End Times Q&A (Part 3 of 3)
March 15th, 2007
Today’s post is a continuation from yesterday and Tuesday. This concludes our Q&A series on eschatology (with one final post on eschatology to come tomorrow). Next week we hope to respond to some of the questions dealing with other aspects of theology.
*****
8. I can see premillennialism in the Old Testament. But is there any New Testament evidence for premillennialism?
It is important to note that the New Testament writers do not abrogate the Old Testament promises to Israel — something which would be expected if the writers of the New Testament understood the Old Testament promises to no longer be valid.
Beyond this, there are New Testament passages that do point to Israel’s glorious future. Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 (more info); Acts 1:6-8 (more info); Acts 3:12-26 (more info); Romans 9-11 (more info); Rev. 20:1-6 (more info) would be among these. Other passages could also be listed. One helpful resource in this regard is The Coming Millennial Kingdom (edited by Campbell and Townsend), because it presents an exegetical (rather than systematic) defense of the premillennial position.
*****
9. My one “hang up” that continues to gnaw at me is the reinstitution of the sacrificial system in the millennium, as taught in Ezekiel. Isn’t that returning to the shadow now that the substance has come?
Dispensational premillennialists believe in millennial sacrifices because Ezekiel clearly says that they will take place. We believe that the burden of proof is on those who want to dismiss Ezekiel’s sacrifices when there is no exegetical reason to do so.
These sacrifices do not infringe in any way on the once-for-all, all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ. They are no more efficacious than the sacrifices of the Old Testament. No sacrifice before or after Christ saves. They only point to Him as the one true Lamb who takes away sin. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial that looks back to Calvary and in no way diminishes the cross. Israel rejected their Messiah, but when they have received Him and are in His kingdom, they will have a memorial of sacrifices that point to Him. They will have missed the memorial of the Lord’s Supper, but will then have their own memorial sacrifices for the duration of the millennial kingdom.
For more on millennial sacrifices, please see the articles by Thomas Ice and Kevin Bauder.
*****
10. What about Galatians 6:16? Doesn’t Paul refer to the New Testament church as “the Israel of God”?
As was noted in the comments section on Tuesday, dispensational premillennialists assert that “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to believing Jews within the church and not to the church as a whole. Premillennialists further assert that none of the references to Israel in the New Testament refer to the church, but rather refer only to the ethnic nation Israel.
Here is an extended portion from Michael Vlach’s helpful analysis that explains why the amillennial understanding of Galatians 6:16 is grammatically untenable:
Replacement theologians claim that Paul is calling the church the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16. In fact, as Hans K. LaRondelle has stated, “Paul’s benediction in Galatians 6:16 becomes, then, the chief witness in the New Testament in declaring that the universal church of Christ is the Israel of God, the seed of Abraham, the heir to Israel’s covenant promises.” Though many scholars uphold this view, there are serious problems with this interpretation.
The major problem with the replacement interpretation of Galatians 6:16 is grammatical and concerns the meaning of kai. The view that the kai, before the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16, should be taken in the explicative sense of “even” seems unlikely and goes against the most common use of the word in the New Testament. An examination of the New Testament, as well as standard Greek grammars, reveals that kai, in the majority of cases, is used in the continuative or copulative sense of “and.” The second most frequent meaning of kai is the adjunctive sense of “also.” A third, and much less frequent use of kai, is the explicative sense of “even.” The explicative sense of “even,” though, is very rare in the New Testament. As S. Lewis Johnson has noted, “it is doubtful that Paul ever uses kai in ‘so marked an explicative sense.’”
The rareness in which the explicative sense of kai is used in the New Testament is a serious problem for the replacement view of Galatians 6:16. As Marvin R. Vincent has stated, “The explicative kai is at best doubtful here and is rather forced.” Proper hermeneutical procedure indicates that when determining the meaning of a term, the primary use of a term should be favored unless there are strong contextual reasons to go with a secondary or rarer meaning. Replacement theologians, however, opt for the rarer meaning.
… The best approach is to interpret the kai of Galatians 6:16 in its normal copulative sense of “and.” Thus, in Galatians 6:16, Paul is singling out Christian Jews within the church who have rejected the legalistic teaching of the Judaizers and have stood firm to the correct view that salvation comes only through faith apart from works of the law. This text, then, cannot be used to support the view that the church is called “Israel.”
Additional articles on this and related topics can be found here, here, and here.
*****
11. Is it necessary to hold a dispensational pretrib/premill view of eschatology to preserve the uniqueness of Israel or can historic premill do the same thing?
For a run-down on the differences between the major eschatological views, please see this helpful chart, from a non-premillennial source.
*****
12. How would you define your brand of dispensationalism? It seems to have some elements of covenantal themes; and can you be more substantive than “leaky” dispensationalist?
The following comes from a Q&A session with John MacArthur here at Grace Church:
Now what is a proper dispensational viewpoint? I’ll put it to you very simply. The whole of my dispensationalism can be stated in one sentence. It is a distinction between the church and Israel period. That is it. That’s really all you need. And secondly, if you just wanted a little corollary, see more continuity between the old covenant and the new covenant, there’s more continuity there then the old dispensationalists were willing to admit. I see there’s much more of a flow between the Old and New Testaments. There’s grace in the Old, there’s law in the New. In the Old they were saved by grace, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, did he not? And that’s how he was redeemed. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Salvation was always by grace through faith even in the dispensation of law, the age of law. The bottom line is that I want to maintain the clear distinction between Israel and the church which is a hermeneutical issue. If the Bible says that God is going to give a kingdom to Israel, I believe He means Israel, not the church. So we have to maintain that hermeneutical distinction.
From an appendix in Faith Works:
Many people are understandably confused by the term dispensationalism. I’ve met seminary graduates and many in Christian leadership who haven’t the slightest idea how to define dispensationalism. … Perhaps we can [respond] simply and without a lot of theological jargon.
Dispensationalism is a system of biblical interpretation that sees a distinction between God’s program for Israel and His dealings with the church. It’s really as simple as that.
A dispensation is the plan of God by which He administers His rule within a given era in His eternal program. Dispensations are not periods of time, but different administrations in the eternal outworking of God’s purpose. It is especially crucial to note that the way of salvation—by grace through faith—is the same in every dispensation. God’s redemptive plan remains unchanged, but the way He administers it will vary from one dispensation to another. Dispensationalists note that Israel was the focus of God’s redemptive plan in one dispensation. The church, consisting of redeemed people including Jews and Gentiles, is the focus in another. All dispensationalists believe at least one dispensation is still future—during the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, known as the millennium, in which Israel will once again play a pivotal role.
Dispensationalism teaches that all God’s remaining covenant promises to Israel will be literally fulfilled—including the promises of earthly blessings and an earthly messianic kingdom. God promised Israel, for example, that they would possess the promised land forever (Gen. 13:14–17 ; Exod. 32:13). Scripture declares that Messiah will rule over the kingdoms of the earth from Jerusalem (Zech. 14:9–11). Old Testament prophecy says that all Israel will one day be restored to the promised land (Amos 9:14–15); the temple will be rebuilt (Ezek. 37:26–28); and the people of Israel will be redeemed (Jer. 23:6 ; Rom. 11:26–27). Dispensationalists believe all those promised blessings will come to pass as literally as did the promised curses.
We recognize that there are a lot of theological aberrations that exist under the broader heading of “dispensationalism” — and we would reject these fringe elements. Nonetheless, we embrace the term insofar as we have defined it above. For more on this, see Matt Waymeyer’s helpful article, “Am I a Dispensationalist?”
69 Responses to “End Times Q&A (Part 3 of 3)”
[...] End Times Q&A (Part 3 of 3) New! [...]
“They are no more efficacious than the sacrifices of the Old Testament. No sacrifice before or after Christ saves. They only point to Him as the one true Lamb who takes away sin.”
This is indeed the weakest link of Disp IMO. It is not true to say OT sacrifices were not “efficacious.” They resulted in actual forgivness (see, e.g., Lev. 4:20, 26). It is ironic that those who plead for a “literal” reading of Scripture ignore such passages. The point of Hebrews is that such sacrifices could not take away sin once for all, not that they were never “efficacious.”
Thus, when Ezekiel says the future sacrifices will be for “atonement” to make people “accepted,” it is not pointing to mere symbolism (again, it seems the Amill position is even more literal than Disp. here!) It must be pointing to Christ.
I urge my Disp. brothers and sisters to prayerfully consider this one point very carefully. The OT sacrifices of atonement did result in forgiveness, so how can such a system, re-instated, NOT denigrate the cross and dilute Christ’s once for all sacrifice?
Coming from a Premil background, I used to think differences on the end times were ultimately minor, not a big deal. But this one issue tells me it is a very big deal indeed.
I think the position on Galatians 6:16 taken above misses something that makes it impossible. See these two posts for a different perspective:
Gal 6:16, the Israel of God, and the Use of καί
Gal 6:16—Some Additional Thoughts
Phil
I am greatly disappointed and alarmed to see a link to the article by Kevin Bauder. It is absolutely unthinkable to say that there are or will be sins I could commit that I will need to atone for by sacrifice that are not covered in every way by Christ’s sacrifice. Wow. I really don’t know what to say.
As far as the Israel of God, anyone who wants to see the other view defended can check out Richard Longenecker’s commentary in Word Biblical Commentary on Galatians, section 2 of the word ‘kai’ in BDAG, and this sermon on Galatians 6:16.
