Replies

No. Read the whole sentence:

I did. In fact I quoted the whole thing.

I have to say that the systematic, literal, and very serious approach that you as a group take when it comes to soteriology, history, etc.

I think you have pointed out the precise reason why non-futurists believe as they do. They have done very hard work in other areas of theology, esp. soteriology and ecclesiology, and based on those assessments have not come to the futurist/literalist/Israel-centric view of eschatology.

We don't believe in putting the cart before the horse. Our eschatology flows from a coherent view of Christ's work and Christ's church. For instance, we cannot accept the radical distinction between Jew and gentile that some futurists make. Such a view would do great violence to biblical ecclesiology. As a result we cannot jump to the extreme conclusions about the place of nationalistic Israel in the futurist schema.

In short, we non-futurists take all what the Bible says about the second coming "seriously", we just cannot make eschatology preeminent over other areas of theology, especially when the resulting theories do violence to the rest of the Bible.

Here's a good example of such incomplete thinking:

Zion is Jerusalem, not Heaven, as even a cursory study of its use in the Old Testament will show.

Problem is we have more than just the Old Testament to teach us in this regard.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. (Heb. 12)
for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal. 4)

Do you just ignore what the New Testament says about the true Mount Zion? Or do you simply prefer the Old Testament?

The impact of these verses on our understanding of reality is profound. We (believers, both Jews and gentiles), have come to the heavenly Mount Zion, the new Jerusalem. The New Testament explains all those Old Testament propmises in magnificant details.

Furthermore, Psalm 110 makes it clear that Christ sits at the Father's right hand, "Until I make Your enemies Your footstool" (v. 1). In other words, it's a temporary position until He sets His throne bodily on the earth, as all the Scriptures affirm will happen.

Again, why do you assume that until means that there is a change of location? Your "in other words" is based on an assumption not found in the text. In fact is is counter to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

But according to some futurist theory, this is not the "end" because you still have to account for a literal 1000 year reign on earth, where death still reigns. The conquest of death, in the futurist scheme, doesn't happen until the end of the thousand years. So you need to insert a "gap" between two verses.

Non-futurists try to account for all that the Bible says that would impact our understanding of the second coming, not just focusing on select, pet verses.

They have done very hard work in other areas of theology, esp. soteriology and ecclesiology, and based on those assessments have not come to the futurist/literalist/Israel-centric view of eschatology.

To turn this around, are you claiming that futurists have not done very hard work in soteriology, ecclesiology, and other areas of theology? I daresay you could not back up that argument.

For instance, we cannot accept the radical distinction between Jew and gentile that some futurists make.

In regards to salvation in Christ, there is no distinction; however, no where does the Bible say that there is no Israel outside the Church--on the contrary, Paul builds a rather extensive case in Romans 9-11 that while there is a remnant of Israel saved within the Church and many of her branches were broken off so that we could be grafted in, that the day would come when God would graft the natural branches back in, "and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written." Thus, Paul draws a distinction between Israel (the natural branches) and the "Gentile" Church (the wild branches).

Futurist eschatology does no violence whatsoever to the rest of the Bible. On the contrary, we believe that God says what He means and means what He says. Since God promises repeatedly in the OT and New to bring Israel back into a right relationship with Himself and that His Messiah will rule from David's throne in Jerusalem, we don't try to twist that.

We've been over this before, doubtless we will again.

Regarding the two passages you cite, I would point out that in Galatians Paul says flat out that he is speaking of Hagar and Sarah and their sons as prophetic types, per v. 24--"which things are symbolic" or "an allegory," and he is comparing the covenant of the flesh--the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic--with the covenant of grace. That does not mean that you can take all of the plainly-spoken prophecies of the OT that the Messiah would rule from Jerusalem and David's throne and twist them to be an allegory of the New Jerusalem.

In regards to Hebrews, it must be pointed out that the fact that we the Church ultimately have our homes in the New Jerusalem in no way presupposes that God cannot either previously or simultaniously restore Old Jerusalem.

One can also understand the passage in the same sense as this one from chapter 11: "And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them." In other words, the "heavenly country" is not in contrast to the physical land of Israel, but to Ur of the Chaldees. Israel, when Christ Comes again, will be a "heavenly country"--both in the sense of being paradisical and in the sense of being ruled from heaven.

One could expect the same regarding a "heavenly" Jerusalem here on the earth. There are other reconcilliations that have been proposed, but we needn't go through each one.

The New Testament explains all those Old Testament propmises in magnificant details.

No it doesn't. It says that we are citizens in the Kingdom of Heaven now, and that Christ rules from Heaven, but it never once attempts to explain away all of God's promises to Israel as being fulfilled only in allegory in the Church. I mean, you have to pull two NT quotes completely out of context to aborigate away more than 2/3rds of the rest of the Bible. That seems rather out-of-balance to me.

Again, I commend Romans 9-11 to your study:

I say then, have they (Israel) stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their (Israel again) being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
. . . For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins."
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

So tell me, is the Church its own enemy because of the Gospel? Or is Paul saying in no uncertain terms that yes, Israel has fallen because they chose legalism over faith, but that God's plan is to restore the whole nation? Not just the remnant already within the Church (which he deals with in chapter 10), but the whole nation.

You may try to dodge around this issue all you want. But rest assured, the futurist position is not based on a confusion about who and what the Church is or an ignorance of the New Testament.

Again, why do you assume that until means that there is a change of location?

Because otherwise the "until" is superfluous and misleading, and I don't believe that either is ever true with God's Word. Why do you assume that it does not?

But according to some futurist theory, this is not the "end" because you still have to account for a literal 1000 year reign on earth, where death still reigns.

It doesn't exactly "reign" as it does now, but I understand your point. But let's put that aside for a moment, since millenniumism is not our main argument at the moment and I don't want to be sidetracked: I'm still waiting for you to explain how death has been conquered in the here and now. Please, point me to the immortal Christians.