Posted on 08/24/2014 10:55:16 AM PDT by wmfights
While modern premillennialism depends upon Scriptural foundations for its apologetic and theological statement, it has nevertheless a significant historical context. It is regrettable that some historians have held low views of premillennialism, with the result that premillennialism has seldom had fair consideration in historical treatments of Christian doctrine. Liberals and skeptics surveying the evidence with theological indifference have often arrived at a fairer view of the evidence for premillennialism in history than those endeavoring to defend another millennial position.
It is hardly within the province of a theological study of premillennialism to include an adequate history of the doctrine. An exhaustive modern study of the subject remains for someone to undertake. Fortunately, the main issues are clear in even a casual study, and the significant evidence in relation to premillennialism can hardly be disputed by any scholarly sources produced to date. The evidence for premillennialism in the Old and New Testaments and in the literature and theology of the early church at least in its main elements is commonly recognized. It needs here only to be restated as forming the historical context of modern premillennialism. This testimony unites in one river of evidence that the theology of the Old and New Testament and the theology of the early church was not only prellennial, but that its premillennialism was practically undisputed except by heretics and skeptics until the time of Augustine. The coming of Christ as the prelude for the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness on earth in fulfillment of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies was the almost uniform expectation, both of the Jews at the time of the incarnation and of the early church. This is essential premillennialism however it may differ in its details from its modern advanced counterpart. Old Testament supports the premillennial viewpoint and that the Jews at the time of Christ held just such views of the Old Testament.
Amillenarians have followed two main routes to escape the logical result of this admission. The first has been to hold that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament was wrong. This is essentially the position of Hamilton quoted above. While he admits, “In fact, the Jews were looking for just such a kingdom to be set up by the Messiah in Jerusalem,”3 he continues, “Jesus Himself, in speaking of that whole idea said, ‘The kingdom of God is within (or, in the midst of) you’ (Luke 17:21), thus contradicting the idea that it was to be an earthly, literal, Jewish kingdom.”4 As he goes on to explain, the error in the premillennial interpretation is that they interpret the prophecies literally, just as the Jews did.
The other route followed by amillenarians is another expedient for disposing of the prophecies of the Old Testament without literal fulfillment. This line of thought is to admit that the Old Testament prophecies rightly promise the Jews a kingdom on earth as usually presented by premillenarians, but to cancel this promise on the ground that it was conditioned on faith and obedience. In other words, the promise will never be fulfilled because Israel failed. As Allis puts it, “…obedience is the precondition of blessing under all circumstances.”5 He goes on to argue that obedience is the condition for fulfillment of all God’s covenant relations, specifically the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the Gospel of grace.6
These two lines of amillennial argument, are, of course, contradictory. One assumes that a literal interpretation is right but fulfillment is forfeited for disobedience. The other assumes that literal interpretation is wrong and therefore only spiritual fulfillment is to be expected. Amillenarians like Allis use both principles even though their respective premises nullify each other. It is plain that they are determined at all costs to dispose of these kingdom promises without being too particular as to what method is followed. Premillenarians hold, of course, that the promises are unconditional and to be interpreted literally, and that premillennialism as found in the New Testament confirms the premillennialism of the Old Testament in no uncertain terms.
Premillennialism in the New Testament
The answer to the amillennial objection to premillennial interpretation of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament in two principal forms. First, the expectation of the Jews for literal fulfillment of the kingdom promises is confirmed. Second, this confirmation proves that the Old Testament promises are unconditional as to ultimate literal fulfillment.
It has been noted that rightly or wrongly it was the universal expectation of the Jews that the kingdom promises would be literally fulfilled. What does the New Testament have to say about this expectation? In Luke 1:32-33, Mary is told by the angel, in relation to the child Jesus, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” In view of the common Jewish expectation, how would Mary interpret such a prophecy? It should certainly be clear that she would consider it a confirmation of the literal interpretation and literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. She would naturally expect that her child Jesus would sit on an earthly Davidic throne. In spite of the disobedience of Israel in the Old Testament, and the long years in which no one sat on the throne of David, here was confirmation of the precise expectation common among the Jews. Did Mary for one moment hold the amillenarian view? Would she spiritualize this passage—the throne of David is God’s throne in heaven; the kingdom is a spiritual kingdom; Israel is synonymous with the church? Certainly not! It was totally foreign to her thinking. If the amillenarians are right, Mary was sadly deceived. The prophecy of the angel could hardly have been better worded to confirm the ordinary Jewish hope as well as the exact essentials of the premillennial position—the literal and earthly fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.