Blessings,
Robb
8. I can see premillennialism in the Old Testament. But is there any New Testament evidence for premillennialism?
Premillennialism in the Old Testament? Where?
9. My one “hang up” that continues to gnaw at me is the reinstitution of the sacrificial system in the millennium, as taught in Ezekiel. Isn’t that returning to the shadow now that the substance has come?
Where does Ezekiel mention the millennium?
Also, I realize that Russia has had to cut back on their military budget since the Soviet Union collapsed, but “…all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed in full armor, a great host, all of them with buckler and shield, wielding swords.” (Ezekiel 38:4)??? They must really be on hard times after the millennium, since they will send their soldiers to invade Israel for their livestock (Ezekiel 38:13).
Ezekiel’s war and temple are past history. The war was fulfilled in the 2nd Century BC, when the Scythians were defeated by Judas Maccabeaus.
Besides, I cannot imagine sitting before the throne of the very Christ of the Universe (earthly or heavenly) and then having to have a sacrifice to remember Him.
As a graduate of the Master’s Seminary (1994) and one who has left his dispensational moorings, I am grateful for this kind of ongoing discussion. It was through my exegetically driven verse by verse ministry and study of Luke, Ephesians, and Joel that lead me to not only see but rejoice in the faithfulness of God in keeping all of His promises to Israel in Christ, the gospel, and the church. Because these discussions often refer back to ones hermeneutic I would invite anyone to take their favorite dispensationally driven commentary on Romans and highlight in yellow all of the content that was eisegetically placed upon the text. Then compare that with covenant scholarship. The result should be eye opening.
From one new man to another,
Christian
For those who may have access through Logos Software or a good library, I would recommend John Whitcomb’s article “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel” [Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (1985) 201-217)]. Whitcomb is highly readable and interacts with Allis, Hoekema and other Reformed writers.
Robb,
C. F. Keil explained, in his commentary, the issue of atonement in the Ezekiel passages much like a premillenialist yet in the end he did not follow his own exegesis because it conflicted with his system. He even chastised M. Baumgarten for following a plain reading of the text.
In the end you still have to deal with a text that assigns some sort of “atonement” (Ezek. 45:15, 17, 20)to these sacrifices. Even if you assign them to a past or present “spiritual” attribution you then have to reconcile the fact that the text says “atonement” with passages like Heb 10:4.
The animal sacrifice passages are not merely problematic for those who believe in their literal fulfillment (which I follow) but also for those who assign them to a “spiritual” category. We need to, like Keil, do proper exegesis of the text, and then unlike Keil, follow it where it leads us.
Puritan Lad,
You’re just wrong in your assertion that Ezekiel’s temple is past history. There is no evidence from any historical account, whether it is Biblical or extra-Biblical, that the 2nd temple built after the Jew’s return from Babylon even resembled the description of the temple given by Ezekiel in chapters 40-42.
I would also question your assertion that Ezekiel’s war was fulfilled when Judas Maccabeaus defeated the Scythians. The language in Ezekiel indicates that it is God Himself who fights against Gog and Magog and that it is not Israel who defeats them. Besides, is there any indication that Israel spent 7 months burying the dead (39:12) or that Israel used the spoils of war to make first for 7 years (39:9)? Additionally, were the Jews living in the land living securely (38:8,11) or living in unwalled villages with no wall, gates, or bars?
If you are going to make a statement about prophecy already being fulfilled, you need to back it up with the history that supports the fulfillment.
The idea of the reinstitution of animal sacrifices makes me a little uncomfortable. But I’m unaware of the war of Gog and Magog being fulfilled and the temple described by Ezekiel having been built. If those are future events (since all prophecy must be fulfilled) then it would follow that the animal sacrifices described occurring in that temple must be future also. Despite being uncomfortable with animal sacrifice, I have to just say what Paul says, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!”
Well, good morning everyone… its 8:30 here on the west coast, and I’m just now checking all the comments. (Our internet at home is down this week, so I haven’t been able to interact since around 5:00 last night.)
Give me a second to collect my thoughts and we’ll keep the discussion going…
Great discussion! I am learning more through these on-going posts & comments. As a premillennialist, I have enjoyed the direct interaction with those of a differing eschatalogy. Nate, by the way, welcome back – I’ve always appreciated your gracious replies and the concise and to-the-point biblical answers. (pass on a huge ‘thank you’ to the whole Shepherds’ Conference staff, volunteers, speakers, etc – what a blessing!)
In Christ
chris
To Puritan Lad (regarding yesterday’s thread):
Thanks for your thoughts yesterday. Allow me to respond to your statements:
1.) Contrary to Nate’s defense of Daniel’s 70 week prophecy, the OT Prophets did see the church age.
I find it hard to accept this (that the OT prophets did see the church age) when Paul says they didn’t in Ephesians 3. Speaking of the church as a “mystery” (meaning something now revealed which was not previously revealed) Paul says:
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.
None other than Augustine (whom some would call “the father of amillennialism”) understood the transfiguration as the immediate fulfillment of Matthew 16:27–28. In his Sermon 28 (on Matthew 17:1ff), Augustine said:
Augustine understood that the context of Matthew (in putting the transfiguration account immediately after Christ’s prophecy) indicated that Matthew understood the transfiguration to be the fulfillment of Christ’s words.
3.) In addition, his theories on the time frame references are anything but literal.
Your concern about the time references is exactly what Peter addressed in his second epistle (3:3–4). There are those who will scoff at the idea that an imminent return could encompass many years (even centuries). Peter’s response is that it is God’s timetable (v. 8 ) and God’s patience (v. 9) that explain any such delay.
Thanks again for your comments. Hope this helps,
NB
Hampton,
There are several problems with placing literal measurements on Ezekiel’s temple.
First, the temple being described will not fit on the current temple mount. In addition, the city described in Ezekiel 45-48 will not fit on the Sinai Peninsula. (Of course, neither will the 1500 cubic mile city in Rev.)
Obviously this is a symbolic temple. (In fact, Revelation borrows the system of symbolic language).
Secondly, access to Ezekiel’s temple requires circumcision “in heart and flesh” Ezekiel 44:6-9. Animal sacrifices are the least of your problems.
Thirdly, be careful with this…
“Israel used the spoils of war to make first for 7 years (39:9)?”
This isn’t just using the “spoils of war”. This is Israel using Gog’s wooden war materials, burning them for fuel for 7 years. (I guess they will no longer need oil or nuclear power). These must be the wooden swords, shields, and spears of those soldiers that invaded Israel on horseback (Ezekiel 38:4). Am I the only one here who finds such futurist interpretation ridiculous?
“Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go out and make fires of the weapons and burn them, shields and bucklers, bow and arrows, clubs and spears; and they will make fires of them for seven years, so that they will not need to take wood out of the field or cut down any out of the forests, for they will make their fires of the weapons. They will seize the spoil of those who despoiled them, and plunder those who plundered them, declares the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 39:9-10)
Wooden weapons against Israel’s Air Force? No wonder they lose.
BTW, Rosh does not mean Russia. I know that no one has claimed this yet, but I figure I’d deal with the whole Ezekiel prophecy.
If we are going literal, let’s do it all the way.
Josh (from yesterday):
[I'm still working through yesterday's comments, but I do plan to respond to those above in today's post]
Josh wrote: 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.
We would totally agree. Prophecy is primarily ethical, absolutely. But it is also accurate. In fact, the very definition of a false prophet was one who said something would come to pass when it actually did not (Deut. 18:22).
The promises taken “at face value” have to be read in light of the warnings and curses which are mysteriously absent from this discussion.
Exactly… and this is the very argument of premillennialists. If the curses and judgments that God promised to ethnic Israel have come upon ethnic Israel in a literal fashion (as they have), then why would we assume that the blessings God promised to ethnic Israel will actually be applied to someone other than ethnic Israel?
Thanks again for your comments.
- NB
Nate,
Thanks for this discussion. I want to assure you that I do understand your view again. In the end, my goal is to show you (and John MacArthur) that postmillennialism (and Amillennialism) are valid, and that all true Calvinists need not be Premillennial. (In fact, most throughout history were not). I also feel a need to show that a strictly “literal” interpretation can lead to some ridiculous conclusions, and how inconsistent premillennialists are with these interpretations.
1.) The mystery in Ephesians 3 was “…that the Gentiles are fellow heirs” (Eph. 3:6), ie. they were Abraham’s descendents also (a mystery that premillennialists still have fully grasped). Ephesians 3 says nothing about the church age being invisible to the OT Prophets. This myth is a Darby-Scofield invention. The Old Testament prophets did see the church age. How else did the prophecy the future conversion of the Gentiles? For just a few examples.
“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.” (Galatians 3:8)
“But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’” (Acts 2:16-21)
“And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”” (Acts 3:24-26)
“Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’” (Acts 15:14-18)
2.) I’m glad that you mention Augustine. While I disagree with his interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28, it must be noted the almost all of the church fathers view the Olivet Discourse as being fulfilled. But that doesn’t answer the question. Did Augustine not violate the literal interpretation that premillenialists accuse us of? What is the difference between Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 25:31-34? What reasons will you give as to why they are different events? What objections will you have for them being fulfilled in AD 70?
3.) I think Josh did a fine job of refuting this earlier.
Thanks and God Bless,
PL
To JSB (from yesterday):
Thanks for your response. Allow me to just make a few comments…
JSB: 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.
JSB, we would agree that Hebrews 11:8–11 involves Abraham. But you had mentioned several other passages in your comment, which (in the flow of Hebrews) pertain to the Mosaic Covenant (as does the majority of the book). That was why we noted the Mosaic Covenant in responding to you.
