revelation 20 is figurative?
We believe that there is no reason (from the text itself) to deny a literal one thousand years as the duration of the kingdom of Christ on earth. As Robert Thomas writes:
If the writer wanted a very large symbolic number, why did he not use 144,000 (7:1ff.; 14:1ff.;), 200,000,000 (9:16), “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (5:11), or an incalculably large number (7:9)? The fact is that no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number. On the other hand, nonsymbolic usage of numbers is the rule. It requires multiplication of a literal 12,000 by a literal twelve to come up with 144,000 in 7:4–8. The churches, seals, trumpets, and bowls are all literally seven in number. The three unclean spirits of 16:13 are actually three in number. The three angels connected with the three last woes (8:13) add up to a total of three. The seven last plagues amount to exactly seven. The equivalency of 1,260 days and three and a half years necessitate a nonsymbolic understanding of both numbers. The twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel are literally twelve (21:12–14). The seven churches are in seven literal cities. Yet confirmation of a single number in Revelation as symbolic is impossible. (Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary, 408–9)
Moreover, it is highly doubtful that any symbolic number would be repeated six times in a text, as one thousand is here.
For more on the premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1–6, see the articles by Steve Sullivan or J. Hampton Keathley. (Of special interest is Sullivan’s appendix on the use of numbers in Revelation.)
*****
To be concluded tomorrow.
71 Responses to “End Times Q&A (Part 2 of 3)”
Regarding Question #6 and its answer, can someone explain why/how “the fullness of the Gentiles” is considered the Church age which is widely (amongst premill/pretrib like MacArthur) considered to end with the pre-trib rapture, yet there are seemingly a great number of Gentiles (non Jews) saved during the great tribulation (70th week) through the witness of regenerated Israel (Jews) during that time? (Rev 7:9-17)
That seems to be a large body of repentant souls from many nations (thus part of the elect Gentiles, no?) that come out of the Great Tribulation.
I guess what I’m asking is how that can be congruous if we are trying to say the time of the Gentiles / fullness of the Gentiles concludes the Church age before the Great Tribulation, there are non-Jews saved during the Great Tribulation.
It does not appear that both can be correct. Either the rapture does not include all Gentiles (i.e. does not occur at the very end of the Church age), or it occurs after all the Gentiles are saved even those during the Great Trib which would logically place it post-trib or at least fairly far into the Great Trib.
One of those unacceptable conclusions apparently must be made, or this third option: you have a pre-trib rapture but that doesn’t end the Church age, which continues during the Great Tribulation and really the Church age co-exists for up to 7 years with the restoration of Israel.
0___o
(Or are Gentiles saved during the Great Trib which is the time of Israel’s regeneration not considered part of the Church, just as Gentiles given faith to believe in the Old Testament pre-Church times wouldn’t have been considered part of the Church age but part of believing Israel?)
I love the Scripture where the Lord said, “Not one of these stones of the temple will be upon one another, but they will all be thrown down. And it will happen before this generation passes away.”
And this actually happened within 40 years of our Lord’s prophcy.
This for me is something that should be proclaimed loud and clear from the pulpits, but I rarely hear anyone expound on this. And that’s ashame, because it’s such a powerful truth, and a testimony of our Lord’s sovereignty and authority.
As a postmillennialist, I have a boatload of questions about the “literal” interpretation of premillennialists (epecially of the Dispensational variety).
Why is the “1,000 year reign” mentioned only in Revelation 20, the most “symbolic” book in the Bible?
Since we are discussing “literal”, why not start with the time frame references? What does “shortly” mean (Rev. 1:1)? How about “near” (Rev. 1:3)? How about “about to” (Rev. 3:10)? What about “this generation” (Matthew 24:34)?
Why were the First Century Churches of Asia concerned with 21st Century events? Why would Jesus promise to deliver the First Century Church of Philadelphia from events that none of them would ever live to see (Rev. 3:10)?
How many resurrections will there be, and when will they take place? Why does Jesus have the righteous and the wicked being resurrected at the same time (John 5:28-29)? Why did Jesus say that the righteous would be resurrected “on the last day” (John 6:29, 40, 44)? What happened to that 1,007 year period after that?
If 1 Thess, 4:17 is the pre-trib rapture, then that means that 1 Thess. 4:16 is a pre-trib resurrection, correct? Yet the “First Resurrection” of Rev. 20:4-5 includes “the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.” Aren’t these supposed to be the tribulation saints? How can they have a part in the first resurrection if the first resurrection takes place before the tribulation even starts?
Where does the Bible mention a Pre-Trib Rapture? How about a third coming of Christ? How about a 7 year tribulation period?
Where does the Bible mention a third Jewish Temple?
Where does the Bible say that Jesus will reign “on earth” for 1,000 years?
If premillennialism is correct, then why does Ezekiel mention animal sacrifices after the “millennium” (Gog and Magog)? What is the purpose of these sacrifices?
Is Matthew 16:28 the literal Second Advent, or should we understand it as something else? If the former, then are some of Jesus’ listeners still alive?
In Isaiah 19:1, did Jehovah literal ride into Egypt on a cloud?
Why did Peter say that Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) saw it’s fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21)?
Where does the 2,000 gap in Daniel’s 70 week prophecy come from?
What kind of chain will be used to bind the angel Satan?
Why did Jesus say that Judaists who rejected him were neither Abraham’s children nor God’s, but the Devil’s (John 8:39-44)?
That would be a good start.
[...] End Times Q&A (Part 2 of 3) New! [...]
re: #5, arguments from silence are double edged swords. One might ask why the Apostles never once mention land based promises in Acts. Or anywhere else for that matter.
Puritan Lad, great questions. Also, what about the temple of Ezekiel 40? Is there going to be a priesthood and sacrifices again? Isn’t Christ the temple? Doesn’t the book of Hebrews say Jesus is our high priest?
Right on CC. So much for Hebrews 9:12-14 eh?
Also, can anyone who is a premillennialist (MacArthur, etc.) back up the following statement in the above article?
“Preterist Ken Gentry believes Romans teaches a future conversion of Israel, yet he does not associate it with the tribulation as Scripture repeatedly does.”
Where does Scripture repeatedly associate the conversion of Israel with the tribulation?
Puritan Lad,
For what it’s worth, the conversion of Israel associated with the tribulation can be seen in Zechariah 13:8-9. I know you’ll probably say that it doesn’t really reference Israel and the tribulation, but those verses are the short answer. The long answer were involve the age-old debate as to how scripture should be interpreted and whether the amills or the premills are correct. If you believe one thing, you’re not going to believe another.
Oh yeah, just for fun, and I hope you like jokes, the composition of the chain used to bind Satan will be pure tungsten. Tungsten is strong enough to hold him and most importantly, it is heavy enough to accelerate his fall in the bottomless pit
).
#5 is fallacious because it is making the text answer a question that isn’t asked and importing dispensational assumptions into the answer. Further, the disciples’ questions weren’t always correct and Scripture shows they were mistaken about things, even after being under Jesus’ direct teaching. Besides, Jesus’ answer is also telling: He says to go preach the gospel (of the kingdom!) to the ends of the earth. Sounds postmill to me.
And I’m wondering where Jesus taught of the premill-style literalistic kingdom in the gospels, since His emphasis was that the kingdom was not of the world, like Caesar’s kingdom. Rather, the kingdom is in the world and will cover the world, but originates elsewhere. It is not a military kingdom with Jesus sitting on an earthly throne.
Anyway, God did restore the kingdom to the new Israel, composed of Jews and Gentiles.
#7 isn’t really conclusive. Go through the OT (and the NT) and do a study of the number “1000.” Often it is symbolic, indicating a large amount. So the argument could be turned back around and say there is no good reason to assume it isn’t symbolic. Revelation is a book of visions and prophecy, not a philosophical treatise. The things it describes are true nonetheless, but often depicted in symbolic fashion.