It is, of course, true that Christ taught much concerning the spiritual aspects of God’s kingdom. The Messianic kingdom on earth following the second advent by no means exhausts kingdom truth. The important point is, however, that whenever the precise kingdom promises of the Old Testament are introduced, these promises and their literal fulfillment are never denied, corrected, or altered, but are instead confirmed.
There is much positive evidence in the New Testament for premillennial teachings. It is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as their King and Messiah, not as their Savior, and in so doing fulfilled literally those prophecies dealing with His rejection and death. His rejection did not alter the kingdom promises, however. When the mother of James and John sought special privilege for her sons in the kingdom (Matt 20:20-23), her request was not denied on the ground that she had a mistaken idea of the kingdom, but rather that the privilege she requested was to be given to those chosen by the Father. Again Christ the night before His rejection and crucifixion told His disciples that they would sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom (Luke 22:29-30). In Acts 1:6, when the disciples wanted to know when the kingdom was going to be restored to Israel, they were not told that they were in error, that the kingdom would never be restored to Israel, but only that it was not for them to know the “times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1:7). When Paul raises the question concerning the future of Israel, in Romans 9-11 , and considers the possibility of God rescinding His promises to them as a nation and casting them off forever, he exclaims, “God forbid” (Rom 11:1). The whole tenor of Romans 9-11 is to the point that while Israel for the present is cut off the olive tree of blessing, Israel is scheduled to be restored at the second advent, when the Deliverer will come out of Zion. It is expressly stated in this regard that “the gifts and callings of God are without repentance” (Rom 11:29), i.e., that God will fulfill His purpose regarding the nation Israel.
The book of Revelation is, of course, the classic passage on premillennialism. Revelation, while subject to all types of scholarly abuse and divergent interpretation, if taken in its plain intent yields a simple outline of premillennial truth—first a time of great tribulation, then the second advent, the binding of Satan, the deliverance and blessing of the saints, a righteous government on earth for 1000 years, followed by the final judgments and the new heaven and new earth. The only method of interpretation of Revelation which has ever yielded a consistent answer to the question of its meaning is that which interprets the book, however symbolic, as having its general revelation plain, one to be fulfilled literally, and therefore subject to future fulfillment.
One of the most eloquent testimonies to premillennial truth is found in the absolute silence of the New Testament, and for that matter the early centuries of the church, on any controversy over premillennial teaching. It is admitted that it was universally held by the Jews. It is often admitted that the early church was predominantly premillennial. Yet there is no record of any kind dealing with controversy. It is incredible that if the Jews and the early church were in such a serious error in their interpretation of the Old Testament and in their expectation of a righteous kingdom on earth following the second advent, that there should be no corrective, and that all the evidence should confirm rather than deny such an interpretation. The general context of the New Testament is entirely in favor of the premillennial viewpoint. The amillennial interpretation has not one verse of positive testimony in the New Testament and can be sustained ony by spiritualizing the prophecies of the Old Testament as well as the teaching of the New.
Extra-Biblical Premillennialism in the First Cenrury
The available evidence in regard to the premillennialism of the first century is not extensive by most standards, but such evidence as has been uncovered points in one direction—the premillennial concept. Peters in his classic work, The Theocratic Kingdom, cites no less than fifteen advocates of premillennialism in the first century.7 While his classification in some cases no doubt is debatable, in others it is undisputed. The notable testimony of Papias, who was associated with the Apostle John, is of special weight. Papias who lived in the first century and the beginning of the second lists as adherents of premillennialism Aristio, John the Presbyter and the Apostles Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew. He certainly was in a position to know their views, and his testimony is an important link in sustaining the fact that the disciples continued in the Jewish expectation of a kingdom on earth. Peters also lists as premillenarians Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. In previous discussion of amillennialism, it was shown that the prevailing opinion of both amillenarians and premillenarians that Barnabas is premillennial in his views is fully justified. Hermas also is conceded by practically all parties as premillennial. In other words, there are clear and unmistakable evidences of premillennialism in the first century. Further, this viewpoint is linked extra-biblically with the apostles themselves. In contrast to these clear evidences, not one adherent, not one line of evidence is produced sustaining the idea that any first-century Christians held Augustinian amillennialism—that the interadvent period was the millennial. Further, there is no evidence whatever that premillennialism was even disputed. It was the overwhelming-majority view of the early church.