It is difficult (at least for me) to see how Hebrews 11:8–11 negates the literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. The author’s point is that Abraham was given a promise, but did not live long enough to see that promised fulfilled. Nonetheless, because of his faith, he obeyed — knowing that the ultimate reward for his faith was in heaven.
There would be few (actually, none to my knowledge) who would argue that the Abrahamic Covenant did not have a literal fulfillment (in the ethnic nation of Israel). The question is whether that covenant continues to apply to ethnic Israel today. I don’t see Hebrews 11 (which addresses Abraham’s faith in the past) as answering that question one way or the other.
You see, these verses have to be taken at “face value” too. And providing “better” fulfillment is not only “face value,” it’s more!
The author of Hebrews is saying that heaven (or the New Heavens and Earth) will be better than the historic land of Palestine. And we would wholeheartedly agree with that. But does the “better” nature of heaven (as opposed to the earthly promised land) negate the millennial promises of the Old Testament? I just don’t see it in the text.
Isn’t that just like our gracious God?
To promise one thing but ultimately deliver something else? Again, I just don’t see that in the text. And, again, that presents huge theological difficulties for me.(And I mean this with all sincerity – no sarcasm or condescension implied.)
Thanks for thinking these passages through with me. I would be happy to do a full exposition of Hebrews 11:8ff if you would like to discuss that text further.
In Christ,
NB
Nate: To promise one thing but ultimately deliver something else? Again, I just don’t see that in the text. And, again, that presents huge theological difficulties for me.(And I mean this with all sincerity – no sarcasm or condescension implied.)
Thanks for thinking these passages through with me. I would be happy to do a full exposition of Hebrews 11:8ff if you would like to discuss that text further.
There is a lot to discuss here, but this was the mystery of Ephesians 3. It’s also what the Apostles themselves failed to understand (Acts 1:6).
This has been so helpful!!
Thanks
Caleb
Puritan Lad,
Thanks for all your comments. It is a joy to go to the Word of God and examine what we believe. So thank you for helping us think all of this through.
I plan to respond to all of your comments (from today’s post) later this afternoon. But I wanted to briefly respond to your last point, since you mentioned it.
[This] is what the Apostles themselves failed to understand (Acts 1:6).
This is difficult for me to accept — that the Apostles misunderstood the nature of the kingdom in Acts 1:6, after Christ Himself had been “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” for forty days (v. 3).
Their ignorance in verses 6-7 did not pertain to the nature of the kingdom, but only to its timing. This was Dr. MacArthur’s point in his references to that text last Wednesday morning.
Anyway, just a quick thought.
- NB
Nate:
“To promise one thing but ultimately deliver something else?”
Do you see the built in presupposition here? You say “else” when both Hebrews and I used the term “better.” That’s a huge presupposition that effectively cuts off a proper understanding of what the text is telling us.
Elijah’s return was not fulfilled “literally” (via a second coming) but IN JOHN THE BAPTIST, as Jesus said. Did God deliver “something else”?
“But does the “better” nature of heaven (as opposed to the earthly promised land) negate the millennial promises of the Old Testament?”
Again, your presupposition. Let me state it again–there is NO NEGATION at all, but FULFILLMENT. It’s a greater fulfillment. God is not taking away anything.
Couple of select thoughts:
Hampton: The language in Ezekiel indicates that it is God Himself who fights against Gog and Magog and that it is not Israel who defeats them.
But surely this is similar language that occurs throughout the OT. God is said to be a warrior, who will fight for Israel. This is consistent with God’s sovereignty–the victory is His.
Has anyone noticed that nobody is instructed to build the temple in Ezekiel?
[Israel] will have missed the memorial of the Lord’s Supper, but will then have their own memorial sacrifices for the duration of the millennial kingdom.
This is a false analogy because the Lord’s Supper is not a memorial sacrifice. The whole idea is foreign to biblical thought. Further, such an institution (like the dispensational system) eternally divides the people of God, which Ephesians says are a unity in Christ.
Thanks Nate. I believe that this has been fruitful.
I’ve got to go watch my ODU Monarchs in the NCAA’s now.
God Bless,
PL
Nate,
You asked about the cursing being literally fulfilled with ethnic Israel, so why not the blessings. My answer to that is the meaning of the covenants. The curses they received were for breaking the Law, the Old Covenant, which was conditional upon obedience (not the Abrahamic or Davidic, which are unconditional and have been fulfilled in Christ). They did not receive the blessings because they failed to keep the conditional covenant, which is the Law/Old Covenant. That covenant is now obsolete because Christ has ratified the new covenant with His blood. To expect Israel to receive blessings through a covenant they did not and could not and will never keep and which is moreover obsolete is inappropriate. The blessings we experience now and look forward to in the eternal state are those of the Abrahamic Covenant, brought to us in Christ through the New Covenant, ratified by His blood. The promise to Abraham was to Abraham and to Christ (Gal 3:16). The descendants of Abraham are those who belong to Christ (Gal 3:29), not the descendants according to the flesh (Rom 9:6-13; Gal 4:21-31). This body of descendants is the church, the new covenant community, in which Jew and Gentile are fellow heirs (Eph 3:6). Christ destroyed the dividing wall separating Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:12ff); why would we want to rebuild it?
I would also like to pose a question to the readers: How do we define the word “system?” And is it wrong to reject what appears to be a “plain” meaning of a text because of our system? The reason I ask is because of Paul’s comment about Keil rejecting the “plain” meaning of Ezekiel based on his “system.”
Paul, I don’t see how the sacrifices of Ezekiel are a problem for those who see them symbolically (a preferable and less prejudicial term than ’spiritually’). If you could elaborate on that it would be helpful to me.
Blessings,
Robb
Okay, now for today’s comments:
Let’s start at the beginning with JSB’s first comment.
Based on passages like Hebrews 9:9, premillennialists would see the OT sacrificial system as primarily symbolic — a constant picture pointing to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. Within the Mosaic theocracy, these sacrifices provided an imperfect and temporal covering — but they never provided permanent atonement or salvation (which is why they had to be continually offered). The OT sacrifices, ceremonies, and rituals were never intended to cleanse from sin, but only to symbolize such cleansing. Like all believers, OT saints were not saved on the basis of animal sacrifices, but on the basis of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross.
Millennial sacrifices, similar to the OT sacrifices, will not provide salvation for those who offer them. They will, instead, serve as a memorial of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. In the same way that OT sacrifices symbolized His future death, millennial sacrifices will point back to the center of redemptive history: the cross.
It is interesting to see how quickly amillennialists dismiss Ezekiel’s sacrifices, without actually dealing with them exegetically. At the end of the day, whether it fits into our system or not, Ezekiel said that these sacrifices would take place. Amillennialists say, “No they won’t.” My question would be: Why not? Is there a text that says they won’t or that they can’t? The book of Hebrews does not negate the possibility of non-efficacious memorial sacrifices during a future millennial kingdom. Nor do such sacrifices in any way diminish the superiority of the once-for-all, permanently-atoning sacrifice of Christ.
Ezekiel clearly says such sacrifices will happen. No one else (in Scripture) explicitly says they won’t. So why dismiss them without exegetical warrant to do so?
Phil Gons,
Thanks for providing those links to your articles regarding Galatians 6:16. In the first article you conclude:
****
I believe that it’s possible from a grammatical standpoint that Paul is addressing two groups: the first being all those who follow his rule and the second being a subset of the first group, namely, the ethnic Jews within that group who follow his rule. However, when the argument of the letter and the broader theology of Paul and the NT are brought into consideration, this view becomes improbable at best.
****
To me that sounds as though you are reading theological presuppositions (from other passages — “the broader theology of Paul and the NT”) into your understanding of Galatians 6:16. If the grammar of that verse is allowed to stand on its own, it is more reasonable to see two groups rather than one repeated.
Premillennialists would disagree that “the broader theology of Paul and the NT” contradicts the most natural reading of Galatians 6:16.
Thanks for your response and interaction.
NB
Robb,
You said, “Paul, I don’t see how the sacrifices of Ezekiel are a problem for those who see them symbolically (a preferable and less prejudicial term than ’spiritually’). If you could elaborate on that it would be helpful to me.”
Thanks for the kind reply. I’m referring to the fact that regardless of what position you take on the sacrifices in Ezekiel you still have to deal with the fact that they are called “atoning” sacrifices. So I’m asking how would you, using a symbolic interpretation, deal with the issue of atonement (Ezek. 45:15, 17, 20) in this passage? What is atoned for if anything.
One quick thought to add to my earlier note about Acts 1:6. It is especially difficult (in my opinion) to think that the disciples misunderstood Jesus’ forty day instruction in light of Luke 24:45 — since Jesus opened their eyes to understand the Old Testament.
Nate,
On what exegetical basis do you say they are “memorial” sacrifices? There are two Hebrew words for “memorial” (azkarah and zikkaron). Neither of them appears in Ezekiel. A search for the English word ‘memorial’ in the NASB OT shows no hits in Ezekiel either. The only other option would be theologically tying together a concept of the sacrifices being memorial from within Ezekiel, which I don’t see present in the text. Without an explicit statement that they are memorial or the concept being present, on what literal, exegetical basis do you say they are memorial? Also, is that how the reader of Ezekiel would have understood them with his understanding of OT sacrifices?