Puritan Lad and Reformed Dude, many of the answers to your questions could be answered by looking at the relevant commentaries by dispensational authors.
Robert Thomas’s commentary on the book of Revelation would be a good place to start (vol. 1 & 2).
Herman Hoyt’s book on the end times would also be helpful.
I’ve noticed that nondispensationalists are frequently unfamiliar with dispensational theology and dispensational sources. Most of the quesions you’ve asked are answered in relevant books and articles by dispensational authors.
The Master’s Seminary Journal and the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal are probably the two leading dispensational journals of note.
TMSJ
DBSJ
Nathan,
I brought several theology students with me to the Shepherd’s Conference and John really piqued their interest in eschatology with his first message.
What books would you recommend that deal with the different millennial views in a thorough way, laying out both the strenghts and weaknesses of each position?
Perhaps you can suggest a couple from the pre-mil view, and some of the others here can suggest a couple from the a-mil or post-mil view.
Also, do I sense a book or sermon series on the horizon by Dr. MacArthur dealing with these issues?
Blessings,
Steve
John,
I actually have a copy of Pentecost’s “Things to come”. I find his most basic presuppositions to be wanting.
Most premillennialists will admit that they don’t believe Matthew 16:28 refers to the Second Advent. Rather they try (on no basis whatsoever) to link it to the Transfiguration 6 days later. My question is that if “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” isn’t the Second Advent in this case, then why require “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” to be the Second Advent in Matthew 24, especially in light of the fact that all of the rest of the events in Matthew 24 did take place within that generation.
Also, the “coming” of the owner of the vineyard on Matthew 21 clearly refers to the events of AD 70. (Matthew 21:33-45).
Hampton,
Tungsten sounds good. Has it ever been tested to see if it can hold angels?
In any case, I can’t see where the salvation of Israel has “repeatedly” been linked with the tribulation in Scripture. I just see one passage with some questionable interpretation.
Puritan Lad,
Some of your 29 questions (literally
) were answered on yesterday’s post.
Many other questions of yours were related more to the pre-trib position, and I think the questions answered—and the focus from the conference—is meant to be on the timing of the millennium, not the rapture.
You asked “Why would Jesus promise to deliver the church in Philadelphia from a trial that none of them would live to see?” We see inside the promise an indication that the promise extends beyond Christians in Philadelphia to those around the whole world. This indication is because the trial is for those “on the whole world” (olos oikoumenes). Jesus promised that because of faithfulness they would be spared a trial that would test those on the whole world. It seems at least plausible, if not likely, that the promise points to something world-wide that they did not live to see.
For the John passage you asked about (5:28-29), it does not seem that Jesus speaking of the chronology of a resurrection, as much as he is contrasting a spiritual resurrection (vs. 25) with a literal resurrection (vs. 28). In fact, even this verse appears to show two different resurrections when you look at verse 29 “those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgments”).
As for how many resurrections there will be, there are many. There was the resurrection of the dead at the crucifixion of Christ. There was Jesus’ resurrection. There is the resurrection of the righteous. There is the resurrection of the unrighteous. There is the resurrection before the 1,000 years (Rev. 20:4-6). There is the resurrection of the martyrs (Rev 20:4). There is the resurrection after the 1,000 years (Rev 20:13). The question is, which of these resurrections are different names, referring to the same event? It seems that the resurrection of the righteous is before the 1,000 years, and the resurrection of the unrighteous is after.
I’m not sure what you meant by asking about sacrifices “after” the millennium.
Peter refers to Joel’s prophecy as being fulfilled “in the last days.” It seems clear that some of the prophecy was fulfilled that day, and other parts of it are being fulfilled “in the last days” (Acts 2:17). Even part of what Peter said pointed forward to a future event, when he said that some of the fulfillment will happen “before the Lord comes” (vs. 20).
As for Jesus calling the Pharisees’ Satan’s children, I think the point was that they were acting like their father, while they claimed they were acting like Abraham. Jesus showed them that they had more in common with Satan than Abraham. It is probably a stretch to find eschatological/millennial implications in that rebuke.
Jesse
OK Jesse,
I’ll assume that you adopt a post trib view, which is almost demanded by the timing of the resurrection.
Isn’t this view of the Church of Philadelphia a “non-literal” interpretation (in which I would disagree)?
As far as Acts 2, verses 17 and 20, Peter isn’t pointing to any future event. He is quoting the entire prophecy of Joel regarding the last days (and we could debate the question of “last days of what?”) He begins with the statement, “But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16). There is nothing here to suggest that Peter had some future event in mind. In his own words, Joel’s prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 saw its fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost, including the prophecy that “the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood”. (This event, by the way, has happened many times in Scripture).
See Apocalyptic Language in the Bible. This should give some support for the amill/postmill interpretation.
I’m still curious about some of the other questions, particularly Isaiah 19:1 and Matthew 16:28.
God Bless,
PL
Oh, I forgot…
Jesse writes, “he is contrasting a spiritual resurrection (vs. 25) with a literal resurrection (vs. 28).”
Could this “spiritual” resurrection be the same as the First Resurrection of Rev. 20? I believe so. If you agree, then you are almost a “postmillennialist”. I’ll have to work on you a little bit
Puritan,
Actually, I’m as pre-trib is the day is long. But I do think the point of the questions Nate was answering was the timing of the millennium, not the rapture. I skipped Isaiah 19 because I felt it was answered yesterday. But basically, by a literal hermeneutic we mean, “How would the original audience have understood it?” Figures of speech are allowed to be figures of speech. Jesus was not literally a door, the bread is not literally his body, and—more to the point—Yahweh was not literally on a cloud, but rather is moving swiftly. In that same verse (Is 19:1) you also see idols trembling, and hearts melting. I don’t think Isaiah wrote that saying, “Yahweh is surfing on the clouds” (cf. Psalm 18:10).
I didn’t answer the Matthew 16 question, because I do take that it referred to the transfiguration. The structure in Greek of the very next verse (kai meth) seems to tie it to vs. 28. Jesus says, “There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.” And the very next words are, “And after six days…” leading into the transfiguration. Why did Matthew skip six days, use those words, and tie these events together? The best explanation I have heard is that the two narratives are connected; one resolves the tension of the other.
Jesse
Regarding “whole world,” the word is oikoumene, connoting more of a local/regional scope (ie. Roman empire), as opposed to the more universal kosmos.
Jesse,
What “reward” was given at the transfiguration (Matthew 16:27)?
More importantly, does not this interpretation of “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” violate the very “literal hermeneutic” that premillennialists hold to? Why is it OK to Spiritualize this “coming”, yet when postmills do so in Matthew 24, we are in some sort of violation?
(I hold that both “comings” are in reference to AD 70).
Besides, you define your “literal hermeneutic” as “How would the original audience have understood it?” That begs the question. What did the original audience understand Jesus to mean? We get a glimpse of that in Acts 1:6.
“So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”" (Acts 1:6)
It seems to me that they understood the time frame references exactly as postmillennialists do. However, they seem to misunderstand the nature of Christ’s kingdom, just like premillennialists do.
Right on Josh.
Not to mention that the trial was ” try those who dwell on the ge“. Usually translated “earth”, but more accurately translated “land”.
A word of encouragement for those who heard the Shepherd’s Conference and were disturbed by the thought that the promises are only for the Jews and the Gentiles are only the beneficiaries to their promises. Galatians 3 and part of 4 (although I suggest rereading all of Galatians)
“1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
The Law Brings a Curse
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
The Changeless Promise
15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Purpose of the Law
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Sons and Heirs
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 4
1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore YOU are no longer a slave but a SON, and if a SON, then an HEIR of God through CHRIST.”
So, I would agree with John M. that if you don’t get the definition of Israel right, then all your ecclesiology will be wrong. I’ve held to this truth my whole reasoning life. These verses are examples of where I get my definition of Israel.
