First, I would very much like to thank our amillennial and postmillennial brothers for joining in this discussion – and for doing so in a gracious and cordial way. I believe the love of Christ is put on display, and Christ Himself is honored, when we discuss our disagreements (over secondary issues) in a way that preserves our Christian testimony. As has been noted numerous times throughout this discussion, we will all spend eternity together worshipping the Risen Lamb.

Second, I would like to emphasize the many points of agreement that we share. Obviously, we are united on the gospel. It is this foundational level that allows us to fellowship together and to stand united for the truth. But even in eschatology, we share much in common. We all cling tenaciously to the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:11–14). We all look forward to our future resurrection, based on the historic resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15). We all anticipate the heavenly reward we will receive for our faithfulness on earth (cf. 2 Tim. 4:6-8). We all await our heavenly rest (Heb. 4), and the wonders of heavenly worship (Rev. 4–5), when we will see our Savior face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). The essence and foundation of our hope does not differ, even if our eschatological timelines might.

This is not to say, of course, that eschatology is unimportant. Nor does it gives us the right to give up on the topic – and join the ranks of “pan-millennialism” (where it all “pans out” in the end). We recognize that there are things “hard to understand” (as Peter wrote of Paul’s letters — 2 Pet 3:16), yet we continue to diligently apply ourselves to the task of study and application. We believe, as Christ promised, that if we apply ourselves to understanding even the prophetic portions of Scripture, we will be blessed (Rev. 1:3; 22:7).

But why make such a big deal about eschatology? I like Darrell Bock’s answer: “At stake are God’s promises and the trustworthiness of His Word in commitment to Israel about a land and a kingdom” (Coming Millennial Kingdom, 190). For me this is (and remains) the issue. God proved His faithfulness by literally fulfilling prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming (cf. Matt 2:5-6; John 7:42), and we are confident that He will literally fulfill His promises to the church. So why would OT promises regarding Christ’s second coming be any different? We don’t believe that they are. We believe that God keeps His Word to the letter, having made His promises in a straight-forward manner. Hence, we are premillennialists.

For those interested in studying the premillennial perspective in more depth, please see the links we posted at the beginning of this series (on Monday) and throughout. For those who want a good laugh at the expense of dispensationalists, please see this link.

May the Lord be honored with us all, as we pursue Him in faithfulness and eagerly wait for His return. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.

- NB

Regarding the Epistle of Barnabas, I was simply citing an amillennial scholar (who has studied the epistle of Barnabas at length) to show that we must be careful when making absolute statements about the patristic age.

Whether the church fathers were dispensationalists or not, we are still left with the fact that premillennialism existed in the early church. This, in my opinion, is something that amillennialists still need to deal with seriously.

Thanks again for your thoughts.
NB

Thanks for responding. I’m not sure I can add to what Nate said, but I’ll see if I can be a bit more clear for you.

The issue is not do premills take “everlasting” as literal or not. The issue is which meaning of the Hebrew word “olam” (translated as “everlasting” in Gen 17:8) is intended by the author because the word has a range of meanings?

As stated, the word itself does not mean endless, and to assign it that meaning apart from context is fallacious. If you want to assign the meaning of “neverending possession” (eternal, everlasting), then what in the context is driving you to do so?

I am saying that the “everlasting possession” of land is qualified by the earlier statement “the land of your sojournings,” and therefore “endlessness” is not the best sense of “olam” in this context. To repeat, I am saying in this context it does not mean “endless” or “eternal.” The best sense to understand it in, given the context is indefinite continuance into the very distant future—no definite time intended by the author. In retrospect, having further revelation from God beyond just Genesis (now we have the whole Bible), that land will be destroyed prior to the creation of the new heavens and new earth, thus bringing an end to the existence of that land following the 1000 year reign of Messiah. This is in perfect harmony with the understanding of “olam” that I am advocating, and fully supportable in context of Gen 17. For further explanation on the Abrahamic Covenant and a brief discussion related to our comments here, reference the article at http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj10n.pdf

So your question, “how long is that time and maybe that time was fulfilled in the OT… who’s to say it wasn’t since we don’t have a specific time frame.”

This is a fair question. I think I understand what you’re saying. Because there is not a definite time assigned to the word “olam”, then how do we know it wasn’t fulfilled? I’d say more if I had time, but since 5pm is coming soon, I’ll leave you with a reference to Dr. Barrick’s “Thy Kingdom Come” seminar at Shepherds Conference 2007 as he deals more in depth with these issues of at least the land.

Robb and I discussed this a bit yesterday in the thread. Are you implying that the “new earth” is simply a revision of this earth? That seems unlikely in light of 2 Peter 3.

As I told Robb yesterday (the phrases in quotes come from one of Robb’s comments):

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. But it is difficult for me to understand how God’s promises could be “literally” fulfilled in a way that is different than what He said.

After all, if God wanted to fulfill His millennial promises in heavenly kingdom (on the new earth), He could have communicated that in a way that was straightforward. He could have simply said, “Your ancestors possessed this land, but you will possess a different land far greater than this.” But that is not what He said. What He said is, “You will possess the very land that your ancestors possessed” (my paraphrase, of course).

As premillennialists, we are not trying to limit God’s promises. We are trying to take them seriously — expecting that God will do exactly what He promised His people He would do.

If the plain sense makes sense, why would we want to spiritualize it to mean something different?

Again, thank you for your thoughts. It has been a pleasure to interact.
- NB

If we argue in this fashion, what I find astonishing is the lack of land promise reiteration in the NT. If this is truly God’s plan, why didn’t it get picked up by the Apostles? Whenever “inheritance” is used, it’s for the church.

You see, they ARE getting the LAND, the REST (which is what was truly BEHIND the land. See Heb. 4). All this is fulfilled on the New Earth. And where do you think the New Earth comes from? (Hint: It is not the moon Phobos). Premils want to LIMIT the promises to an old earth. But limitation of any kind is a very strange thing to want to do with God.

Should the NT use of the OT be our hermeneutical key?

I do not think such can be maintained for at least five reasons.

First, certain passages in the New Testament point to a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (cf. Rom 11:26-29; Rev 20:1-6).

Second, the New Testament does not provide a consistent pattern for how to interpret the Old Testament (as was noted earlier).

Third, the New Testament authors were inspired, while modern day interpreters work only under illumination.

Fourth, no New Testament writer ever explicitly states that an Old Testament promise has been abrogated or should be interpreted in a spiritual manner.

And, finally, a spiritual approach to hermeneutics reduces objectivity while multiplying interpretations.

In light of earlier comments with JSB and Robb, I thought this might be helpful to the discussion.

Thanks,
NB

 –> You can also see Matt Waymeyer’s helpful article here.

Thanks for your interaction — and for a helpful answer to my question about Israel.

As far as Israel returning in unbelief, I would direct you to this article by Thomas Ice.

As far as needing to evangelize modern Jews, we would totally agree. They are in need of Jesus Christ as much as any unsaved Gentile.

Thanks again for your interaction over the past week. I believe it’s been a profitable discussion.

May the Lord bless your ministry as you continue to serve Him faithfully.
- NB