It is important to realize that Amils don’t say the sacrifices won’t take place. They say the sacrifices are symbolic of something that will take place that would be have been best represented to the reader of Ezekiel as sacrifices. It’s important that we frame the question properly. It’s not whether or not what Ezekiel describes in his prophecy will actually take place. It’s whether his description is literal, memorial, or symbolic. No Bible-believer says that God is not going to do what He said He would do. The question is, “What did God say He would do and what did He mean by that?”
I think much of this goes back to understanding what we mean by a “theological system” and how that “system” should or should not impact our interpretation of the text.
Nate, thanks for attempting to deal with OT sacrifices…you did not address my point that OT sacrifices did result in actual forgiveness, as Leviticus makes clear. How would deal with the following? Do you take them at “face value”? What does “forgiven” mean in these contexts?
Lev. 4:20 and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.
Lev. 4:26 He shall burn all the fat on the altar as he burned the fat of the fellowship offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for the man’s sin, and he will be forgiven.
Lev. 4:31 He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.
Lev. 4:35 He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.
Lev. 5:10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.
Lev. 5:13 In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”
Paul,
Admittedly my study of Ezekiel is wanting, so I don’t make any claim to understanding it in detail. Would you say the prince is Christ? If He is the prince, then in verse 22 there is a problem: ““On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering.” Why is the prince atoning for his own sins/providing for himself a bull for an offering? I’m not really sure how to take that.
I wish I had more time to dig into it right now, but as I’m sure you understand, pastoral responsibilities don’t always allow that luxury.
Symbolically, I think it represents Christ’s once-for-all offering of Himself for our sins, His continual cleansing of us by His blood, and His high-priestly intercession on our behalf. The Passover appears to be in view here at points, and Christ is our Passover according to 1 Corinthians 5. I wish I had more answers for you, but like I said, I haven’t had time to dig into it like I wish I could!
Any insight you have into the identification of the prince would be helpful. To me, it appears there are a lot of problems here no matter what view you take.
Robb,
I think only the PRINCE knows who the “prince” is in Ezek. 45:22. I think we can safely rule-out that the “prince” is Christ since this same “prince” worships the Lord in 46:2 and as you rightly pointed out recognizes atonement for himself.
Puritan Lad,
I did some quick measurements from Ezekiel 45-48. The largest area that I see in there is 25,000 cubits. Using the large cubit that is described earlier of 21 inches it comes out to only about 8.75 miles (~5000 feet/mile). Roughly estimating using the measurements given as well as the description of the lands boundaries, the area easily fits into the Promised Land. The city described in Ezekiel 48 is not as large as the 1500 cubic mile city in Revelation that you referenced. In fact, it’s only 4,500 square cubits. The temple described earlier will easily fit into it.
Yet again, I would argue that given the exact measurements and geographical description of the Land and temple that this is a literal passage about the temple and the land. Your claim that the temple is obviously symbolic is lacking in substance to support it. Where is the exegesis that supports a symbolic temple? I submit that the text itself implies, no wait…the text itself states otherwise.
Now, addressing your problems with the “primitive weapons” Ezekiel describes the armies of Gog and Magog having. Ezekiel never says that he saw the armies (as an aside, he did see the temple, city, and land he describes) against which he is directed to prophesy. Given how God describes the army, it is obvious that the language He is using tells of a well armed and well trained military force. It is not just a band of thugs. As to the “fires of weapons” I will just say that most people do not use wood to cook with or heat homes. The text is clear that Israel will use these spoils as an energy source and that it will last for 7 years.
Obviously, wooden weapons wouldn’t be a match for Israel’s Air Force. But the text says that it’s not Israel who defeats the invaders, they turn on themselves and kill each other and God fights against them (Ezekiel 38:21-22).
I am curious about one thing. Where did you get that Rosh is not Russia? All the research I’ve come across and looked up indicates that Rosh is at the very least part of Russia if not Russia itself.
Nate,
Can you name a few of the best commentaries from a pre-mil view point on Ezekiel?
Thanks,
Steve
8.How do you see a premill in Matt.19:28? Here Jesus in only talking about His new early kingdom. How He will rule (He’s already ruling from His throne in heaven now and we reign spiritually with Him now Rev 1:5-6, Rom. 5:17, Eph. 2:6 and literally and spiritually with Him later) and how we will rule with Him. This doesn’t indicate a time period. Luke and Acts 1:6-8 don’t says there is a literal 1000yr reign of Jews with Christ. As far as Peter speaking to the unbelieving Jews in Acts 3:12-26, he called them “men of Israel because they were still of the OT mindset that they were the “OT Israel”. Luke, Acts’ writer, assumes that we who are of the true Israel through Christ realize that Peter is speaking to a group of men who expect to be called Israelites. Peter tells these men that they killed their Messiah who had come to them first with salvation. One would expect Peter to talk to them as Jews of the old Israel since they have not yet been saved and no nothing of the true Israel. Paul states else where he became all things to all men to save some…this is what Peter is doing. He is identifying with these people on their level. To be honest, I can’t see how anyone can say Rom. 9-11 is just about the Jewish nation and do it with a straight face! Rev 20 is good proof for amill. Satan is bound. Matt. 12:29 Luke 10:18, John 12:31, 2Thess 2:6-7, and Hebrews 2:14 prove this.Do you really think that Satan is going to be set free for awhile after Christ’s return? For what purpose? When Christ comes back He destroys death which is the last enemy.
9.Actually, there is Scriptural instruction for not re-instituting animal sacrifices in the NT (Heb 10:10-18)but more importantly there is no instruction to have animal sacrifices in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. Christ Himself gave us the Lord’s Supper for a reason…it remember Him alone. There would be no reason that anyone in the future would be unable to partake of the Lord’s Supper according to HIS instruction.
10. Paul is speaking to Gentiles in Galatians! vv12 talks about the Jews trying to get them to be physically circumcised…Paul exhorts he will not have them to do such a thing because his boast is in the cross. Finally, he closes the letter with a benediction for them, personally, and for the rest of Israel…which has already been identified in Galatians 3:16 as being the offspring who is in Christ and vv 29 which states that if we are in Christ then you(speaking to the Galatians) are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise!!!
11. Not all premill’s are dispen. but all dispen’s are premill’s. Anyone who holds to the notion that the Jews will be the only ones to reign with Christ in the so-called 1000yr of the future ARE dispensationalists. Those who think it is everyone are premill’s.
12. John’s simple definition of dispen. is correct. But his failure to see that God has already fulfilled His promises to Abraham and on, is quite astonishing. The only promise that we are waiting for is Christ’s return and new earth and heavens on which we live live and reign with Him.
@ JSB
Basically, those sacrifices would mean squat if it weren’t for Christ’s death on our behalf. The only reason God accepts those sacrifices is the same reason He forgives us for our sins when we ask him.
Analogy:
Money is only worth something b/c the government assigns it a value. But as we saw in WWI and WWII the actual cash money/paper bills were of no value during them times in and of themselves (people hauling around buckets full of cash to buy food for instance). That is the way the sacrifices work. They are only given value b/c of Christ’s death, they themselves, have no intrinsic atoning value.
So, I do agree that there is some transaction going on between the OT people who offered sacrifices to God for their sins and that God forgives them, but if you are saying God would’ve forgiven them their sins for sacrifices, regardless of what Christ did than that’s another story…
I’m just back from lunch and the comment thread keeps growing… I think I am probably going to close the thread tomorrow evening at 5 PM. Responding to these questions is keeping me from some of the other paperwork I need to get back to.
So, I guess, consider yourselves forewarned — tomorrow at 5 PM PST the threads on eschatology close. (Nothing like bringing an end to the end.)
In the meantime, we will do our best to respond to any/every question posed. I am admittedly not the “end all” expert on eschatology, but I will do my best to provide a premillennial response.
Now to JSB’s question regarding the atoning value of OT sacrifices…
It is my understanding that the forgiveness in these verses refer to an OT Jew’s legal status within the theocratic community of national Israel. It allowed Jewish citizens to maintain their good standing before the theocratic government. It did not forgive their sins in a saving way, though it did allow them to enjoy the privileges of citzenship within the theocratic kingdom (even if their hearts were unredeemed).
The Levitical sacrifices were in keeping with a legal covenant (which the Mosaic covenant was), not a grace covenant. From a soteriological perspective, they did not save, but they pointed to the final sacrifice through which salvation is offered once-for-all.
Do you believe that the levitical sacrifices provided salvation for OT Jews? If not, then why does Leviticus 4 present a problem for the premillennial view?
Thanks,
NB
Puritan Lad (and Others):
You wrote: I also feel a need to show that a strictly “literal” interpretation can lead to some ridiculous conclusions, and how inconsistent premillennialists are with these interpretations.
This goes back to what we noted in yesterday’s comments section. You are welcome to try to attack certain aspects of premillennial eschatology. I believe your objections have reasonable answers, and I will try to respond accordingly. You may or may not be convinced.
But in the end, there’s still one major issue for me. It is, in fact, the reason I am a premillennialist. And unless someone can demonstrate, exegetically, that it is false — my theology proper leaves me with no choice but to remain a premillennialist.
God made an unconditional covenant promise to the nation of Israel that He would one day give them a physical kingdom on this earth.
What else are we supposed to do with that except believe it?
All of the potential difficulties you can raise against premillennialism (and I would suggest that there are just as many that could be raised against amillennialism or postmillennialism) pale in comparison to that one issue.
And it’s not that God made this promise only once — He made it repeatedly and plainly time after time throughout the whole of the Old Testament. The New Testament never negates that promise to the nation of Israel. On the contrary, it supports it.