Premillennialism in the Second Century
The second century like the first bears a sustained testimony to the premillennial character of the early church. Even the amillenarians claim no adherents whatever by name to their position in the second century except in the allegorizing school of interpretation which arose at the very close of the second century. Premillennialism was undisputed for the first ninety years of the second century. Among those who can be cited in this century as holding premillennialism Peters names Pothinus, Justin Martyr, Melito, Hegesippus, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Apollinaris.8 Of these Justin Martyr (100-168) is quite outspoken. He wrote: “But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned, and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65:17 ), ‘Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people to rejoice,’ etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil a thousand years at Jerusalem; and after that the general, and in a word, the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made the sons of the resurrection of God.”9
While even modern premillenarians might not accept the details of Justin’s interpretation, the notable fact is that he clearly states the essentials of premillennialism—the second advent, followed by a thousand-year reign and the separating of the resurrections before and after the millennium. Further, Justin declares that this view which he advocates is generally accepted as the orthodox view of the church. Peters accordingly cites the conclusion of Semisch in Herzog’s cyclopaedia, “Chiliasm constituted in the sec. century so decidedly an article of faith that Justin held it up as a criterion of perfect orthodoxy.”10
The testimony of Justin is by no means unsustained by others, as Peters shows. Pothinus taught his churches at Lyons and Vienne premillennial doctrine which was continued by Irenaeus his successor. Melito, the bishop of Sardis, is declared a premillenarian by Shimeall in his Reply, based on Jerome and Genadius. Tertullian is generally regarded as a premillenarian. Others are less certain but the evidence, such as it is, seems to point to their holding similar positions.
In general, the second century, then, has a similar testimony to the first. All characters who have anything to say on the subject are premillennial and this is set forth as the orthodox opinion of the church. Those who may have denied it were classified as heretics, not simply for being opposed to premillennialism but for other reasons. The first opposition to premillennialism did not become vocal until the opening of the third century. Amillenarians and postmillenarians have not only no positive evidence in favor of their position but no evidence that there was even a reasonable minority in the church contending against premillennialism. Apparently no one of the orthodox Fathers thought of challenging this important doctrine in the first two centuries.
Premillennialism in the Third Century
In the third century premillennialism began its historic decline, and it is admitted by all that opposition arose to premillennial ideas. Opponents of premillennialism are found in Gaius, Clement, Origen, Dionysius, and others. The form in which the attack came consisted in the adoption of the allegorizing method of interpreting Scripture in a manner which is no credit to amillennialism. Rutgers, though a determined foe of premillennialism, analyzes Clement, for instance, as follows: “Clement, engrossed and charmed by Greek philosophy, applied this erroneous allegorical method to Holy Writ. It was a one-sided emphasis: opposed to the real, the visible, phenomenal, spacial and temporal. A Platonic idealistic philosophy could not countenance carnalistic, sensualistic conceptions of the future as that advanced by chiliasm. It shook the very foundations on which chiliasm rested. Robertson observed that ‘it loosed its [chiliasm’s] sheet-anchor,—naïve literalism in the interpretation of Scripture.’“11
It is not surprising that opposition to premillennialism should arise. All forms of true doctrine have opposition and even the majority view in the history of doctrine is not necessarily the right one. The point of great significance is the form in which the opposition arose. It was not the product of orthodox studies in the Scripture, nor of the application of tried and true hermeneutics. It was rather the subversion of the plain meaning of Scripture not only as applied to the millennial question but all other areas of doctrine. The church today with one voice condemns all of the early opponents of premillennialism as heretics. Opposition to premillennialism had its rise in the attackers of true Scriptural doctrine, and it was not until the time of Augustine (354-430) that one reputable adherent of amillennialism can be cited. The opposition of premillennialism in the third century is no asset to amillennialism. While amillenarians may hail the conclusions of the enemies of premillennialism, they accept neither the general method nor the theology of those who participated in the attack. Usually, like Allis, amillenarians abandon the early centuries as a lost cause and begin with Augustine.