Figures of speech are allowed to be figures of speech. Jesus was not literally a door, the bread is not literally his body, and—more to the point—Yahweh was not literally on a cloud, but rather is moving swiftly.
I agree. And if you accept this, then you’ve already granted the postmill/preterist point in principle. The “literal” hermeneutic is arbitrarily decided and applied and dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
5. Jesus is coming back and we will get a new heavens and a new earth and we all will reign with Christ as found in Galatians and else where. So, no, Christ wouldn’t discourage their thoughts on setting up a kingdom on earth.
6. Here in Romans 11 is seen the culmination of God’s plan for all of mankind in the bringing together Jews and Gentiles. The Jews stumbled(didn’t fall) so that the Gentiles might enter into the promise of salvation through the cross(not the law which can’t save), and so as ONE body all of Israel shall be saved because all of Israel are: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal.3:26-29
Dr. Thomas wrote per the quote, “Yet confirmation of a single number in Revelation as symbolic is impossible.”
I wondered how Dr. Thomas dealt with the “seven spirits of God” which appears four times in Revelation (Rev 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6). Interestingly, it appears Dr. Thomas sees the number seven in this instance as symbolic. He writes, “This symbolic representation of the Holy Spirit arises from the relationship of the Third Person of the Trinity to the Second Person” (1:393). Earlier in his commentary he concedes that “seven can express the fullness and perfection of [the Holy Spirit's] operations,” though he doesn’t take this view (1:68). The reason he rejects this view is not because it uses seven symbolically (which he admits is perfectly acceptable), but because it refers to abstract energies rather than a concrete person.
In this instance I believe Dr. Thomas is inconsistent in his hermeneutic and his claim that not one number in Revelation is symbolic. Seven spirits cannot equal one spirit without seven having a different kind of designation than one (such as seven is symbolic and one is literal), without spirit meaning something different in each instance (such as spirit means energy in the first instance and it means a literal spirit in the second), or without being irrational.
Since Dr. Thomas clearly rejects the second option, and I doubt he would want to make an irrational claim, the only conclusion is that the number seven is an example of a symbolic number in Revelation. That doesn’t necessarily mean that every other number or any other number is symbolic in Revelation, but it definitely allows for the possibility of it.
On a final note, this symbolic number is repeated four times in Revelation. I believe that is a significant blow to the argument that since 1,000 is repeated six times it must be literal. I wouldn’t say it proves 1,000 is symbolic, but I think it satisfactorily disarms the argument from repetition used by premillennialists.
Puritan Lad,
Thanks for your comments. It was hard to tell, from your questions, if you are really looking for answers or if you simply wish to argue. In any case, we will do our best to respond to your questions succinctly. We would be happy to go into greater depth on any of these if you would like.
Why is the “1,000 year reign” mentioned only in Revelation 20, the most “symbolic” book in the Bible?
The short answer would be, because that is where God chose to reveal it. The fact that something is only mentioned once (actually six times in one passage) does not give us cause to dismiss or discount it as untrue. As Robert Thomas shows, in the citation from his commentary that we noted in the post above, there is no exegetical reason within Revelation itself to take the number “one thousand” in a figurative sense. In our opinion, the burden of proof is on those who say it doesn’t mean what it says.
Since we are discussing “literal”, why not start with the time frame references?
The imminent references of Revelation are to be understood literally, though from God’s perspective, not man’s. “Time” in Revelation 1:3 refers to epochs, eras, or seasons. The next great epoch of God’s redemptive history is imminent. But although Christ’s coming is the next event, it may be delayed long enough (from our perspective) that people begin to question if he will ever come (cf. Matt. 24:36–39; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4).
Regarding Matthew 24:34, “this generation” does not refer to the generation to whom Christ was speaking, but (in context) to the generation who would see (v. 33) the cosmic signs of vv. 27–31.
Why were the First Century Churches of Asia concerned with 21st Century events?
These events may be 21st century events or they may yet be future. We don’t know. The resurrected Christ chose to reveal the future to these churches, and to the Church as a whole, in order to encourage them to faithfulness in light of His imminent coming.
How many resurrections will there be, and when will they take place?
John 5 references a “resurrection to life” and a separate “resurrection to death.” This passage does not contradict other passages where more information about the timing of these two resurrections is given.
“The last day” in John 6 is an eschatological phrase referring to the final stage of the day of the Lord. It points to the end of an age, not the end of human history altogether.
How can they (in Rev. 20:4-6) have a part in the first resurrection if the first resurrection takes place before the tribulation even starts?
As was noted regarding John 5, Scripture teaches two types of resurrections – the first is the resurrection to life, the second the resurrection to death (cf. Dan. 12:2; Acts 24:15). John’s reference to the first resurrection is not a reference to the first resurrection of believers ever (per Lazarus, those who rose when Christ died, Christ Himself, Tabitha, Eutychus, and others). It is instead a reference to the resurrection to life, the first kind of resurrection (cf. Luke 14:14; 1 Cor. 15:23; Heb. 11:35). It stands in opposition to the resurrection to death which John details at the end of chapter 20.
Where does the Bible mention a Pre-Trib Rapture? How about a third coming of Christ? How about a 7 year tribulation period?
The rapture is not the main point of our discussion, however there is helpful material on it here. In actuality, the pre-trib rapture position does not teach three comings of Christ (as Christ does not actually come to earth at the rapture, but meets believers in the air – 1 Thess. 4:17).
The seven year period primarily comes from Daniel 9.
Where does the Bible mention a third Jewish Temple?
The details of the Temple described in Ezekiel 40–48 do not match the details of the Second Temple (which was built after the return from Babylon and expanded by Herod the Great). Because we take God’s revelation in Ezekiel 40–46 at face value, we believe the Temple described there is yet future.
Where does the Bible say that Jesus will reign “on earth” for 1,000 years?
The OT clearly promises an earthly kingdom to ethnic Israel in which Messiah rules. Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 promise the disciples that they will rule with Christ over the twelve tribes of Israel. (For more on those texts, see this article. The context of Revelation 20 indicates that “the nations” (v. 3, 7–8) are in view. It is in Revelation 20:4–6 that we find that this reign lasts for a period of one thousand years.
If premillennialism is correct, then why does Ezekiel mention animal sacrifices after the “millennium” (Gog and Magog)? What is the purpose of these sacrifices?
We will discuss the millennial sacrifices of Ezekiel in tomorrow’s post.
Is Matthew 16:28 the literal Second Advent, or should we understand it as something else? If the former, then are some of Jesus’ listeners still alive?
Matthew 16:28 pointed to the Transfiguration, in which some of Jesus’ disciples experienced His kingdom glory firsthand.
In Isaiah 19:1, did Jehovah literal ride into Egypt on a cloud?
The original audience would have understood this metaphor as a reference to God’s coming in judgment (cf. Ps. 18:10, 11; 104:3; Dan. 7:13). The historical-grammatical hermeneutic attempts to understand the Scripture in the way it would have been understood by those to whom it was first revealed. We discussed this yesterday in the comments section.
Why did Peter say that Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) saw it’s fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21)?
Peter was specifically referring to the outpouring of the Spirit prophesied by Joel. The fact that Pentecost was not accompanied by the cosmic signs predicted by Joel demonstrates that Pentecost itself was not the full fulfillment of that passage.
Where does the 2,000 gap in Daniel’s 70 week prophecy come from?
Daniel’s prophecy, if taken literally, gives 69 weeks (of years) from the rebuilding of the temple to the death of Messiah. Christ’s death marked the beginning of the church age, which was a mystery age not revealed in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:3–7). This mystery age was not included in Daniel’s 70 weeks because it was not revealed to Old Testament prophets.
God, for the present time, has shifted his focus from Israel to the Church. But there is still one week (of years) remaining (specifically for the Jewish nation – Daniel 9:24), in which He will again focus on ethnic Israel. This 7-year period is known as the Tribulation.