So are we premillennialists ridiculous? I’m sure it would appear so to some. I’ll be the first to admit that I cringe at those who practice newspaper eschatology, promote certain sci-fi Christian books, and produce various TBN prophecy shows. They are, to be honest, embarrassing to me.
In the end, however, I have no choice but to believe that God will do what He said He would do in the very way He said He would do it — and that He communicated His intent in a way that was understandable to those to whom He was speaking (in keeping with the doctrine of perspicuity).
As of yet, I am still waiting for an amillennial/postmillennial response to this one issue. The prophecies regarding Christ’s first coming were fulfilled by Christ literally. So why should we understand the prophecies regarding His second coming any differently?
Thanks,
NB
I really don’t understand how these type of comments can be made with such gusto:
First, the temple being described will not fit on the current temple mount. In addition, the city described in Ezekiel 45-48 will not fit on the Sinai Peninsula. (Of course, neither will the 1500 cubic mile city in Rev.)
Obviously this is a symbolic temple.
No, obviously it is literal, else there would be no reason to be so specific with measurements. Any other conclusion is less than the obvious.
“To promise one thing but ultimately deliver something else?”
Do you see the built in presupposition here? You say “else” when both Hebrews and I used the term “better.”
Something “better”, by very fact that it is a different ’something’ than the original, is something “else”. There is no presupposition there. That is simple, elementary logic to use the word “else”.
I wish basic deductive and logic skills were still taught in school. It can be frustrating to follow a discussion when logic and comprehension are thrown to the wind at times in favor of whatever-you-want-it-to-say interpretation stated as fact.
I am certainly guilty of that failing myself, but it needs to be stated by someone so that we can all take it to heart to be more careful about claiming a rather illogical or uncertain interpretation of a verse or phrase as logical or obvious fact.
Hypothesize all you want, but when debating a point please be careful not to act like something you personally decided to conclude is fact, epecially when it is not the logical, historical, or contextual conclusion. That is frustrating and provocative not helpful.
The biggest question I have when it comes to committed a-mill/post-mill types is what exactly do they fear losing if they were to admit that God’s covenant promises to national Israel are still valid today and will be literally fulfilled in the future?
I could better understand their desire to take a very different tack in interpretation if it was a situation where the Church would lose something (her salvation or her future glorification or unification with Christ or something of the promises she is to expect).
I believe the answer is that nothing is lost. That leaves me curious as to why there is such zeal for such a mindset. The Church loses nothing when one takes a pre-mill approach, however, national Israel maintains something it was promised as opposed to having it ’stolen’ away by interpretative ‘theft’.
At risk of raising a touchy subject, I have heard it posited that Satan would be happy to have the Church deny national Israel’s future as part of his plan to remove all outside support for the Jews as he continues to try to destroy them so that the promises God made with them would be impossible to fulfill (no more Jews, no way to fulfill promises to them).
We as Christians know that God is sovereign, but we also know that Satan is out to prove God a liar and to try to thwart His plans (certainly to steal the sower’s seed from as many as he can but also to motivate persecution of the ethnic group God chose to bless with the Messiah’s lineage – the Messiah Who is going to crush him).
And we know that certain people and countries have been motivated to try to destroy the Jews completely over the last 2,000 years. Note the great persecution of the Jews by the Roman Catholics over the centuries, and remember that they were by-and-large an a-mill lot.
God has brought the Jews through many events against incredible odds (a testament to His sovereign plan for them, imho) but also many millions have died and they have been despised, hated, and persecuted throughout these last two millenia. Does it not all seem even a little congruous and worthy of a step back and reconsideration?
If nothing is lost by a pre-mill approach, but things are gained, why stick to a-mill? It should be enough to give us all pause to remember that we must be careful to inspect our motives and to never be anti-semitic and to never let us find ourselves persecuting or allowing persecution of the Jews.
Just a thought for consideration.
Perhaps this also gets into the blessings and curses subject someone was trying to bring up in the last comments thread, because there has been documented a rather strong correlation of disaster coming upon those who seek to harm the Jews right up to the present time.
And before someone wonders why Satan would continue to persecute and try to destroy the Jews when he should know that he cannot defeat God’s sovereign plan, you should remember that he was foolish enough to think he could set himself up in the place of God, and consider that he is a wicked one who after trying time and again to thwart the plan of God to bring forth the prophesied Messiah in the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, and being shown that he cannot stop God’s plan, is then enraged and slaughters all that he can out of sheer rage, despite the fact that it can accomplish nothing. If you think the wickedness of man is vile, imagine that of one who was once the greatest of the angels and how much greater that fall was and thus how much more vile and vicious a creature he can be.
Wanton slaughter is already shown throughout history to be something the natural human mind has no trouble committing, so it is not difficult to imagine that with a bit of demonic encouragement that wickedness can be directed specifically against the Jews.
Puritan Lad,
You wrote: The Old Testament prophets did see the church age. How else did the prophecy the future conversion of the Gentiles? For just a few examples.
I agree that the Old Testament prophets foresaw the suffering of Messiah, as well as the future salvation of Gentiles (though in a secondary sense to the nation of Israel). I still do not see how any of the verses you cite suggest that the OT prophets understood the mystery age of the church (Eph. 3:1-7). Nor do I find anything in those passages in contradiction with the premillennial understanding of Daniel 9:24–27.
What is the difference between Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 25:31-34? What reasons will you give as to why they are different events? What objections will you have for them being fulfilled in AD 70?
In all three accounts of the Transfiguration (Matthew 16; Mark 9:1–7; Luke 9:27–36), the context indicates that the Gospel writers themselves understood the Transfiguration as an immediate fulfillment of what Jesus had just spoken (in Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27).
Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26 refer to the eschatological return of Christ (and not the Transfiguration). But Christ, as a preview of His heavenly glory, promised His disciples that some of them would see His kingdom glory before they died (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27). At the Transfiguration, Christ showed them His glory in fulfillment of what He had promised. It was a preview of the heavenly glory He will display at His return.
To cite Dr. MacArthur’s commentary on Matthew 16:
*****
It was not uncommon for Old Testament prophecies to combine a prediction of a far distant event with a prediction of one in the near future, with the earlier event prefiguring the latter. Such prophecies would thereby have near as well as distant fulfillments. The fulfillment of the near prophecy served to verify the reliability of the distant one. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that Jesus verified the reliability of His second coming prophecy by giving a glimpse of His second coming glory to some of the disciples before they would taste death.
In light of that interpretation – and because in all three gospel accounts the promise of seeing His glory is given immediately preceding the account of the transfiguration [and also because] basileia can be translated “royal splendor” – it seems that Jesus must here have been referring specifically to His unique and awesome transfiguration before Peter, James, and John only six days later (see 17:1).
*****
What objections will you have for them being fulfilled in AD 70?
My objection is simply this: Christ did not return to earth in heavenly glory with His angels in 70 AD to judge the nations and gather the elect.
Thanks,
NB
Nate,
Your basic premise is, “God made an unconditional covenant promise to the nation of Israel that He would one day give them a physical kingdom on this earth.” For a good amillennial response to this, I refer you to Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future, pages 201-212. I’ll try to summarize it.
The physical kingdom on this earth is the new earth. Amillennialists who take the land promises to mean the new earth do not spiritualize them away, but take them quite literally. The new earth will be every bit as much of an earth as the present one. In fact, it will be a greater and more glorious earth since it will be redeemed. A “physical kingdom on this earth” could very easily be satisfied (and I believe is satisfied) by understanding the prophets to refer to the new earth.
The “unconditional promise” can’t be the Law of Moses (the Old Covenant) because that covenant was broken and came to end when Christ died on the cross. Galatians 3:19 is unmistakably clear that the Law was to be in force “until the seed would come to whom the promises had been made” (emphasis mine). That must be the unconditional promise to which you refer, as it is the one mentioned over and over again in the New Testament.
Now, a literal reading of Galatians 3:19 makes it plain that this unconditional covenant promise was not to the nation of Israel as an ethnic people, but “the seed” who “would come” (who was an ethnic Jew). That can only be Christ. These unconditional promises were made to Jesus, the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16). Galatians goes on to prove beyond any doubt who the recipients of this unconditional promise are, namely, those who belong to Christ and in Him are the house of Israel and the house of Judah, the descendants of Abraham.
I think your statement would be better written, “God made an unconditional promise to Abraham’s seed that He would give Him (and those in Him) a physical (everlasting) kingdom on this earth.”
I’ll quote Hoekema to close: “The question might still be raised, If the ultimate meaning of prophecies of this sort is the inheritance of the new earth in the final state by all the people of God together (both Jews and Gentiles), why do the Old Testament prophets speak in such narrow terms about a restoration of Israel to its land? The point is that the final blessedness of the people of God on the new earth could only be described by these Old Testament prophets in terms which would be meaningful to the Israelites of those days. For those Israelites the term Israel was simply a way of saying ‘the people of God.’ For the the land of Canaan was the land God had given to his people as their dwelling place and their possession. But the Old Testament is a book of shadows and types. In New Testament times the people of God no longer consists only of Israelites with a few non-Israelite additions, but is expanded to a fellowship inclusive of both Gentiles and Jews. In New Testament times the land which is to be inherited by the people of God is expanded to include the entire earth. As an illustration of this point, observe how Christ himself widens the meaning of Psalm 37:11, ‘But the meek shall possess the land.’ In the Sermon on the Mount Christ paraphrases this passage in the following way: ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth’ (Matt. 5:5). Note how the land of Psalm 37 has become the earth in Matthew 5″ (pp. 211-12, emphasis his).
