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

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

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

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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?