Comments on: Israel, the Kingdom, and Acts 1 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:09:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Massimo http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-30175 Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:08:36 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-30175 Randy, Sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier in the week--it got busy. Thanks for your reply. I didn't want to leave you without any response. I think some of the questions regarding OT promises post-Joshua, if not all have been answered by Matt Weymeyer or Nate B on the 6/13 or 6/14 comments thread. I just wanted to understand a bit more of where you were coming from. Thanks. Massimo Randy,

Sorry I couldn’t get back to you earlier in the week–it got busy. Thanks for your reply. I didn’t want to leave you without any response. I think some of the questions regarding OT promises post-Joshua, if not all have been answered by Matt Weymeyer or Nate B on the 6/13 or 6/14 comments thread. I just wanted to understand a bit more of where you were coming from.

Thanks.

Massimo

]]> by: RandyT http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29805 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:23:24 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29805 Jesse Johnson, If Ezekiel 37:25 gave a time of 1,000 years I would say that you have made a very good point here. Ezekiel 37:25 does tell us how long this will be, but it is not for 1,000 years as the pre-mill people are trying to tell us. How long is it? Ezekiel 37:25 "Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." It is forever. Forever does not equal 1,000 years. Is there another explanation here. Yes, it can be referring to eternity when the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven as we read in Revelation 21:1-8 " Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.” And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” This is exactly what Jesus taught in John 14:1-4 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know.” Jesse Johnson,
If Ezekiel 37:25 gave a time of 1,000 years I would say that you have made a very good point here. Ezekiel 37:25 does tell us how long this will be, but it is not for 1,000 years as the pre-mill people are trying to tell us. How long is it?
Ezekiel 37:25 “Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever.”
It is forever. Forever does not equal 1,000 years. Is there another explanation here. Yes, it can be referring to eternity when the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven as we read in Revelation 21:1-8 ” Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
This is exactly what Jesus taught in John 14:1-4 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know.”

]]> by: Cindy http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29792 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:01:06 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29792 Randy, The Joshua 21:43-45 verse you cited as seeming to support the position that the promises to Israel have been fulfilled not only struck me as inconsistent with other scripture that, as Jesse's reply mentions, points to still future fulfillments, but also seemed outright contradictory with Judges 1:21 ("But the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites..."), and the way I reconcile the Joshua verses with the overwhelming verses to the contrary is by taking it in this broader context and noting such points that even though land was given, man didn't always do his part in possessing it (for ex the list in Judges 1:27 "But Manasseh did not take possession of Beth-shean and its villages, or ...") Randy,

The Joshua 21:43-45 verse you cited as seeming to support the position that the promises to Israel have been fulfilled not only struck me as inconsistent with other scripture that, as Jesse’s reply mentions, points to still future fulfillments, but also seemed outright contradictory with Judges 1:21 (”But the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites…”), and the way I reconcile the Joshua verses with the overwhelming verses to the contrary is by taking it in this broader context and noting such points that even though land was given, man didn’t always do his part in possessing it (for ex the list in Judges 1:27 “But Manasseh did not take possession of Beth-shean and its villages, or …”)

]]> by: Jesse Johnson http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29784 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:25:01 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29784 Randy, Many of the land promises were post-Joshua. For example, Ezekiel 36 (especially verse 28), 37 (esp. verse 25), Jeremiah 30:3, as well as several passages from the minor prophets. These passages are all post Joshua. Thanks, Jesse Randy,

Many of the land promises were post-Joshua. For example, Ezekiel 36 (especially verse 28), 37 (esp. verse 25), Jeremiah 30:3, as well as several passages from the minor prophets. These passages are all post Joshua.

Thanks,

Jesse

]]> by: art http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29783 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:09:29 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29783 Jesse, You said: BOQ A person could not accept the OT without receiving Christ when he came. EOQ The Pharisees and Sadducees did a pretty good job...as did the flourishing 1st century Jewish community. You can accept the OT without accepting that it points to Christ....as the Jewish community has done for thousands of years. The question becomes, "are they understanding it correctly?" To which the answer is "no" and which is the purpose of Christ's rebuke. And my question was not answered. Jesse,

You said:
BOQ
A person could not accept the OT without receiving Christ when he came.
EOQ

The Pharisees and Sadducees did a pretty good job…as did the flourishing 1st century Jewish community.

You can accept the OT without accepting that it points to Christ….as the Jewish community has done for thousands of years.

The question becomes, “are they understanding it correctly?” To which the answer is “no” and which is the purpose of Christ’s rebuke.

And my question was not answered.

]]> by: RandyT http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29777 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:14:16 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29777 Massimo wrote "1)What in this verse or its context leads you to think that the physical kingdom promised by the OT prophets is somehow redefined or even referenced by this text? To me at least, it seems like you are making an argument from silence that contradicts previously revealed Scripture, whereas Matt’s conclusions from Acts 1 are consistent with previously revealed Scripture. Please help me understand where you’re coming from." I don't quiet understand what you are saying here. Can you give me an example of what you are referring to. In my studying of eschatology I know that there are some people who believe that not all the promises of Genesis through Deuteronomy has been fulfilled concerning Israel. But this is contrary to what the word of God says. For in Joshua 21:43-45 says "So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The LORD gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass." And Joshua 23:14-16 "Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth. And you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spoke concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one word of them has failed. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all the good things have come upon you which the LORD your God promised you, so the LORD will bring upon you all harmful things, until He has destroyed you from this good land which the LORD your God has given you. When you have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed down to them, then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and you shall perish quickly from the good land which He has given you.” Massimo wrote "2) It seems like you are operating on the assumption that if a kingdom is not “of this world” (ek tou kosmou toutou) then it cannot be “in the world” (en tou kosmou). Jesus uses both phrases to refer to his disciples in John 17. They were “in the world” (John 17:11), but not “of the world” (John 17:14, 16). Can you provide the basis for making this assumption?" The New Testament, for example, Luke 17:20-21 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” RandyT Massimo wrote “1)What in this verse or its context leads you to think that the physical kingdom promised by the OT prophets is somehow redefined or even referenced by this text? To me at least, it seems like you are making an argument from silence that contradicts previously revealed Scripture, whereas Matt’s conclusions from Acts 1 are consistent with previously revealed Scripture. Please help me understand where you’re coming from.”