What kind of chain will be used to bind the angel Satan?
In the same way that certain demonic forces are even now kept in captivity (Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4), so Satan will be incarcerated during the Millennium.
Why did Jesus say that Judaists who rejected him were neither Abraham’s children nor God’s, but the Devil’s (John 8:39-44)?
Christ was making the point that, in spite of their physical relationship to Abraham, the Jewish leaders (who desired to kill Jesus) had no spiritual relationship to Abraham. If they were His spiritual descendants they would not have rejected their Messiah.
Premillennialists do not deny that unsaved Jews are not spiritual children of Abraham. Rather, we contend that even now there is a remnant of believing Jews who are part of the church. And, in the future, after the church age is complete, there will be a time in which every Jew on earth (at that time) will be saved (Rom. 11:26).
Thanks again for your comment. I hope this helps explain the premillennial position.
- NB
The imminent references of Revelation are to be understood literally, though from God’s perspective, not man’s. “Time” in Revelation 1:3 refers to epochs, eras, or seasons.
This argument makes nonesense out of any time references in Revelation. Besides, why can’t 1,000 years be “God’s time” as well? Such a provincial interpretation fails to take into account the original audience to whom the book was written.
Further, if applied consistently, this argument can be used to deny a literal reading of the creation account, which I’m sure you would oppose, but cannot, on your premises.
The fact that Pentecost was not accompanied by the cosmic signs predicted by Joel demonstrates that Pentecost itself was not the full fulfillment of that passage.
But this is the opposite of what the text says. Peter says the prophecy was fulfilled in the presence of his audience! The cosmic signs were symbolic, which is confirmed by Peter’s interpretation (and by similar OT imagery). But to admit the prophecy was truly (yet symbolically) fulfilled is to accept in principle the postmill/preterist view and do damage to the premill system.
I wish to discuss. I have great respect for John MacArthur, but disagree with him on this issue. I’m sure, however, that my postmillennial stance is every bit as strong as his (and your) premillennnial stance. Hopefully, this can be a fruitful discussion, but I find most Dispensational answers to be wanting.
“The imminent references of Revelation are to be understood literally, though from God’s perspective, not man’s.”
I’ve heard that befire. Is that what the First Century Churches of Asia Minor would have understood? This make these “literal” references quite subjective, don’t you think?
If “shortly”, “near”, or “about to take place” can refer to 2,000 years or more, then how would these poor saints have been able to read, hear, and keep the words of the prophecy (Rev. 1:3)? What is “literal” about this?
“Regarding Matthew 24:34, “this generation” does not refer to the generation to whom Christ was speaking, but (in context) to the generation who would see (v. 33) the cosmic signs of vv. 27–31.”
Really? Who did Jesus say would see these things? Is that what the context says, particularly in light of Matthew 23:36?
Jesus was speaking to His Disciples. He says, “And you (my disciples) will hear of wars and rumors of wars.” “Then they will deliver you (my disciples) up to tribulation and put you (my disciples) to death, and you (my disciples) will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake” etc. Many more examples can be given. What David Chilton said in regards to the original audience in Revelation applies here. “Not once did he imply that his book was written with the twentieth century in mind, and that Christians would be wasting their time attempting to decipher it until the Scofield Reference Bible would become a best-selling novel.”
Besides, the inspired Apostle Peter has already established that the first century church did see the cosmic signs of vv.27-31. (See Acts 2:16-21)
“These events may be 21st century events or they may yet be future.”
Of course, they may also have happened “shortly”, “near”, etc. I would be interested on your specific objections to that possibility.
“John’s reference to the first resurrection is not a reference to the first resurrection of believers ever (per Lazarus, those who rose when Christ died, Christ Himself, Tabitha, Eutychus, and others). It is instead a reference to the resurrection to life.”
I agree. That resurrection has already happened.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” (John 5:25) See also Col. 2:12.
Since neither 1 Thess. 4 not Daniel 9 mention a tribulation, I’ll skip the “Rapture” part for now.
“The OT clearly promises an earthly kingdom to ethnic Israel in which Messiah rules. Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 promise the disciples that they will rule with Christ over the twelve tribes of Israel.”
After reading your Scripture references, let me repeat the question with highlighted emphasis.
Where does the Bible say that Christ will reign “On Earth” for 1,000 years? I didn’t see that in your passages.
“We will discuss the millennial sacrifices of Ezekiel in tomorrow’s post.”
Can’t wait. Will you be sure to include the swords, shields, helmets, spears, and soldiers on horseback that will invade Israel after the millennium (Ezekiel 38-39)? They must be in desperate need of Israel’s cattle (Ezekiel 38:11-13).
“Matthew 16:28 pointed to the Transfiguration, in which some of Jesus’ disciples experienced His kingdom glory firsthand.”
See my previous question to Jesse.
“Daniel’s prophecy, if taken literally, gives 69 weeks (of years) from the rebuilding of the temple to the death of Messiah. Christ’s death marked the beginning of the church age, which was a mystery age not revealed in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:3–7). This mystery age was not included in Daniel’s 70 weeks because it was not revealed to Old Testament prophets.
God, for the present time, has shifted his focus from Israel to the Church. But there is still one week (of years) remaining (specifically for the Jewish nation – Daniel 9:24), in which He will again focus on ethnic Israel. This 7-year period is known as the Tribulation.”
There are several problems with this interpretation. First, it is clear that Old Testament Prophecy was indeed fulfilled after Christ’s death on the cross (For just one of many examples, see Joel 2:28-32 cf. Acts 2:16-21). How could this be if the prophetic time clock had stopped at Christ’s death?
Second, Christ Himself applied Daniel’s “Abomination of Desolation” (Daniel 9:27) to the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 (Compare Matthew 24:15-21 with Luke 21:20-24).
Third, the Old Testament prophets not only saw the church age, they looked forward to it. (See Acts 2:16-21; Acts 3:24-26; Acts 15:14-18; Galatians 3:8 for a few examples).
Besides, those who hold the invisible church age theory are the same ones who view 1948 as a fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies such as Amos 9:14-15 and Isaiah 66:7-8. Was 1948 not part of the church age? How did Amos and Isaiah see it while Daniel missed it?
“Premillennialists do not deny that unsaved Jews are not spiritual children of Abraham. Rather, we contend that even now there is a remnant of believing Jews who are part of the church. And, in the future, after the church age is complete, there will be a time in which every Jew on earth (at that time) will be saved (Rom. 11:26).”
Postmillennialists believe this as well, we just don’t see a need to Christ to come to earth in order to fulfill this. When He does return, History will end (2 Peter 3:10)
Thanks for your answers. As a former Dispensationalist, I’m familiar with most of these. As I said, they leave a lot to be desired.
PL
Josh wrote: “Regarding “whole world,” the word is oikoumene, connoting more of a local/regional scope (ie. Roman empire), as opposed to the more universal kosmos.”
I’m not so sure on that. While there is another word for the terrestrial ball we stand on, this word here usually (if not always) refers to the known world. It is the word Jesus uses when he says “the Gospel will be preached to the ends of the earth as a testimony for all nations.” There, it is pretty clearly the entire globe, and not a regional entity. It is also used when Satan led Jesus up to show him all of the kingdoms of the earth. More interestingly, it is the Greek word used to translate Psalm 19 (“their voice has gone to the ends of the earth”), speaking of the testimony of nature. It is used in Acts 17 when it says, “he has fixed a day when he will judge the world in righteousness.”
The only time it seems localized is when Herod wants to take a census of the “world.” I’m not sure if that is enough to make me think that in Revelation it means just Philadelphia, or Western Rome, or Asia, or whatever.
Jesse
Puritan Lad,
You asked: Where does the Bible say that Christ will reign “On Earth” for 1,000 years?
Matthew 25:31-34 – which is literally after the tribulation chronicled in the Olivet Discourse.