Thanks for the response, Nate. In answer, no, I don’t agree that the OT system was to keep in good standing with the “government.” If you have some textual argument here, however, I’ll entertain it.
What we find is “atonement” (which is related to the turning away of wrath) It was God’s divinely appointed system for restoring and keeping covenant relationship. That was how it provided “salvation” (which was seen in relational terms in the OT; the NT teaching on eternal salvation was yet to come). In this way, it satisfied wrath.
Now I think you are agreeing at least that an “efficacious” OT system is going to be extant in the Millennial Kingdom, and are taking the position that it is more than “memorial.” I think you have to take this position when you take Ezekiel and Leviticus “at face value.” Which would lead to a sin-expiation type of system. Yet that is exactly what cannot be considered in light of Christ’s once for all substitutionary atonement. It really devalues the cross, in my view. I know you don’t see it that way, but I do think we’ve made some progress in this discussion, at least toward clarity. We have two main issues between us. 1) the sacrificial system; and 2) the idea that God can literally fulfill a promise in a “better” way without taking anything away from the promise itself.
The first is the main reason I’ve rejected Disp. The second is how the NT interprets OT prophecy, in my view, with regard to “Israel.”
Thanks for the vigorous debate. It’s been well done and civil.
Steve Lamm:
Here are a few we would recommend:
Ralph Alexander, Moody press, 1976 (a stand-alone volume) or his similar but expanded Expositor’s Bible Commentary contribution.
Charles Dyer, Ezekiel in Bible Knowledge Commentary 1983.
Charles Feinberg. Helpful for overview, but lacks footnotes and helpful info on more critical items.
Paul Enns, Ezekiel in Bible Study Commentary, 1986.
Hope that helps,
NB
Wake,
I believe that God has promised a remnant of ethnic Jews will believe the Gospel and be part of true Israel until Christ comes (Rom 9-11 is where I get that). So I agree with you in that if Satan destroyed the Jews, God’s promise would fail because there would be no Jews to believe the Gospel and be part of the Israel of God.
As far as what do we lose by being premil, let me suggest that we rebuild what Christ died to destroy. Ephesians 2:11-19 says, “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.” Gentiles are no longer separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, or strangers to the covenants of promise. We are now joined to Christ, members of the commonwealth of Israel, and partakers in the covenants of promise. Christ died to accomplish that. He died to make Jews and Gentiles into one new man and reconcile them both to God, joining them together. How can we justly put asunder what God has joined together through the death of His own Son? Dispensational Premillennialism (and Dispensationalism in general) seeks to put asunder what Christ died to join together. That’s a pretty serious thing to lose.
@Wake
“The biggest question I have when it comes to committed a-mill/post-mill types is what exactly do they fear losing if they were to admit that God’s covenant promises to national Israel are still valid today and will be literally fulfilled in the future?”
Great question. I’ll try to answer. It’s not a matter of “fear.” It’s a matter of honoring Christ’s atonement, once for all, for Jew and Greek, for the “new Israel.” It’s a matter of how we view the NT, which never re-iterates the land promises, but always tells us about our position in Christ. What happens under the Disp. is a focus on land-based, ethnic Israel that actually takes away from the urgency of evangelism (admittedly, I am Arminian, so I see a greater urgency, usually, than my Calvinist bretheren).
So what’s “lost,” from my perspective, is honoring Christ and carrying his true gospel message to all people.
Wake,
“The biggest question I have when it comes to committed a-mill/post-mill types is what exactly do they fear losing if they were to admit that God’s covenant promises to national Israel are still valid today and will be literally fulfilled in the future?”
I know you are not asking me this question but it is a question that I have asked myself pointedly. I asked myself was I an amill because I wanted everything and I felt it was unfair for the Jews to get a little more? Was I being an amill for myself or for Christ. I had to admit to myself that I do want to participate in all that Christ offers to His children. I don’t want to be left out of anything He does. Part of us glorifying God will learning about all that He has given His people and what He has done for us. Could I still glorify Him in the portion that premill’s believe goes to just the Jews?….absolutely. But is it Scriptural according to Christ’s work? He is the fulfillment of all Scripture, and therefore, to be in Him we receive the full promises through Him. If we were to back up when Christ comes and take time out for the Jews to walk on some piece of land, wouldn’t that take away from Christ being the fulfillment of Scripture. He has promised a new earth and new heavens no one could possibly want more in an earthly sense. If Jews and Gentiles inhabit this land together, wants to say that us being there with them takes away from them somehow? I think what finally answered my question you raised was: yes, as a human I have some selfish reasons for not wanting to be left out…but to say that Christ didn’t fulfill Scripture in every sense and we will be blessed forever from His doing so, is to slap Him in the face for me. Solomon declared to God that He had given him a nation as the as numerous as the sands of the Sea and declared that he had received all the land that God promised…that was fulfilled. What hasn’t been fulfilled yet in the minds of premill’s is the everlasting part and that Abraham etc didn’t see all the land that God gave His people.
JSB,
Thanks for your response. And also for your participation in our discussion. I appreciate the gracious tone that you, Robb, Puritan Lad (and others) continue to exhibit. (The good news is that we’ll all laugh about this during the millennium … er, I mean, eternal state.)
My response would be this. In Hebrews 10:4 the author writes: “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” And in verse 11, “Every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (emphasis added).
Therefore, when I read Leviticus 4 and 5, I conclude that those sacrifices did not take away the sins of the people in a soteriological sense (but in some other sense). Otherwise, there is a contradiction between Leviticus and Hebrews.
In the same way, when I read of Ezekiel’s sacrifices (with the theocracy restored), I again interpret them in keeping with Hebrews 10:4, 11. They do not save; they cannot save. They do not atone for sin in a soteriological sense. Instead, like the OT sacrificial system, they are pictures that point to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.
If the OT sacrifices atone for sin in a soteriological sense (in either Leviticus or Ezekiel), then why did the author of Hebrews say that they can’t?
As I asked in my previous comment: Do you believe that the levitical sacrifices provided a basis for the salvation of OT Jews? If not, then why are they a problem for the premillennial position?
Moreover, it should be reiterated that the premillennial position did not invent the sacrifices that Ezekiel predicts. God is the One who revealed them. As premillennialists, we are doing our best to interact with what God Himself has revealed.
Again, thank you for your willingness to interact. I hope this discussion has been as profitable for you as it has been for me — I hope it is helpful to other readers as well.
Grace and peace,
NB
Robb:
As far as what do we lose by being premil, let me suggest that we rebuild what Christ died to destroy.
I read your Ephesians quote and do not see how it shows anything lost with a pre-mill understanding of eschatology.
jsb: I don’t see where this perceived loss of honoring Christ comes from. If anything, it brings God greater glory that we recognize his faithfulness and steadfast love (spoken so richly of in the OT) more fully than those who skip over or deny the relation and demonstration of those attributes to Israel’s future the way most a-mill folks do. We praise Him in all the ways they would plus recognizing his faithfulness in his promises towards Israel will be as unconditional as it is for us in the Church today. As it was with us, it will not be by any merit of ours, but for his glory and his holy name. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Likewise we see God’s faithfulness to save an elect among disobedient OT Israel and how in the end times Israel will be shown the depth of that love in a very real way as their Messiah Who brings them salvation is revealed to be the One they peirced and rejected.
To the second part of your comment, while I would probably fall under the Calvinist mantle, I have a very strong urgency for evangelism because I anticipate the imminent return of Christ (ever moreso as the events of our time foreshadow it) and yet know so many who are unsaved and whom the Lord has put as a burden on my heart to pray for and be a witness unto. I daresay my urgency for evangelism as equal to anyone else’s, arminian or otherwise.
Your statements appear prejudiced at best. =/
sarah:
You make several statements in your post like this one:
“when Christ comes and take time out for the Jews to walk on some piece of land, wouldn’t that take away from Christ being the fulfillment of Scripture.”
I don’t understand where you are getting this concept that anything is taken away from anyone with a pre-mill eschatology. The only thing is that Jews maintain something promised to them instead of having it taken away in an a-mill eschatology.
I believe the passages have already been quoted in the comments in the previous two sections of this three-part series that speak to how the Church will in a sense govern the millenial kingdom with Christ. The Church is married to Christ. Unspeakable glory. Nothing is taken away from anyone. Israel is saved, Israel receives her true King, Israel receives her land as promised. The Church is with Christ, married to Christ, and so on. Everything is fulfilled as prophesied and wonderfully so! God is glorified, his attributes are made manifest most richly, and the sacrificial atonement of the Son for those deserving only wrath demonstrates to all creation the utmost glory of God. (I am writing this part quickly, hoping to get this in before the 5PM PDT deadline. Would love to flesh this part out more.) =)
@Nate
Quick response, since you asked!
“As I asked in my previous comment: Do you believe that the levitical sacrifices provided a basis for the salvation of OT Jews? If not, then why are they a problem for the premillennial position?”
I think all my comments together explain my position. Hebrews is talking about how the OT system could not take away sins UTTERLY (that’s the sense of the Greek), or “once for all.” But they DID offer forgiveness at the time, a turning away of wrath. We both agree that the OT sacrifices could not do what Christ has done. And we’d agree Christ is the better sacrifice, if I may use that word, for all.
But your position is that in the Millennial Kingdom there will be a return to this weaker sacrificial system, for atonement and forgiveness (as in Lev. and Ez.) even though we both agree it is not as perfect as Christ.
This is what I cannot find justification for in the text.