The third century had its own continued witness to premillennialism, however. Among those who can be cited are Cyprian (200-258), Commodian (200-270), Nepos (230-280), Coracion (230-280), Victorinus (240-303), Methodius (250-311), and Lactantius (240-330). Some of these like Commodian and Nepos are undisputed premillenarians. Nepos early recognized the heretical tendencies of the Alexandrian school of theology, which was the first effective opponent of premillennialism, and he attacked them with vigor. Methodius is conceded as premillenarian by Whitby himself. It is clear, however, that a rising tide of opposition was beginning to manifest itself against premillennialism, and while the church managed to extricate itself from much of the other bad doctrine of the Alexandrian school, premillennialism became in time one of the fatalities. Premillennialism from the Third Century to Modern Times
All admit that premillennialism after the third century waned and lost its hold on the majority of the church. It was the time of the rising strength of the Roman Church. Both the theological and political atmosphere was against it. While there was a continued minority who held premillennialism both within and without the Roman Church, they were not very vocal and were quite ineffectual in continuing a strong testimony. The Reformers, while returning to true doctrine in many areas, accepted Augustine as the starting point for their theology, and for the most part accepted without much consideration his opposition to premillennialism. The fact that premillennialism was held by some fanatical sects did not give it much standing. It remained for the renewal of Scriptural studies some time after the Reformation to turn the attention of a large portion of the church again to the premillennial question. The last hundred years have brought premillennialism out of its partial eclipse, and among those who accept the inspiration of Scripture it continues to be an area of lively discussion. Most Bible institutes as well as some theological seminaries are today propagating premillennial truth, and scores of evangelical preachers, teachers, and missionaries, as well as widespread publications present premillennialism.
Modern Premillennialism
The general features of modern premillennialism are highly significant and need to be outlined before assuming the larger task of the analysis and defense of premillennial doctrine. Even a casual observer of the premillennial movement in the twentieth century can see certain important tendencies.
Infallibility of Scripture. Premillennialism is based on the thesis of the infallibility of Scripture. It stands or falls not only on the method of interpretation of Scripture, but also on the question of the infallibility of the Holy Scripture. For this reason, premillennialism is entirely confined to those who are conservative in their general theological position. Premillennialism has always been the foe of liberal theology and of unbelief in the Scriptures. It has often been attacked for this very reason. Much of the modern zeal of its opponents has not arisen in love for doctrinal purity, but in hatred of conservative Biblical theology. To be a premillenarian exposes one at once to all who have departed from conservative theology. Premillennialism remains a bulwark against the inroads of modern theology.
Literal interpretation. Modern premillennialism is dependent upon the principle of literal interpretation. Premillennialism is a result of the application of this method to Scriptural interpretation. It is accordingly the foe of modern liberal spiritualization of all areas of theology as well as the more confined spiritualization of conservative amillenarians. The literal method of interpretation is also vitally related to Biblical dispensationalism. The recognition of Biblical dispensations and the proper statement of dispensational distinctions is not in itself a method of interpretation but rather a result of a method—the application of the literal method. Anti-dispensationalists are always guilty of various degrees of spiritualization of Scripture. The dispensational method is the literal method. In this connection it should also be noted that extremes in dispensational distinctions do not have their rise in a more rigid literal method, but rather in the area of general interpretation. Extreme dispensationalism which divides the interadvent period into Jewish and Gentile churches, and makes much of the New Testament non-applicable to modern churches, is not more or less literal than ordinary dispensationalism. It is misapplication of the literal method rather than its proper use.
Evangelicalism. Premillennialism has been definitely an evangelical movement. While often charged with pessimism regarding this world and with “other-worldliness,” premillennialism has been a large factor in modern effective Gospel preaching. A premillenarian is usually a believer in the orthodox Gospel and an adherent of Biblical theology in all major areas. Premillennialism among other things has opposed legalism or the Galatian error as it exists today and has upheld the doctrine of grace both as the ground of salvation and as a rule of life for the believer.
Opposition to ecclesiasticism. Premillennialism has tended to be more independent of human and ecclesiastical opinions and more inclined to exalt the Scriptures and the guidance of the Holy Spirit as a basis for conduct. The modern tendency to exalt church programs often pursued in the energy of the flesh rather than in the power of the Spirit, and the trend to exalt submission to church authority rather than to the Holy Spirit have had no encouragement from premillennialism. Premillennialism has supported exegetical preaching, informal church services, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and extemporaneous prayers in contrast to the ritualism, formalism, and mechanical tendency of modern Christianity.
Emphasis on prophetic studies. It is transparent that premillennialism has also exalted the study of prophetic truth. In contrast to the common neglect of even the essential doctrines of the second advent, heaven, hell, and final judgment, usually omitted from liberal theological preaching, premillennialism has focused the white light of careful investigation on Scriptural teachings concerning future things. Prophetic Bible conferences are inevitably premillennial in their doctrine. Neither amillennialism nor postmillennialism ever aroused much interest in prophecy.