When does the Lord “come in His glory and all the angels with Him”? Revelation 19 makes that quite obvious. “Then He will sit on His glorious throne” This is obvious to me that it is earthly. “Come…inherit the kingdom prepared for you” – that appears to be a futuristic kingdom that the “sheep” are not yet experiencing.
Do you believe that All OT prophecy was fulfilled after Christ’s death on the cross? Also you believe that those who hold to an invisible church age theory believe 1948 is fulfillment of prophecy. Some do, but if you heard John’s message he specifically denounced that idea.
Josh,
You wrote this morning: “Anyway, God did restore the kingdom to the new Israel, composed of Jews and Gentiles.”
Are you saying that the prophecies of Israel’s restoration by the OT prophets have in view the ingathering of Gentiles and Jews into the church? (i.e. Deut. 30:1-6, Isaiah 49:5-6, Jeremiah 30:3, Ezek 36:18-38; and Ezek 37:15-28). I am assuming you do. Per my post yesterday, what do you do with the specifics of land promises in these restoration texts?
Each time the text qualifies the future land to be possessed at the restoration as being “the land which your fathers possessed” (Deut 30:5) or “the land that I gave to their forefathers” (Jer 30:3) or “the land that I gave to your forefathers” (Ezek 36:28) or “the land . . . in which your forefathers lived” (Ezek 37:25). These texts do not appear to be compatible with the view that the land is the eternal state, given these qualifications. How do amillennialists and postmillenialists respond to these specific statements in the text?
Additionally, the prophets state that the restoration of Israel is an instrument for God to bring the Gentiles (nations) to the knowledge of the Lord (Ezek 37:28). According to your view, if in these texts “Israel” is to be interpretted as Jews and Gentiles being ingathered into the church, then how is the word “Gentiles” or “nations” to be interpretted? It seems like your view would create a rather redundant reading of such texts. Am I missing something here or am I misunderstanding your statement?
Revelation 19 makes that quite obvious. “Then He will sit on His glorious throne” This is obvious to me that it is earthly.
It is not obvious, it is an imposition upon the text to fit into the premill system. Neither in Revelation 19 nor any other place in the New Testament will you find anything about Jesus reining from an earthly throne in a rebuilt Jerusalem. It simply isn’t there.
What you will find is Mt. 28, which declares Christ already has all cosmic authoriy, Ps. 110 and Ps. 2 quoted often, which say that Christ is presently reigning from a heavenly throne and other similar verses (eg. 1 Cor. 15).
Rob:
You have a brilliant mind and I comend your vigourous defense of what you understand to be truth. I will never come close to your intellectual skill and grasp.
I believe you most clearly benefited from this skill when dealing with the trial you experience at the First Baptist Church of Newhall.
In this case however, I agree with Nate. It appears that you simply want to argue. I hope I am wrong.
Puritan Lad,
Thank you for your comments. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I still get the impression that you are more interested in an argument than in rightly understanding the premillennial position. I’m really not interested in arguing — though I am happy to explain the premillennial position in more depth (on any of those passages you listed) if you would like.
The bottom line (at least for me) is this: As a premillennialist, I believe God meant what He said when He promised a future earthly kingdom to ethnic Israel (see Massimo’s comment above).
Unless you can show me that the promises of God to Israel in the Old Testament (given for their hope and encouragement) were never to be understood as literal promises and that OT saints were wrong to take them at face-value, then we don’t really have anything to talk about. This is the major problem (in my opinion) with amillennial/postmillennial views — because now (in essence) you have God promising things that aren’t true.
What He promised was an earthly kingdom to His elect nation (the Jews). But (according to replacement theology) what He delivered was a spiritual, non-earthly, non-national kingdom predominantly populated by Gentiles.
That, at least for me, is very difficult to reconcile.
You are welcome to keep trying to poke little holes in my understanding of the eschatological timeline. I will do my best to respond as I am able (as I believe there are good responses to each of the objections you raise). But I also want to keep the main thing the main thing: Did God mean what He said in the Old Testament when He promised an earthly kingdom to the Jewish nation?
I believe He did. That’s why I’m a premillennialist.
Thanks,
NB
Massimo-I do not have access to a Bible or anything right now, so I’ll do my best to answer you briefly.
First, all promises are mediated through Christ alone, not apprehended by Jewish ethnicity. And the true people of God are one in both testaments; those who are faithful to Him.
These texts do not appear to be compatible with the view that the land is the eternal state, given these qualifications.
Correct. That’s why the land promise, in the NT, has been expanded to the entire earth. Abraham’s seed was to bless all the families of the earth; he was looking beyond the small plot of Israel, according to Hebrews. Salvation is for the world now, not just ethnic Israel.
According to your view, if in these texts “Israel” is to be interpretted as Jews and Gentiles being ingathered into the church, then how is the word “Gentiles” or “nations” to be interpretted?
Those outside the ekklesia, just as they were understood in the OT. The people of God have been redefined by and through Christ, but are still Jewish (spiritually).
This is the major problem (in my opinion) with amillennial/postmillennial views — because now (in essence) you have God promising things that aren’t true.
But what is not taken into account is that the promises were not unconditional. Witness Deut. 28-30. Israel broke the covenant, God did not.
But (according to replacement theology) what He delivered was a spiritual, non-earthly, non-national kingdom predominantly populated by Gentiles.
It is spiritual in the sense that it does not originate on earth. But it is still in the world and we are instructed by Christ to pray for it to come on earth.
Former SCV,
Thank you for the kind words, however undeserving I might be of them. I’m not sure where Nate said I want to argue; that was directed toward Puritan Lad from what I can tell.
I sincerely wasn’t trying to argue; rather, I was trying to engage in thoughtful discussion of what was posted on today’s blog.
Blessings,
Robb
Why were the First Century Churches of Asia concerned with 21st Century events?
That question doesn’t even make sense. Christ’s return has been imminent all along, though certainly it grows more so. He could have come at any time. They weren’t concerned with 21st century events. In fact we don’t even know that the Lord’s return will be in the 21st century (though it certainly would be a very strong possibility heheh). What they were concerned about were the questions they asked – the questions He answered (if we’re talking about Matt 23-25).
What is not taken into account is that the promises were not unconditional. Witness Deut. 28-30. Israel broke the covenant, God did not.
Josh,
Excellent point (to bring up the conditional or unconditional nature of the covenants). And now I think we are getting somewhere.
If it can be shown that the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants are unconditional, then we necessarily end up premillennialists.
Would you agree?
- NB
Robb:
You are right. Please forgive me. I thought Nate’s comments were directed at you. I confused you with Puritan Ladd. I wish you all the best in your ministry in Kansas.
My previous comments regarding your intellectual skill and love for the truth remain unchanged.
Nate – any thoughts to my question posed in the first two Comments? I’m curious how that is all reconciled (time/fullness of the Gentiles is completed when God’s favor returns to Israel yet Gentiles saved during Great Trib 70th week).
Is it as I questionably posited in the second comment – that fullness of Gentiles = Church age and Gentiles saved in the third period of time (post-Church / renewed Israel) would simply be like
Gentiles saved by faith during the OT times, that is they become a part of Israel?)
Thus looking like this?
[Period] – [Age/Dispensation] – [Others brought in]
Period 1 – OT Israel Church Renewed Israel
Uhm weird – part of my post didn’t post?!
Here’s how the end should look:
[Period] – [Age/Dispensation] – [Others brought in]
Period 1 – OT Israel Church Renewed Israel
Uhm weird I guess it doesn’t like the way I wrote it. Trying a different way, sorry about this:
[Period] – [Age/Dispensation] – [Others brought in]
Period 1 – OT Israel – Gentile converts into Israel
Period 2 – Church – Jews with saving faith in Jesus (into Church?)