I have Premil friends who tell me they won’t rub it in during the Rapture if I’m wrong. I appreciate that.
JSB:
Quick response back — I don’t think your interpretation of Hebrews 10 does justice to the text (which says that it is impossible for OT sacrifices to take away sins [v.4], and that they could never take away sins [v. 11]).
In my opinion, your position on Leviticus 4 and 5 unnecessarily weakens the argument of Hebrews — (which ironically is what you say my position on Ezekiel 40-48 does).
In any case, premillennialists (with their amill- and post-mill- brethren) rejoice in the once-for-all atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, through whom we have permanent and unconditional forgiveness of sin (in a soteriological sense). And we will do this together for all of eternity.
In the premillennial view, the millennial sacrifices are merely memorials of what Christ did at Calvary. They do not add anything to or subtract anything from the glorious value of the cross.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
NB
jsb: I don’t think Hebrews says sacrifices could take away sins at all. I think it says they cannot take away sins, period. It also says that Christ’s sacrifice took away since – and once for all at that, showing the completeness of his atonement.
since/sins
Citing Fruchtenbaum on the millennial sacrifices:
What will be the purpose of these sacrifices in light of Christ’s death? To begin with, one must remember that the Mosaic sacrificial system did not remove sins (Hebrews 10:4), but only covered them (the meaning of atonement in Hebrew). It served as a physical and visual picture of what the Messiah would do (Isaiah 53:10–12). The Bible commands the Church to keep the Lord’s Supper as a physical and visual picture of Christ’s work on the cross. In the Millennial Kingdom God will provide for Israel a physical and visual picture of Messiah’s accomplishment on the cross. For Israel, however, it will be a sacrificial system instead of communion with bread and wine. The purpose of the sacrificial system in the kingdom will be the same as the purpose of communion: in remembrance of me.
“Jerusalem is built as a city … as a testimony of Israel,
To give thanks to the name of the Lord. …
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May they prosper who love you.
Peace be within your walls,
Prosperity within your palaces
For the sake of my brethern and companions, I will now say peace be within you.
Because of the house of the LORD our God
I will seek your good.” Psalm 122:3,6-9
“Those who trust in the LORD
Are like Mount Zion, … so the LORD surrounds His people
From this time forth and forever. …
Do good, O LORD, to those who are good,
And those who are upright in their hearts.
As for such as turn aside to their crooked ways,
The LORD shall lead them away
With the workers of iniquity.
Peace be upon Israel.” Psalm 125:1-2,4-5
Seems the peace is for those who trust in Christ, and those who are clothed in His goodness.
Those who reject Christ are under God’s wrath.
I am still trying to understand why God would want us to pray for peace to a people who hate His Son. Surely we need to pray for their salvation, and that israel would repent and believe in the Christ.
But it seems these two psalms are talking about peace that comes from God to His obedient people; to those who are thankful and who trust in Him. Am I wrong here?
How does all this fit together. I’m trying to understand.
This I thought would be a key topic when discussing these things.
Wake,
do you believe that Christ fulfilled all Scripture? If so, then making Him prove it by letting the Jews walk around on the new earth for a 1000yr before we get there, is proof that no one believes that Christ fulfilled all the promises. I have a question for you or anyone. Do premill’s believe that after your “1000yr reign doctrine”, the Gentiles will then come to the new earth and reign also? Is the fight, then, that it can only be Jews for 1000yr in order to fulfill the promise they supposedly lack? I ask you, is 1000yr everlasting? God promised an everlasting covenant with Abraham etc. Wouldn’t that mean in the premill’s mind that Jews and Gentiles would have to be separate from each other for eternity (Jews on new earth Gentiles in new heaven) in order to give them the eternal promise of eternal land? The 1000yr reign just doesn’t cut it when you talk of enternal promises. That’s why the promises go through Christ who is eternal. He isn’t going to be separate from God or the Gentiles for eternity just so He can fulfill a misconception of an eternal promise.
Nate:
Good discussion continues…
“The millennial sacrifices are merely memorials.”
Question: does Ezekiel call these “memorial”? Is there ANY text ANYWHERE in the Bible that uses the term “merely memorial” in relation to this system?
Robb,
Thanks for your response. I greatly appreciate your willingness to interact on what (in my opinion) is the crux of the issue. Allow me to respond briefly to a few of your comments:
You wrote: The physical kingdom on this earth is the new earth.
But if the “new earth” is a different earth than “this earth” (which will be destroyed by fire according to 2 Peter 3:7, 10), then how can the OT prophecies be taken “quite literally” when they refer to a different planet altogether? Even if “it will be greater and more glorious,” it is still different. It is not “this earth.”
I am not trying to be trite or play word games. It is still difficult for me to understand how God’s promises could be “literally” fulfilled in a way that is different than what He said.
As Hamilton (an amillennialist) has written:
Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist picture. That was the kind of a Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Old testament promises (The Basis of Millennial Faith, 38).
Or in the words of Masselink (also amill):
If all prophecy must be interpreted in a literal way, the Chilastic views are correct; but if it can be proved that these prophecies have a spiritual meaning, then Chilasm must be rejected (Why Thousand Years, 31).
I’m not trying to be obtuse. I just don’t see how amillennialists can get around this.
You wrote: The “unconditional promise” can’t be the Law of Moses (the Old Covenant) because that covenant was broken and came to end when Christ died on the cross.
We agree. The unconditional covenants are the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New. This article, by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, helps explain why taking these covenants at face-value necessarily leads to premillennialism.
Regarding your comments on Galatians 3:
I only have a brief moment to respond to this (as I have a meeting to run off to). Perhaps we can develop this bit further tomorrow. I’ll just quickly draw some points from Michael Vlach’s helpful analysis…
Fruchtenbaum notes that there are four ways in which “seed of Abraham” can be used. (1) It can be used to refer to biological descendants of Abraham (John 8:37; Acts 7:5; et. al.). (2) Second, it can refer to the Messiah (Gal. 3:16). (3) It can refer to the righteous remnant of Israel (cf. Is. 41:8 with Rom. 9:6). And (4) it can refer in a spiritual sense to believing Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 3:29).
Nonsupersessionists (like premillennialists) would assert that “no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses” (John Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity, 73).
Blaising also makes the point in his response to Strimple’s article (in Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond), that the New Testament does not present Christ “in a way that ‘transcends’ or removes the idea of corporate, ethnic, national Israel. Israel is not just a ‘shadow’ of the Christ that is done away with once the true reality of his presence arrives” (p. 145).
More could be said but I’m out of time. Thanks again for your interaction on this important topic. If you were still out here (in CA), we could go do lunch and talk it over in person. Maybe sometime when you come for a visit. (Of course, I have extended family in Witchita…so maybe I’ll have to come your way.)
- NB
“walk around on the new earth”
what? walking around on the new earth?
“before we get there”
what? before we get there?
Where are these claims you are arguing against coming from?
I don’t believe anyone here has made such curious remarks.
Your tone is appearing to show a lack of respect either for God’s Word or for those who take a pre-mill interpretation, especially when you start to pull Scripture quotes out of the air that have no real contextual application to what is being discussed and take from them strange interpretations and wild meanings.
It’s starting to sound like you’re inventing a position just to argue against it or perhaps are just getting confused and so I’ll leave you to that. Please take care to handle the Word of God respectfully as some of the things you are saying are becoming grievous.
Nate, thanks for your response. It is a lengthy debate and like I said the other day, it can’t be resolved in a comments section. The good thing is that people can look at the comments and the resources and then go to the Word and prayerfully weigh the arguments. May Christ be exalted through that!
On another note, was your dad in Wichita recently? My wife and I were at Texas Roadhouse here and I saw a guy who looked very similar to your dad. Next time I make it to CA we’ll have to get together. Give me a call if you’re in Wichita. You can reach me at the number on CBC’s website.
Blessings,
Robb
And we know that certain people and countries have been motivated to try to destroy the Jews completely over the last 2,000 years. Note the great persecution of the Jews by the Roman Catholics over the centuries, and remember that they were by-and-large an a-mill lot.
…It should be enough to give us all pause to remember that we must be careful to inspect our motives and to never be anti-semitic and to never let us find ourselves persecuting or allowing persecution of the Jews.
This is a completely ridiculous and foolish line of argumentation that gets repeated over and over. The slippery slope argument just doesn’t hold water here and is utterly fallacious. To say that amill/postmill is anti-semitic or leads to anti-semitism just because it contemplates a different future for the Jews is irresponsible and childish. There is nothing in amill/postmill that requires or even hints of Jewish persecution, quite the contrary.
In fact, it is in the premill system that 2/3 of Jews are wiped out in the tribulation! For postmill, the majority of Jews are saved before Christ returns.
Wake or ANYONE WHO CAN ANSWER,
I don’t do well with straw men statements…I’ve dialogued with Emergents too much to be captured by them. If you could please answer this question…
“Do premill’s believe that after your “1000yr reign doctrine”, the Gentiles will then come to the new earth and reign also? Is the fight, then, that it can only be Jews for 1000yr in order to fulfill the promise they supposedly lack? I ask you, is 1000yr everlasting? God promised an everlasting covenant with Abraham etc. Wouldn’t that mean in the premill’s mind that Jews and Gentiles would have to be separate from each other for eternity (Jews on new earth Gentiles in new heaven) in order to give them the eternal promise of eternal land? The 1000yr reign just doesn’t cut it when you talk of enternal promises. That’s why the promises go through Christ who is eternal. He isn’t going to be separate from God or the Gentiles for eternity just so He can fulfill a misconception of an eternal promise.” ???