Such is the historical context of modern premillennialism. Rooted in the Old and New Testaments, a product of literal interpretation, nurtured by the Apostles and the early church, eclipsed for centuries by the dark shadows of pagan philosophies and allegorizing methods of interpretation, emerging once more as a dominant strain in Biblical theology in these eschatological times, premillennialism is more than a theory, more than a doctrine. It is a system of Biblical interpretation which alone honors the Word of God as infallibly inspired, literally interpreted, and sure of literal fulfillment. It has stirred the coals of evangelicalism, created interest in Biblical study, and constituted a preparation of God’s people for the coming of the Lord for His saints. Premillennial truth has been an inestimable blessing to those who have received it. To them the Bible has become a living book to be interpreted in its ordinary sense. It is significant that the Bible study movements have usually been premillennial, and institutions which emphasize the study of the text of Scripture, as illustrated in the Bible institute movement, have often been an integral part of the premillennial movement.
The larger task of examining the foundations of Biblical premillennialism remains before us. The method of approach will be first of all general, then specific, and we trust with profit to the readers.
Dallas, Texas
(Series to be continued in the July-September Number, 1951)
This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.
3 Ibid., p. 39.
4 Loc. cit.
5 Allis, op. cit., p. 33.
6 Ibid., pp. 32-48.
7 G. N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, I, 494-95.
8 Ibid., I, 495-96.
9 Ibid., I, 480.
10 Loc. cit.
11 W. H. Rutgers, Premillennialism in America, p. 64.
Ah, now the truth is leaking out through emotional outbursts in caps, sort of like when the word "homey" slipped out. Why the subterfuge ? Why was it so difficult for you to admit you are not Catholic ?
look up Law of the Gospel or New Law in the catechism. FYI - caps are for emphasis not shouting or as you say emotional outbursts.
the word “homey” slipped out, what does that tell you?
You are encouraged??? Look, Pharaoh, we don't need yet another diversion lesson about the gospel. Avoiding the REAL question is indicative of NOT having an answer. So, what DO those passages mean? Who is being spoken to here and why does God say what He said to them? It's pretty obvious that the wife of Jehovah and the bride of Christ are NOT both the "church". One is an unfaithful wife who was put away for adultery and the other is a spotless, pure, virgin. Do you at least get that?
>> “Revelation is very symbolic and needs to be interpreted...” <<
.
Spoken like a true nicolaitan!
Nothing in Revelation is symbolic, it is John’s representation of what he saw, some of which he had no way of identifying but saying what the closest thing to it he had ever seen in his life was.
None of God’s word is to be “interpreted.”
To interpret is to change, which is forbidden.
It is to be read and heard.
.
>> “ It’s pretty obvious that the wife of Jehovah and the bride of Christ are NOT both the “church”. One is an unfaithful wife who was put away for adultery and the other is a spotless, pure, virgin” <<
.
Hosea says that the adulterous wife that was put away is to be taken back! (But he couldn’t explain how)
This was the “mystery” that Paul had to explain in Romans 7.
The husband of the adulterous wife died!
If her husband dies, she can re-marry.
The adulterous wife was who Paul spent his days ministering to, the “strangers” dispersed across the north shore of the Mediterranean. The lost sheep.
I am glad to hear you say that, many on here I am afraid would not agree with that statement.
Far far far fewer than you seem to imagine, and against which we have contended, if you mean they think Jews now do not need to be saved. But if you deny that the Jews as a total group can be called Israel then it is you who are being unScriptural.
what do you mean “ full inclusion of the Jews” and a special turning to the Lord by them? I don’t see that any where in Scripture.
If you cannot see it then see here , but it is time for you to start answering if you deny that the Lord's return cannot happen because a hardening has come upon part of Israel, the Jews, until the full number of the Gentiles take part in salvation, resulting in the full inclusion of the Jews in the Lords salvation, so that all Israel will be saved, as the remaining natural branches come to faith and become part of spiritual Israel.
For as by Israel's rejection the Gentiles were spiritually grafted into the olive tree planted by God, joining true Jews, so the acceptance of Christ by the natural branches will mean life from the dead.
I have previously linked to and quoted the Catholic Catechism regarding observance of the Ten Commandments (which you deny), and and the portion about "all Israel" (which you also deny). That tells me you are not an observant Catholic, so we are at an impasse, not that there is a lack of a supersecessionist sects that reflect your comments. I just don't want the Catholic label applied to them when they are clearly outside and contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The slang may be a dialect learned In training, as it were.
I will ask again. Where in Matthew 24 or 25 do we get the finality of 2 Peter 3:10.