I don’t quiet understand what you are saying here. Can you give me an example of what you are referring to. In my studying of eschatology I know that there are some people who believe that not all the promises of Genesis through Deuteronomy has been fulfilled concerning Israel. But this is contrary to what the word of God says. For in Joshua 21:43-45 says “So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The LORD gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.” And Joshua 23:14-16 “Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth. And you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spoke concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one word of them has failed. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all the good things have come upon you which the LORD your God promised you, so the LORD will bring upon you all harmful things, until He has destroyed you from this good land which the LORD your God has given you. When you have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed down to them, then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and you shall perish quickly from the good land which He has given you.”

Massimo wrote “2) It seems like you are operating on the assumption that if a kingdom is not “of this world” (ek tou kosmou toutou) then it cannot be “in the world” (en tou kosmou). Jesus uses both phrases to refer to his disciples in John 17. They were “in the world” (John 17:11), but not “of the world” (John 17:14, 16). Can you provide the basis for making this assumption?”

The New Testament, for example, Luke 17:20-21 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

RandyT

]]> by: Jesse Johnson http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29772 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:24:02 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29772 Art, A person could not accept the OT without receiving Christ when he came. That is the point of Jesus' rebuke to the religious leaders in John 8. The Old Testament speaks of Christ, and points to him. If you believe that then, you submit to Christ. John 5:46-47 f you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" Jesse Jesse Art,

A person could not accept the OT without receiving Christ when he came. That is the point of Jesus’ rebuke to the religious leaders in John 8. The Old Testament speaks of Christ, and points to him. If you believe that then, you submit to Christ.
John 5:46-47 f you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

Jesse

Jesse

]]> by: art http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29767 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:42:48 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29767 If I was witnessing to someone who did not accept Christ or the NT, then would it be valid for me to attempt to convert them to Judaism in hopes that this "future restoration" happens within my lifetime? If I was witnessing to someone who did not accept Christ or the NT, then would it be valid for me to attempt to convert them to Judaism in hopes that this “future restoration” happens within my lifetime?

]]> by: Kristine T. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29766 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:41:23 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29766 Thanks, Matt. My Pastor has recently begun, what will likely become a 2-quarter class, on the Kingdom of God (and the eschatological implications of different interpretations) I'm an avid student of theology (still a pretty new Christian though...this June will be 1-year), and this is one area of doctrine that I've been ignorant of for long enough. Thank you for the thorough explanation of this particular argument. I've read quite a bit of material, overflowing with superficial and shallow arguments (from all sides); and, preparations such as this, are always a breath of fresh air. Thanks again, Matt! Kristine Thanks, Matt. My Pastor has recently begun, what will likely become a 2-quarter class, on the Kingdom of God (and the eschatological implications of different interpretations)

I’m an avid student of theology (still a pretty new Christian though…this June will be 1-year), and this is one area of doctrine that I’ve been ignorant of for long enough.

Thank you for the thorough explanation of this particular argument. I’ve read quite a bit of material, overflowing with superficial and shallow arguments (from all sides); and, preparations such as this, are always a breath of fresh air.

Thanks again, Matt!

Kristine

]]> by: Massimo http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29756 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:44:11 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/12/premillennial-passages-acts-1/#comment-29756 @RandyT I’ve heard John 18:36 brought up various times by those of the amill position, but still cannot understand the basis for the conclusions they draw from this text. Can you please clarify the following questions for me? 1)What in this verse or its context leads you to think that the physical kingdom promised by the OT prophets is somehow redefined or even referenced by this text? To me at least, it seems like you are making an argument from silence that contradicts previously revealed Scripture, whereas Matt’s conclusions from Acts 1 are consistent with previously revealed Scripture. Please help me understand where you’re coming from. 2) It seems like you are operating on the assumption that if a kingdom is not “of this world” (ek tou kosmou toutou) then it cannot be “in the world” (en tou kosmou). Jesus uses both phrases to refer to his disciples in John 17. They were “in the world” (John 17:11), but not “of the world” (John 17:14, 16). Can you provide the basis for making this assumption? Thanks, Massimo @RandyT

I’ve heard John 18:36 brought up various times by those of the amill position, but still cannot understand the basis for the conclusions they draw from this text. Can you please clarify the following questions for me?

1)What in this verse or its context leads you to think that the physical kingdom promised by the OT prophets is somehow redefined or even referenced by this text? To me at least, it seems like you are making an argument from silence that contradicts previously revealed Scripture, whereas Matt’s conclusions from Acts 1 are consistent with previously revealed Scripture. Please help me understand where you’re coming from.

2) It seems like you are operating on the assumption that if a kingdom is not “of this world” (ek tou kosmou toutou) then it cannot be “in the world” (en tou kosmou). Jesus uses both phrases to refer to his disciples in John 17. They were “in the world” (John 17:11), but not “of the world” (John 17:14, 16). Can you provide the basis for making this assumption?

Thanks,
Massimo

]]>