Sarah:
For the sake of time, I’ll leave most of your questions to someone else to answer, but regarding the use of “everlasting” or “eternal”, my post two days ago might be of help. I’ll repeat most of it here.
I said,
“The meaning of the Hebrew word should be contextually determined because it has a range of meaning. It might specify “eternal” or “everlasting,” BUT it could also denote “indefinite continuance into the very distant future.” Though it may refer to endlessness, the word does not contain in itself the meaning of endlessness as it may simply refer to a long age or period (see Theological Wordbook of the OT, “olam”). Context is important in each case.
In the context of the land promises of Gen 17:8, how should the “everlasting” possession be understood? The verse says the everlasting possession is the land of Abraham’s sojournings. Gen 17:8 does not communicate an unending possession, but appears to be communicating possession of the land for an unspecified long period of time into the distant future. In this case, the use of “everlasting” is not incompatible with premillennialism.”
Massimo,
I’m not sure from which doctrine you come. If the everlasting isn’t interpreted literally as eternal then both premill and amill lose. Anyway, For prmill’s to claim that the land/many children promises were never realized because some of the OT Jews didn’t live on the land or didn’t see all their decendents (even thought these verses says otherwise 2Chronicles 1:9 1Chronicles 27:23 1Kings 4:20-21 and to be quite frank I still am unsure which of the promises they say haven’t been fulfilled), to then say that those promises will be fulfilled during the 1000yr reign, makes no sense to me. Here are the questions I would like a premill to answer:1. Which of God’s elect Jews didn’t live on that land back in the OT times and still needs that promise fulfilled in their minds? 2. Do you believe it was an everlasting covenant that God gave? If so, why do you think a 1000yr reign makes up for “everlasting” or are we to believe that everlasting doesn’t mean eternal, in which case, no one gets to live on the new earth eternally…which really isn’t Scriptual…
Great conversation…
A word of advice for some. Take time to STUDY what answer a person has given you before posting the same question and allegations over and over and over. Sometimes the answer is right before your eyes. You may be blinded by your desire to be correct.
Josh:
“In fact, it is in the premill system that 2/3 of Jews are wiped out in the tribulation!”
“For postmill, the majority of Jews are saved before Christ returns.”
Speaking of “fallacious claims” it looks like you ended your post with one or two of your own.
Since you’re coming from a postmill or a-mill perspective, I’ll word the challenges this way:
Regarding #1 – Please point me to where MacArthur or Nate have said anything about 2/3rds of Jews being wiped out. Also, why ignore the reality that the majority of everyone will be wiped out in the great trib? Why ignore the reality that the majority of Gentiles over the course of history have died godless? Why ignore the reality that only a remnant is saved in the Church even? Why ignore that Dick Mayhue presented an hour-long session on Day 1 of the 2007 ShepCon specifically discussing the phrase “all Israel” and how they believe that indeed all ethnic Israel in that day will be saved? Who’s really making the fallacious claims here? Who’s trying to present questions we’d all ask someone like Tim LaHaye who would actually posit a “2/3rds of Jews die” scenario?
Regarding #2 – Please show me where “the majority of Jews are saved before Christ returns” is found in Scripture (since you think amill is Scriptural). And that would need to be IN CONTEXT in Scripture, not just “hey look I found these words here that talk about [one thing], and when you spiritualize that to mean [another thing] it means that the majority of Jews are going to be saved before Christ returns!!”
Show me Christ or Paul or whomever stating, “the majority of the Jews will be saved before Christ returns”.
And what I said is not fallacious, but a sad truth: Amill Chrisitans/Catholics are the ones who
*-* do violence to the Christian witness to the Jews
*-* will stand idly by when modern day Israel is threatened,
*-* have no interest in the US supporting Israel in the UN or with military support
*-* are duped into supporting the ‘roadmap to peace’ land-for-peace process that God continues to thwart because it is contrary to his promises,
*-* and see no significance to modern day Israel on the whole and no reason to support her other than “well she’s a democracy in a region where there aren’t many” (which implies that were there other democracies in the region we would no longer have a reason to support her at all). That last one I heard directly from the mouth of a dean of a pastor’s college with an amill eschatology, so please don’t try the “fallacious” claim.
It is fact. You can also see it in the European guilt over not doing anything during the 1930s/1940s of the Holocaust when they were still amill or Catholic (also amill) countries, that has left them today (note: now mostly godless but also) wishing the Jews would just go away and stop being such a “problem” so they could stop feeling guilty everytime they hear about Israel being threatened with extermination again. They want them to just give up land, make peace, and shut up, completely ignorant of the reality of Muslim violence against the Jews that there will never be a true and lasting peace until Christ returns (because like you they don’t recognize that Satan is behind these things (Islam, land-for-peace, etc, and that they will continue until Christ returns).
I would not be surprised to see the trend now become decreasing support for Israel from the US, as amill is the eschatology of choice for dominionist, revisionist, and ecumenical groups who want to re-unite the “church” with Catholics that already hold such a view. Emerging, seeker-sensitive, and the other large social gospel groups all “happen” to have amill leanings.
It is a downward spiral and the more it is researched the more apparent it becomes. It is not active harm toward the Jews like Islam, but it is quite often passive appeasement much like Europe during WW2.
Eventually Israel will be left on her own, just as the Bible predicts will happen. But then when the nations align against her to crush her, God will show Himself mighty on her behalf. So just make sure you don’t find yourself opposite God on that matter. That’s really what it boils down to: Take heed. Your eschatology can lead to appeasement and indifference. Apathy toward Israel can be dangerous.
And btw I agree that premill certainly has its share of extreme views of eschatology where you get LaHaye Left Behind style views where 2/3rds of Jews die or whatever and that certain could be construed as “doing violence to the Christian witness to the Jews” but the real violence is trying to tell a Jew God’s eternal covenant promises to him are not going to be fulfilled, in fact they’ve been arbitrarily given to the Church. That’s a much greater violence to the witness to the Jews than telling them “hey many of you guys are going to die!”
Nate,
We are going around in circles here. This so-called “mystery age of the church” does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures. Paul tells us exactly what the mystery was in verse 6.
“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (Ephesians 3:6)
There is no mention of the “church age” in Ephesians 3. The “invisible church age” is a recent invention (out of thin air), and cannot be found in the Scriptures.
Also, the “transfiguration” interpretation of Matthew 16:28 is very weak on a number of counts, as I have already pointed out. In any case, such an interpretation violates the same principles that premillennialists object to when dealing with other “comings”, such as the one on Matthew 21:40, clearly a reference to AD 70.
For a thorough defense of the postmillennial preterist view, see the following series:
Understanding the End Times
Does the Bible teach a Pre-trib Rapture?
Thomas Ice’s Pre-Trib “Evidence”
Futurist Inconsistencies Regarding the Great Tribulation
Signs of the Olivet Discourse Part I
Signs of the Olivet Discourse Part II
Signs of the Olivet Discourse Part III
Signs of the Olivet Discourse Part IV
Signs of the Olivet Discourse Part V
Apocalyptic Language in the Bible
Revelation and the Definition of Prophecy
Dating the Book of Revelation
Revelation: The Conquering Christ and the Overcoming Church
Antichrist: The Biblical View
Ar-mageddon: The Destruction of the Great Prostitute
A Defense of Postmillennialism
Who Are God’s Chosen People?
As to the “fires of weapons” I will just say that most people do not use wood to cook with or heat homes. The text is clear that Israel will use these spoils as an energy source and that it will last for 7 years.
It doesn’t say “spoils of war”. It clearly says that they will burn the weapons for fuel, and clearly describes the weapons.
“Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go out and make fires of the weapons and burn them, shields and bucklers, bow and arrows, clubs and spears; and they will make fires of them for seven years, so that they will not need to take wood out of the field or cut down any out of the forests, for they will make their fires of the weapons. They will seize the spoil of those who despoiled them, and plunder those who plundered them, declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 39:9-10)
“I am curious about one thing. Where did you get that Rosh is not Russia? All the research I’ve come across and looked up indicates that Rosh is at the very least part of Russia if not Russia itself.”
Any reliable postmillennial source. Let me quote from Ralph Woodrow’s “His Truth Is Marching On”
“…the expression Gog and Magog does not, and never did, refer to Russia. That has been entirely made up from whole cloth, and simply repeated so many times that many have assumed it to be true. Ostensible reasons for this interpretation are based on a peculiar reading of Ezekiel 38:3, which speaks of “Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.” The word chief is, in the Hebrew, rosh; some have therefore translated the text as “Gog, the prince of Rosh.” Rosh sounds something like Russia; therefore Gog is the prince (or premier) of Russia. Unfortunately for this ingenious interpretation, rosh simply means “head” or “chief”, and is used over 600 times in the Old Testament — never meaning “Russia.”
Those who hold that “Gog” (a name supposedly derived from Soviet Georgia, since they both start with a “G”!) is the Soviet Premier generally make the further claim that “Meshech” is really Moscow, “Tubal” is Tobolsk, and “Gomer” (of Ezek. 38:6) is Germany. This is doubtful. ‘Moscow’ comes from the Muscovites and is a Finnish name. Moscow was first mentioned in ancient documents in 1147 A.D., when it was a small village. Some think Tubal means Tobolsk, but this is only a similarity in sound. Tobolsk was founded in 1587 A.D. Some think Gomer [Ezek. 38:6] means Germany. It is true the words ‘Gomer’ and ‘Germany’ both begin with a ‘G.’ So does guess-work.”