Period 3 – Renewed Israel – Gentile converts into Israel
“If it can be shown that the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants are unconditional, then we necessarily end up premillennialists. Would you agree?”
No, that does not follow. These promises are fulfilled in a higher and better way than a plot of ground, as Hebrews makes clear. See, e.g., Heb 6:9; 7:19; 7:22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:16.
BTW, I don’t find the New Covenant unconditional, but that’s another can of theology!
Josh:
Thanks for responding. Here are a few responses and questions, though I will not be able to respond anymore today. You said:
First, all promises are mediated through Christ alone, not apprehended by Jewish ethnicity.
I agree that no Jewish person or any person will ever be saved apart from Messiah alone. I also agree that God’s people are all united, Jew or Gentile, because of one way of salvation, the same Messiah. But, I believe the Scripture teaches that one day, along with the restoration of physical blessings detailed in the OT prophets, the nation Israel, rebellious for most of her history, will be shown mercy and forgiveness on the basis of the blood of Jesus (Jer 31:34, Ezek 36:25-26) and His sovereign election of them. And this will bring God great glory!
Correct. That’s why the land promise, in the NT, has been expanded to the entire earth.
I gather then that is a distinction between amill and postmill then? Don’t amill’s view the land promises as the eternal state? You believe these promises I mentioned are being fulfilled now, right? Or at some future time on the earth? What NT texts speak of these land promises to Israel that the prophets speak of? I want to look more closely into them.
I believe, as a premillennialist that Messiah’s reign will be across the entire globe (Zech 9:10), and that nations will come to know Him, but pivotal in this period is the restoration of national Israel to her land because God has tied the vindication of his holiness to it (Ezek 36:21-23), and as stated, will be a vehicle for Him to put His glory on display so the nations will come to know Him.
Those outside the ekklesia, just as they were understood in the OT. The people of God have been redefined by and through Christ, but are still Jewish (spiritually).
I thought those outside the ekklesia that were coming to know the Lord was what you are referring to as the restoration of Israel, not the Gentiles coming to know the Lord? I don’t think the view that the restoration of Israel is being fulfilled in the church is compatible with the text (Ezek 37:28). Additionally, Gentiles can be the people of God without ever being called Israel. For example, Isaiah 19:25 says, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”
Josh,
I was responding to these statements you made, my formatting didn’t make it through.
“First, all promises are mediated through Christ alone, not apprehended by Jewish ethnicity.”
Regarding my previous comments about the land promise and your response: “Correct. That’s why the land promise, in the NT, has been expanded to the entire earth.”
“Those outside the ekklesia, just as they were understood in the OT. The people of God have been redefined by and through Christ, but are still Jewish (spiritually).”
JSB,
Thanks for your comment. The argument in Hebrews primarily regards the Mosaic Covenant, which all agree was conditional.
In any case, I believe your answer still leaves a major theological difficulty unresolved… namely, that what God said would happen (in the OT) is not actually what will happen in the future. We can call this “better” or “higher” but, at the end of the day, it’s just not what was actually promised.
If amillennialism is correct, then (it seems to me) that either (1) God’s OT promises to Israel cannot be taken at face-value, or (2) God’s OT promises to Israel were conditional, and therefore forfeited, by Israel.
Because I believe they can be taken at face value; and because I believe they were unconditional (regarding the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants), I’m a premillennialist.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
NB
Massimo – thanks for another excellent post!
Nate – please feel free to delete my previous posts that are cluttering up an otherwise nicely progressing thread. =(
If you happen to get around to answering my question, thanks in advance!
Jay,
No worries. Your question is a good one, and I think your proposed solution is reasonable. At this point, I don’t want to get too sidetracked from (what I believe is) the main issue. But I will continue to give your question some thought.
Thanks,
NB
I think the burden of proof is on those who deny that there will be a future earthly kingdom in which Israel has a special role. The OT explicitly states this. Nearly everyone admits this. Plus the NT reaffirms the OT expectation with texts such as Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30; Acts 1:6 and Romans 11:25ff. (Remember that Rom. 11:27 quotes New Covenant passages from the OT in regard to Israel’s salvation.) In light of the OT teaching and NT reaffirmation of the OT expectation, what good reason is there for not believing in a future millennium in which Israel has a specific role? Claiming that Jews and Genitles are united in one body or that the church is related to the new covenant does not do this. Passages which teach unity and gentile participation in the new covenant do not overthrow the idea of a restoration of Israel. My question is this: “What NT evidence is there that the OT expectation for Israel will not happen?”
Great discussion on this topic. Necessary I believe.
Can you preach the book of Revelation from chapter one to twenty two, verse by verse, and read it as it is. As events of the past, things that were present at that time, and things that are to happen?
John MacArthur’s position has been the same since he has taught Revelation at leasst twice at Grace. His positon is well know. What he said at the Shepherd’s Conferent isn’t news.
The pastor at the current church I am attending, has been there twenty years, and has never preached on Revelation. And no one really knows his position at all. What say ye, about a preacher who can go twenty years an neveer preach the a book in the Bible?
Charles
Nate,
I have a pretty good understanding of premillennialism, as I used to hold that view before I “left it behind”. I just reject the basic arguments that it is founded on. I’ll address the throne as well as the Abrahamic Covenant either tomorrow or the next day. If I can show you that Christ has already ascended to the throne of David and that the Abrahamic Covenant has been fulfilled in the church, would that support postmillennialism?
By the way, I reject the term “Replacement Theology”. It is a phrase that premillennialist have heaped upon us to dampen our position. No one has been “replaced” in the Covenant of Grace. The church has not replaced Israel. The church IS Israel, and always has been, even in the Old Covenant.
I find no basis to spiritualize the time frame references. but plenty of biblical support to spiritualize “coming in the clouds” and the heavenly phenomena.
So, it’s not that I don’t try to understand your view. I do. I just reject it. Have you fairly tried to understand postmillennialism? As I said earlier, I’ll answer your objections when time permits.
Can you post a series of questions, in addition to the two above, that I may answer?
PL
Oh Nate,
Just so I don’t assume anything, can you tell me which promises for Israel that you are speaking about above?
Dan W.
Where does if say that he will reign “on earth”? I still cannot find this in your passages. As I will show tomorrow, Christ has already ascended to the throne of David. In the meantime, maybe you can also answer the question that no one else has addressed.
Why is if faulty to take Matthew 25:31-34 as an allegorical “coming”, yet it is OK to take Matthew 16:27-28 as allegorical? They look almost identical to me. The reality is that Christ did not “come” at the Transfiguration. He hadn’t even left yet.
Good Night all, May God bless this discussion as we attempt to search for the truth.
PL
“The argument in Hebrews primarily regards the Mosaic Covenant, which all agree was conditional.”
No, take a look at Heb. 11:8-11, and you’ll see the name Abraham. Then follows “a better country.” The context is quite clear.
You see, these verses have to be taken at “face value” too. And providing “better” fulfillment is not only “face value,” it’s more!
Isn’t that just like our gracious God?
The church IS Israel, and always has been, even in the Old Covenant.
You have to admit that statement sounds like you’re going about things backward and not reading the Bible in a logical (or chronological) manner.
To reorder your statement into a chronological order so it makes more sense, it would read that Israel (and by that one must mean the spiritual descendants of Abraham and not the physical ones) has always included the Church. This would be something I think we all agree with. Spiritual Israel of course includes the Church – Paul says as much quite clearly.
Now what if we combine that statement with premillenialism? I think we come up with this:
The covenant promises made between God and physical Israel (among whom was also spiritual Israel at the time the promises were given), were forfeited by physical Israel by their disobedience/unbelief. Yet God kept his covenant promises (the ones made unilaterally that did not depend on man’s ability to keep them) by keeping them with spiritual Israel – Spiritual Israel which is now found in the Church. And in the end times when God’s favor returns to physical Israel and spiritual Israel is again found among them, likewise His promises will be carried on to them and will be fulfilled as prophesied and sworn by God.