I pointed this out several times for a reason. As in the literal, not symbolic, accounts of Revelation 19-21. The second coming and Day of The Lord are recorded in chapter 19. We agree those are literal yet to occur events. In chapter 20 we have the literal first and second resurrections separated by a 1,000 years and then the GWT judgment. Then we have in chapter 21 the literal passing of the old creation for the new. That is where Peter’s passage comes to be.
I will also point out Revelation is an unveiling, thus the name and is credited by John in chapter one as coming directly from Christ. We cannot ignore that fact.
I also encourage you to look at all the NT and OT passages on The Day of The Lord.
I see there are some postings I am anxious to respond to, but am caught at the office tonight. will try to respind tomorrow night, if not, certainly this weekend. I think this is an important dialogue.
I will ask again. Where in Matthew 24 or 25 do we get the finality of 2 Peter 3:10
___________
the two chapters begin with the question posed to Jesus by his disciples “ what will be the sign of your coming AND THE END OF THE AGE”
you can’t get any more final than the end of the age! please note, the disciples connected the second coming with the end of the world. further in v29 we read “after the tribulation of those days”, so this tells us the Church is still on earth during the tribulation, “ THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED”....this is another point of the FINALITY of this day, no life can be sustained on the earth without the heat and sunlight generated by the sun. but since this is JUDGEMENT DAY, the need for the sun is finished.
v30 tells us this is the second coming as the Son of man returns with power AND GREAT GLORY.
fast forward to Chapter 25 v31, “when the Son of man comes in his GLORY....”. this shows us Matthew 24 and 25 are both describing the SAME DAY, the Day of the Lord, the end of the world.
of course this line up perfectly not only with 2 Peter 3:10, but also 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 “ Christ the first fruits, THEN AT HIS COMING, those who belong to Christ. THEN COMES THE END.....”
THE End..... can’t get any more final than that.
the problem that those who oppose historical Christianity have is they can’t reconcile their teaching with ALL THE SCRIPTURES. of course, the Church has the advantage of 2,000 years to harmonize all the Scriptures with the Faith received orally from all the Apostles.
no one can find any 1,000 literal earthly reign in Matthew 24-25.
no one also can find the second coming in Revelation 19.
please see Revelation 20:9, the Church ( the camp of the saints and the beloved city ) is still on earth. If the second coming had already occurred, the SUN would be dark and the judgement would have happened already.
the second coming happens at Revelation 20:9 and extends thru the judgement to v15.
the second coming at Revelation 20:9 matches perfectly with what Paul says will happen at the second coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
I will ask again, where do you find the 1,000 year millennial reign in Matthew 24-25? You must concede Matthew 25:31 is the same as Revelation 20:11, which in your mind happens after the 1,000 year reign. so somewhere between 24:29 and 25:31 is the millennial reign...can you tell me where it is?
The only conclusion you can come to is to either ignore Revelation 20:1-10 or discount Revelation as inspired scriptures. What did Peter say prior to verse 10? What is a day to God? How long might be the Great Day of The Lord?
2 Peter 3:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Going to Isaiah 61 which outlines the first and second advents.
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,...(KJV)
The above Jesus read as we see in Luke 4. He stopped reading at this point:
Luke 4:
16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,[j]
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”[k]
20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”(KJV)
Jesus stopped there, where we record as Isaiah 61:1-2b.
Here’s the rest of the Isaiah passage depicting the second coming:
Isaiah 61:
...and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.
4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.
5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.(KJV)
See verse 4. Verse 6 is a match for Revelation 20:6.
Then following this we have Isaiah 62 which continues the same prophesy:
Isaiah 62 King James Version (KJV)
62 For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.
3 Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.
4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.
5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.
6 I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the Lord, keep not silence,
7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.(KJV)
Please keep reading the following chapters. It is not until chapter 65 do we see mention of new heavens and new earth. Loads going on during the Day of the Lord. With God a day can be a thousand years. Peter states so before 2 Peter 3:10.
I read the article you linked to and was shocked at how it utterly misstates the historical Christian doctrine.
the article says it is a “response to a doctrine that holds the Church has wholly REPLACED Israel as the inheritor of all the promises....”
I know of no one that teaches that the Church REPLACED Israel....for the 1,000th time it seems like, here is the doctrine:
The Church IS Israel.
I am going to say it again:
THE CHURCH IS ISRAEL.
Jesus Christ Himself is Israel.