Puritan Lad,
I think Nate has responded well to your questions, so I’ll add only one verse that you requested.
“Where does the Bible say that Jesus will reign “on the earth” for 1,000 years?”
Psalm 67:4 (NKJV) “Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, and govern the nations on earth.”
This verse doesn’t give the length of time; that’s stated in Revelation.
A further comment on Heb. 11:16, which is Abrahamic in context:
They all expected spiritual blessings, and a heavenly inheritance; they sought God as their portion, and in such a way and on such principles that he is not ashamed to be called their God; and he shows his affection for them by preparing for them a city, to wit, HEAVEN, as themselves would seek NO CITY ON EARTH; which is certainly what the apostle has here in view. And from this it is evident that the patriarchs had a proper notion of the immortality of the soul, and expected a place of residence WIDELY DIFFERENT from Canaan. Though to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the promises were made in which Canaan was so particularly included, yet God did not give them any inheritance in that country, no, not so much as to set a foot on. Acts 7:5. (Clarke; my emphases)
I’m wondering how many people have downloaded the Shepherd’s Conference. It is a curious thing that John M. has a completely inaccurate definition for amill and then is misguided in attributing the doctrine of amill to all forms of so-called Christianity. Lots of straw man points throw into his reasons for being premill/dispen so far.
Can someone please help clarify Revelation 20:2 and Matthew 12:28-29.
Josh said:
What you will find is Mt. 28, which declares Christ already has all cosmic authority, Ps. 110 and Ps. 2 quoted often, which say that Christ is presently reigning from a heavenly throne and other similar verses (eg. 1 Cor. 15).
Riley:
Even though it is true that “all authority is given unto me”, it is nevertheless true that all aspects of that authority have not been manifested yet.
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But NOW WE SEE NOT YET ALL THINGS PUT UNDER HIM.
The end is predetermined and certain but is not all seen now and is being worked out in time.
Just as is stated in:
1Co 15:24 THEN cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; WHEN he shall have put down ALL rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, TILL he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that SHALL be destroyed is death.
You will notice that these things are presently being worked out. The “THEN” of v24 does not come until the “WHEN” of putting down all other authority is completed. Part of the process of putting down “ALL” rule, and all authority and power is revealed in the Book of Revelation. This process will be worked out in time “TILL” (v25) all enemies are put under his feet. Some of those enemies are the Beast or Antichrist and the False Prophet, the wicked who have the judgments poured out on them, and the armies of the nations gathered to Armageddon. These will all be brought under subjection by the return of Jesus where armies are destroyed and the Beast and the False Prophet are thrown into the Lake of Fire. (They have the distinction of being first in.) It is obvious that all this does not and cannot happen in an instant of time. It happens during the time of the 7 year tribulation period culminating with the return of Jesus..
But even that is not the complete end. It still remains for Satan to be bound for a 1000 years, just as other angels have been bound with chains (Jude 1:6), and for all those who have a part in the first resurrection to reign with him for a 1000 years. Just as we don’t see the full manifestation of Jesus authority yet we also don’t see the full manifestation of our reigning yet. This doesn’t mean at all that we aren’t reigning now or that Jesus doesn’t have all power now. It simply means that the full manifestation of these things has not been seen yet just as the Bible says.
Personally I believe the 1000 year millennium is the “Day of the Lord” comparing scripture with scripture. “one DAY is with the LORD as a thousand years…” 2Pe 3:8 Instead of spiritualizing away the 1000 years I merely point of that the word day can be and is used to refer to longer periods of time and not only to a 24 hour day. The “day” comes with the destruction of the Tribulation and the return of Jesus and ends finally after the 1000 years with the destruction of “the last enemy” – death.
I also believe that it is completely obvious that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD cannot possibly be the complete fulfillment of Matt. 24:21-31 It may be a double reference AD 70 and the book of Revelation but not AD 70 only.
“For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be…… 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.“
All these things simply did not happen. Where was Jesus coming as the lightning and everyone sees him coming in glory? Didn’t happen. According to Jesus the sun and moon cosmic signs occur not on the day of Pentecost but after the Tribulation and just before his return. This leads me to believe that Peter was saying in Acts 2 that the Last Days began with the outpouring of the Spirit and will continue until the showing of the signs in the heavens just before the great day of the Lord (1000 years). The angels also did not gather all the elect, we’re still here so they better not have gathered them all or we’re all left out.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Massimo: …the nation Israel, rebellious for most of her history, will be shown mercy and forgiveness on the basis of the blood of Jesus (Jer 31:34, Ezek 36:25-26) and His sovereign election of them.
The problem is that Jer. 31 is quoted as fulfilled in the NT. The New Covenant has already been initiated in Christ-there is no future special arrangement for ethnic Jews. They already have mercy and forgiveness through Messiah. There is no special future ethnic kingdom for them; the dividing wall has been broken down and Gentiles and Jews are one in Christ; the Israel of God.
I gather then that is a distinction between amill and postmill then?
From my study, yes. Postmills believe in a triumphant, historical kingdom that fills the earth, amills regard the kingdom in more (exclusively) spiritual, heavenly terms.
What NT texts speak of these land promises to Israel that the prophets speak of?
The promises about “the land” in the Old Testament are, in the New Testament, expanded to the entire earth. I used to be premill and hear postmills say this and didn’t believe it until I studied the Bible for myself. Paul himself does this. Compare:
Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
-Deuteronomy 5:16
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
-Ephesians 6:1-3
In Romans, Paul said the promise was for Abraham’s seed to inherit the earth (Rom. 4:13). Once again, all the promises of God are made to Christ (Gal. 3:16), and we inherit those promises by being in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20), not by being ethnic Jews (Rom. 9:8, Gal. 3:7,29).
Hebrews 11 tells us that Abraham was not focused on the land, but rather on a heavenly city:
By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God… (vv. 9-10)
And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. (vv. 39-40)
We go on to see in Hebrews 12 that there is a new Jerusalem, a heavenly Mt. Zion that will expand to fill the earth (Is. 2). The promise of redemption is worldwide and the church’s task (which will be accomplished because it is directed and guaranteed by Christ-Mt. 28) is to fill and subdue the earth and disciple the nations.
Nate B: I believe your answer still leaves a major theological difficulty unresolved… namely, that what God said would happen (in the OT) is not actually what will happen in the future.
But God gave warnings and prophecy some of which didn’t happen (for instance, the destruction of Ninevah). That is why there are promises and warnings–both of which are important and significant. Prophecy has primarily an ethical function. It’s not to show that God can predict the future or to help us calculate calendars. This doesn’t mean God isn’t trustworthy, on the contrary, He is always faithful to His word, but this includes blessings and curses.
If amillennialism is correct, then (it seems to me) that either (1) God’s OT promises to Israel cannot be taken at face-value, or (2) God’s OT promises to Israel were conditional, and therefore forfeited, by Israel.
The promises taken “at face value” have to be read in light of the warnings and curses which are mysteriously absent from this discussion.
Ralph T: The verse [Ps. 67:4] doesn’t say what you claim. The point is that God will govern the nations existing on the earth (a point made frequently in the Psalms), not that He will literally be upon the earth governing them. The Bible makes clear that His throne is in heaven.
I think we’re getting off-track in some of these discussions. This is primarily a hermeneutical and presuppositional debate, not an exegetical one. Exegesis is important, but our assumptions and guiding principles must be taken into account first. Should we start or focus our discussion upon ethnic Israel and make that the focus of Scripture or should it be the Triune God?
Riley: Even though it is true that “all authority is given unto me”, it is nevertheless true that all aspects of that authority have not been manifested yet… You will notice that these things are presently being worked out.
Of course they are. The kingdom is definitively established (1st. C), progressively expanding (between Christ’s advents), and finally consummated (Last Day). But the kingdom is here and Christ is reigning from His heavenly throne now.