Those who are in a COVENANT RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ, are GOD’S PEOPLE, Israel.
in the OT, the old covenant was with the physical descendants of Abraham, the Jewish people. but the old covenant was unable to bring salvation, and God in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel promised a new, everlasting covenant would be made with Israel.
this new covenant, sealed by the blood of Jesus was superior to the old one it replaced in that it was able to bring salvation to those covered by it. whereas the old covenant was with the physical descendants of Abraham, the new covenant would be with the descendants of Abraham in faith.
both the old and new covenant were made WITH ISRAEL. but since national Israel ( physical Jews ) REJECTED Jesus for the most part, God turned to the Gentile nations and invited them to this covenant relationship as well any believing Jews and together the believing Jews and believing Gentiles comprise ALL OF ISRAEL.
Jesus pointed to this future change in the composition of Israel in the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22 and the one shepherd one flock in John 10.
or as Paul says in Romans 9:8 “ this means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants”
Romans 9-11 to clearly shows there are two Israels -
physical or national Israel, who we would refer to as Jews today.
spiritual Israel, those in Christ or what we would refer to as the Church today.
Romans 11 is written to make the point that physical Israel is not cursed, that they can be saved ( grafted back in ) , but the only way this can happen is the same way the Gentiles were grafted in, that is acceptance of the Gospel.
but the point is made that any physical Jew that rejects the Gospel, is cut off and is not part of the olive tree ( Israel )
the olive tree is based on faith, not flesh.
the article twists “Israel” so, that when it comes to v26 “and so all Israel will be saved”, you had to put in parenthesis ( what is left of it ) huh?
all means all, not what is left of it.
again, the problem with false doctrine always comes back to not harmonizing all the Scriptures and also the rejection of the historical Faith.
I am curious to know if you believe Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 32:37-41 have been fulfilled or not and if they have been fulfilled, when did this happen?
maybe we can make a little progress if we leave the silly insults aside and have a discussion.
since you deny the wife of Jehovah is the same as the bride of Christ, can you point to me anywhere in the NT, the wife of Jehovah is dealt with?
what happens to this wife?
as I thought, you didn’t deal with Matthew 24-25, which is specifically about the second coming and end of the world.
the historical faith doesn’t ignore Revelation 20:1-10, it describes the period in history we are in now - from the cross to the second coming.
2 Peter is dealing with scoffers in latter days, saying when is Jesus coming? Peter is merely saying Jesus will keep his promise and return in due time, after all to the Lord a day is like a 1,000 years.
but that doesn’t change v10, that when the day of the Lord does come, THE HEAVENS WILL PASS AWAY AND THE EARTH WILL BE BURNED UP. matches perfectly with Matthew 24-25 and 1 Corinthians 15.
Assuming this is correct, then Moses was seriously overlooked in the Catholic book of saints. He does not even have feast day and youngsters are not using Moses for confirmation names. And St Moses the black does not count different man.
I'm sure Moses passes the holy living and miracles criteria. So if the church is Israel then you need to pony up and recognize the OT saints.
good point, write the Pope and maybe he will correct this oversight.
here is a question for you -
how is life sustained on earth during the millennial reign if the sun is not giving it’s heat or light? this is an impossibility as any scientist will tell you.
Wow already finished with 5 chapters of Isaiah. Here’s a thought. Jesus told all assembled in Luke 4 the portions of Isaiah 61:1-2b were fulfilled in their presence. Are we to conclude the remainder of the prophecy stretching for four chapters will be. Unfulfilled or dismiss it. The first 1.5 verses of the prophecy were literally fulfilled as announced by Christ Jesus.
Already been there, done that. RE-read the posts, maybe you’ll get it.
Your "argument by outrage" is spurious, and once again avoids the questions asked of you. Why do you continually do so? Can you at least affirm or deny that the Lord's return awaits His recognition by all living Israel/Jews upon whom a hardening has come? Meanwhile, it is not all clear what you are objecting to.
I know of no one that teaches that the Church REPLACED Israel....for the 1,000th time it seems like, here is the doctrine: The Church IS Israel.
You are using outrage over a semantic term that sees variation, and if you are saying the church is a continuation of Israel but not a replacement is largely a distinction without a difference, as if all the promises to Israel now only belong to the church, not to the physical descendants of Abraham, then in essence the church has replaced Israel. And it seems in your past arguments that you objected to including Jewish people in the definition of Israel.
Catholicism is seen as holding to a form of "supersessionism " which designates the belief that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God's chosen people. As can be seen, this includes different degrees of replacement theology. I am refuting the premise that this means the church has wholly replaced Israel as the inheritor of all the promises.
Do deny that a hardening toward Christ by natural Israel has come?
And that the Lord's return awaits recognition by all of natural Israel, resulting in the full inclusion of the Jews in the Lords' salvation, which will occur when the full number of the Gentiles enter into the body of Christ?
And that a false Christ will arise before the Lord can return, with persecution coming upon the people of God?
Those who are in a COVENANT RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ, are GOD’S PEOPLE, Israel. in the OT, the old covenant was with the physical descendants of Abraham, the Jewish people. but the old covenant was unable to bring salvation, and God in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel promised a new, everlasting covenant would be made with Israel.
That is not in dispute, yet the physical descendants of Abraham are yet "beloved for the fathers' sakes," (Rm. 11:18) and are dealt with as a distinct people, Israel. And whose overall rejection of Christ meant the inclusion of the Gentiles, until the full number of the Gentiles are saved, at which time the veil of blindness shall be removed, and so all Israel shall be saved, with all natural Jews believing and joining saved Gentiles and Jews.
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Romans 11:7)
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (Romans 11:12)
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Romans 11:25)
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (Romans 11:26)
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (Romans 11:31,32)
Romans 11 is written to make the point that physical Israel is not cursed, that they can be saved ( grafted back in )
If that is all it is teaching then it renders much of the chapter superfluous, as what it contextually teaches is a special judgment of blindness being placed upon Jews, and which is taken away when the full number of the Gentiles are entered into the spiritual kingdom of Christ.
but the only way this can happen is the same way the Gentiles were grafted in, that is acceptance of the Gospe
This is not in dispute, but that the Lord's return awaits His recognition by all Israel upon whom a hardening has come, seems to be the problem.
the olive tree is based on faith, not flesh.
True, but in the historical sense the Gentiles as a wild tree are grafted into the valid olive tree that God planted, and thus when Jews believe then they are grafted into their own olive tree.
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. (Romans 11:18)
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? (Romans 11:24)
the article twists “Israel” so, that when it comes to v26 “and so all Israel will be saved”, you had to put in parenthesis ( what is left of it ) huh? all means all, not what is left of it.
All does mean all, all that remains of the natural branches after the persecution of the "mystery of iniquity," with its deceiving alter-Christos. The only twisting is done by you if you try to switch the Israel of v. 25, which refers to the natural branches, into simply referring to some of the living Jews believing as they do now, rather than a reversal of the blindness resulting in all of this Israel being saved, joining the Gentiles in the one new man, the church. The Israel of v. 26 is that of v. 25, and which "all" is speaking of.
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so [houtō=in this way, fashion] all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (Romans 11:25-26)
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:15-16)
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness ? (Romans 11:12)
again, the problem with false doctrine always comes back to not harmonizing all the Scriptures and also the rejection of the historical Faith.
Indeed, with historical Faith being that of the NT church as per Scripture, which is what denial of what i described constitutes.
I am curious to know if you believe Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 32:37-41 have been fulfilled or not and if they have been fulfilled, when did this happen?
Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fulfilled in Christ, having been instituted with His own sinless shed blood, (Heb. 9:16,17) praise God, and thus souls are saved by effectual belief, "purifying their souls by faith." (Acts 15:9) And as it is distinctly "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers" under the New Cov. believers, these constituting the "house of Israel," are not bound to literal observance of the typological ceremonial law.
Yet as with salvation itself which this pertains to, the full realization of this is yet to come, such as in no longer teaching every man his neighbour to Know the Lord, and how much one does, and which Jeremiah 32:37-41 also pertains to. And in which i believe there is a literal as well as a spiritual realization of the land of Israel being possessed, after the Tribulation and in the literal 1k reign of Christ. But which gets into an extended study, which sincere Christians can disagree on.
And as one Catholic site states,
Catholic theology is not at all fully developed in this area. That is why there is no dogma about this yet. Even the Early Church Fathers were divided about the future of the Jewish people who as a group rejected Christ. The discussion is still very much active with the Church. We are on a pilgrimage of faith and that includes our understanding the full depth of our relationship with the Jewish people. - http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/replacement_theology.php
If you want to point to a particular verse(s) in Isaiah that you feel make your point, please do so. I am not seeing a literal 1,000 year reign in Isaiah, Matthew, Peter, Corinthians or Revelation.
btw, under the literal historic method of interpretation, wouldn’t a day be a day and 1,000 years a 1,000 years?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.