All these things simply did not happen. Where was Jesus coming as the lightning and everyone sees him coming in glory? Didn’t happen.
Now you’re asserting yourself as judge over the plausibility of what the Scripture says. In Mt. 24:34, Jesus says that everything He said previously will come upon the generation to which He was speaking. That, not an arbitrary rationalistic or literalistic principle should be our starting point.
And from a contextual reading of OT prophecy, you will see that “coming” does not always refer to personal, earthly appearance, but often refers to coming in judgment using various means. Stars falling refers to nations being destroyed. Reading other OT prophecy will illuminate other imagery; I won’t explain it all here.
I find it interesting that “all” in Rom 11 is here interpreted as “all that are left”. If that’s “all” that the SF Pulpit blog and Dr. MacArthur are advocating, it’s almost completely uncontrovercial.
I apologize for not coming back sooner to take a look at this stuff. I’ll be back maybe this afternoon to say a couple of other things.
Maybe we need someone to give a concise but comprehensive lesson in Greek when it comes to the use of words and phrases like “the land” and “day” and so on. The Greek text would have been very clear to its original readers since they spoke Greek and understood the nuances and use-in-context, but for us today it requires actively learning about the use of the words in Greek and what they mean in a given context.
For several of the passages we are seeing interpretted very differently by a-mill and pre-mill here, the a-mill opinion could be quickly and thoroughly shutdown by a proper understanding of the words or phrases they are choosing to take in an alternative way for no other reason than it fitting their preconception, where as pre-mill actually considers the word’s/phrase’s use and context in the original Greek.
For example, to say “whole world” connotes “a local/regional scope” makes no logical sense. What it could (and does) connote is the Roman empire which is certainly more than local or even regional. That that happens to only account for a ‘region’ of the greater globe as we know it today is irrelevant to the original context and understanding.
In the Koine Greek of the Roman Empire and the New Testament, oikoumene literally means “world”, however it was generally understood to mean “the Roman world”. (That sentence from Wikipedia.) Again, not a region or locality but the known-world-spanning empire.
To say oikoumene would mean only “local” or “regional” doesn’t make sense if the words in Greek are understood to mean the entire empire of Rome. That’s ignoring the grammar completely for the sake of an alternative, preconceived conclusion.
So yes, understanding some Biblical passages in their proper context does often require additional language knowledge today simply because we are ignorant of much of the original grammar and its use. This is fine, as we have the education and ability to realize that and to do so. In God’s providence He made the gospel explicitly clear without an education, but when it comes to eschatology, knowing a bit of Greek and even Hebrew can be almost vital to a proper exegesis.
Otherwise you have everyone going willy-nilly with their interpretation based on what sounds good to them
and you end up with things like… amillenialism. (kidding)“I think Nate has responded well to your questions”
Nate’s response was nothing that I hadn’t heard before. That is why I asked the questions, so that I wouldn’t presume his arguments. However, his answers just don’t add up. I think that I have shown fairly conclusively that:
1.) Contrary to Nate’s defense of Daniel’s 70 week prophecy, the OT Prophets did see the church age.
2.) Making Matthew 16:27-28 out to be the transfiguration is both lacking and inconsistent. It lacks the “reward”, “angels”, etc. It is inconsistent in that is allegorized “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”, which is what premillennialists accuse amills/postmills of doing to Matthew 25:31-34. This all despite the fact that they are nearly identical in language.
3.) In addition, his theories on the time frame references are anything but literal.
“Psalm 67:4 (NKJV) “Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, and govern the nations on earth.”
This verse doesn’t give the length of time; that’s stated in Revelation.”
Ralph,
This is quite presumptuous. To begin with, Psalm 67:4 does not say that Christ will rule “on earth”, but that he will “govern the nations on earth”. In fact, Psalm 110:1 flies right in the face of premillennialism. Christ will remain at His Father’s right hand until all of His enemies (including Gog and Magog) are under His feet.
Jay,
You are assuming that God’s original Covenant was made with a race of people, rather than ones he chose. God’s Covenant was never concerned with Abraham’s DNA (See Esau). Rather it was with his “holy nation”, which was centered in Israel in OT times, but was neither for all Israel nor exclusively for Israel. Ruth, Rahab, and Urriah are examples of non-Hebrew Covenant People. The fact is that God never chose anyone based on race, Old or New Testament. (See Who are God’s Chosen People?)
Furthermore, those who practice Judaism are not God’s chosen, unless they abandon their demon-inspired cult for Christianity. Modern Judaism is of the Devil, and bares not resemblance whatsoever to any biblical faith. A rejection of Christ equals a rejection of Moses (John 5:46).
Regarding he throne of David, Christ has already obtained this.
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” (Acts 2:29-31)
He currently sits on this throne at the right hand of the Father, ruling the nations (Acts 2:33-36). And unlike the Premillennial view, His kingdom will not be for 1,000 years, but will never end.
“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:32-33)
(This passage is about His First Advent, not His Second).
As far as the Abrahamic Covenant goes, that is clearly being fulfilled in the Church, the ONLY seed of Abraham, consisting of both Jews and Gentile.
“Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (Galatians 3:7-9).
The entire third chapter of Galatians deals with the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, as well as many other Scriptures (someone already pointed out Hebrews. The Covenant does not deal with some 10 mile strip of Real Estate in the Middle East.
Besides, there is no Covenant without Christ (and there never has been), for even the Old Testament saints “drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).
Nate, I would like for you to elaborate on my first two objections above concerning the church age and Matthew 16:28. I don’t see a valid defense for your position here.
God Bless,
PL
Josh said:
In Mt. 24:34, Jesus says that everything He said previously will come upon the generation to which He was speaking. That, not an arbitrary rationalistic or literalistic principle should be our starting point.
The whole context of what Jesus said about the “generation” is as follows:
Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
The generation that “shall (at a future time) see all these things” is the generation in which “all these things (will) be fulfilled.”
No generation has ever yet seen Jesus coming in glory like the lightning from the East to the West. It doesn’t say “spiritually” see or discern. We are still waiting to see “all” these things.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
The generation that “shall (at a future time) see all these things” is the generation in which “all these things (will) be fulfilled.”
Now that is a revelation… However, that isn’t what Christ said. What He said was:
“So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:33-34)
At least Gleason Archer attempts to explain this verse in terms of a possible manuscript error. He knows very well what the plain meaning of this passage is.
But at least your explanation is better than those who try to make genea mean “the Jewish race”.
I’m still waiting on someone to explain the difference between Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 25:31-34. Why is one allegorical and the other literal?
I haven’t even brought up Matthew 10:23, Matthew 26:64, or the multitude of other passages.
In answer to your inquiry, God has “come in the clouds” many times in history. I can list them it you like.
Puritan Lad and Others,
I’m going to be responding to some of the elements of this discussion in the next comment thread (under Part 3). Please take all questions over there (just to keep the discussion in one place).
Thanks,
NB
Josh,
Thanks for your interaction. I understand your position better now, and you have given me a few things to think through, so thank you!
My time is limited today, so I’ll give you the last word, though I think if we jumped into the details of these texts you have provided, your comments could be answered from the text to demonstrate the integrity of the premillennial viewpoint.
Massimo
Quote: from
“I’m wondering how many people have downloaded the Shepherd’s Conference. It is a curious thing that John M. has a completely inaccurate definition for amill and then is misguided in attributing the doctrine of amill to all forms of so-called Christianity. Lots of straw man points throw into his reasons for being premill/dispen so far. ”
I have download the last three years! Read every sermon by John has in print, and listen to him for twenty five years. He is not bad at theology, he communicates rather well I would say. Does he have all the answers? No. But he has as a priority, to study the Word of God. He has surrounded himself with a lot of great elders and people who also know the Word. Like Nathan, and Phil Johbnson. The men at the Shephered Conf have a good understanding of the ministry of the church.
Charles