Posted on 06/05/2002 11:51:09 AM PDT by sheltonmac
Any time there is a flurry of activity in the Middle East you can count on evangelical Christians to put on a good show. They run around proclaiming an "End of the World Is Near" gospel in hopes of scaring people into the Kingdom of God.
I refer to such Christians as "they" because I happen to be one of those evangelical Christians who believe that God is no longer dealing with national Israel and that His chosen people are those who comprise the church—essentially, all who believe in Christ. This may seem like a radical concept to those who look upon writers of doomsday fiction as prophetic geniuses, but that's what happens when people are drawn away from that boring, dust-covered, leaherbound Bible on the coffee table by novels with flashy covers and catchy titles.
When it comes to end times "prophecy," premillennialists seem to have a monopoly on the market. Hal Lindsey burst upon the scene in the 1970's with The Late Great Planet Earth. It became an international best-seller. In like fashion, the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins has proven to be one of the most lucrative enterprises in the history of Christendom. Sure, these books are by no means examples of literary greatness, but the authors more than make up for that with pure, unadulterated prophetic sensationalism.
The success of apocalyptic authors like Lindsey, LaHaye and Jenkins stems from their ability to exploit the prevailing eschatological school of thought among evangelical Christians, that being dispensational premillennialism. (Thank you, John Nelson Darby!) When it comes to the end times, most premillennialists believe that all Christians will be "raptured," that is, taken up out of the world by Jesus Christ at his almost second coming. Those left behind will have to face the Great Tribulation, a seven-year period of unparalleled chaos which will also herald the rule of the Anti-Christ. At the end of the Tribulation, Christ will return—his actual second coming—to set up his earthly kingdom and reign on the throne of David for a thousand years. After that millennial time of peace, God will do away with evil once and for all at the Great White Throne Judgment. (How there can be a thousand years of peace with evil present I cannot say. I suppose it's one of those things that just works it self out in the premillennialist model.)
With all the hype surrounding the end times, it is certainly understandable that theological misconceptions will filter down into our political ideology. This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, ever since the arrival of dispensational premillennialism on this continent in the 19th century our national political position has shifted to accomodate this line of thinking, thanks to the efforts of evangelical Christians.
Evangelical Christian influence has been around since the founding of this nation, and the beliefs of evangelicals have spilled over into politics. Ordinarily there would be nothing wrong with this, but flawed theology has since given way to a flawed foreign policy, and U.S. interests have become inextricably tied to the interests of modern Israel.
Strong political support for a Jewish nation began in the early 1900s. During World War I, Arthur James Balfour penned the Balfour Declaration which set the stage for British support of a Jewish homeland:
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.Since dispensational premillennialism had already established itself as a part of the evangelical mainstream, it was only a matter of time before U.S. politicians who had been born and raised in that evangelical tradition began to let their theology affect their political ideology. In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signaled his approval of the Balfour Declaration when he said, "The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth."
American politicians have continued to voice their strong support for Israel, though little has been mentioned as to why Israel is such an important ally. But that really isn't the issue I want to explore. What seems to be driving the U.S.-Israel relationship, as far as evangelical Christians are concerned, is the popular belief that the nation of Israel still plays an important role in prophecy, and those not wanting to be caught facing the business end of God's wrathful sword come Judgment Day are pushing for more U.S. involvement in the Middle East. About the only reasons we hear are that we have a "moral obligation" to stand behind Israel or that it's simply "the right thing to do."
Dispensational premillennialists typically quote the Book of Psalms when speaking of our "obligation" to support Israel. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: 'May they prosper who love you'" (Ps. 122:6). This passage has been accepted by many Christians as a universal command by which all believers are bound to pray for the physical city of Jerusalem, lest they fall out of favor with God. Of course, that isn't the case.
While it may be good and practical to pray for the peace of modern Jerusalem, we should really be praying for peace all across the world—the peace that can only come about through the Good News of Jesus Christ. So, in a spiritual sense, Psalm 122 does apply to Christians today. We should pray for the peace of the spiritual Jerusalem, the church (Heb. 12:22), for the well-being of our brothers and sisters in Christ and the furtherance of the Gospel.
Many Christians, however, are too wrapped up in their flawed eschatology to realize that their first responsibility is to the church, the body of Christ, and not to a nation of unbelievers. As a result, eyes glance up in anticipation at the eastern sky every time Israel is mentioned in the media, and the practice of interpreting Scripture through newspaper headlines becomes commonplace.
It is interesting to see the ensuing pandemonium among evangelical Christians brought about by rumors of war in the Middle East. Believers ignore sound biblical instruction and start buying up extra copies of Left Behind to use as witnessing tools for reaching their non-believing friends. Christian columnists all across America crank out editorial pieces on the Jews' divine claim to the Holy Land and the importance of remaining steadfast in our nation's support of Israel. Jack Van Impe goes on television with an air of righteous vindication and says, "See? My latest reinterpretation of my previous reinterpretation of Revelation was correct! The time of Christ's coming in the clouds is fast approaching!"
Who can blame these Christians for becoming so enraptured (no pun intended) with the idea of being whisked away in the blink of an eye while the world is left to fester for seven years in its own evil juices? It is comforting for people to believe that they will escape tribulation when the end comes.
But ask anyone who holds to the premillennialist view what Christ had in mind when he proclaimed, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (Matt. 24:34). Ask them what the apostle Paul meant when he said, "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham" (Rom. 9:6b-7a). Ask them why God felt it was necessary to establish a New Covenant (Heb. 8) if the Old Covenant is yet to be fulfilled. Chances are the answers you receive will be less than satisfactory.
The truth is that the covenant God had with Israel finds its fulfillment in Christ. "And if you are Christ's," Paul reminds us, "then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). Advocating an "End of the World Is Near" gospel that appeals to gullible Christians and poll-driven politicians cannot be edifying for the body of Christ. If anything, it detracts from the work the Son of God already accomplished through his death and resurrection.
I certainly do not hold myself up as a theologian or biblical scholar, but it doesn't take one to see that the premillennialist paradigm is rather precarious. When a fundamental part of our foreign policy is based on a shaky biblical exegesis and championed by the very people who should know better, it gives one reason to question the immediate future of our nation.
At least we can rest in the fact that God is ultimately in control. His true chosen people, those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, will not be forsaken, and the glory of the Almighty will shine forth for all the world to see.
Mormon guru Franklin Covey ("Seven Habits" guy) discusses the "circle of influence" and the "circle of concern." Really effective people focus on those things they can influence. Ineffective people (self included) tend to let their attention run free, and worry about things beyond their assignment. It's easier to worry about the "trilateral commission" than it is to home school your kids. Premillenialism is a form of escapist fantasizing, which utlimately means avoidance of current issues, current opportunities, current responsibilities.
I attend to debates on eschatology because of first-hand experience with the debilitating effects of sick expectations.
In case you missed, it they tried to make Him king. That is a pretty good indication they truly wanted Him as an earthly king.
The plan of God was always for there to be a "church age" before the millenial kindom of the Messiah. Why were the disciples (in Acts) still asking Jesus when the kingdom would begin, even after the crucifixion, if there would not be a physical earthly kingdom in the future? Jesus did not tell them it was not coming, but he did say it's timing was none of their business.
It is interesting that you point out the kingdom question in Acts, after so many premellenialists point to the transfiguration as fulfillment of the "some standing here will not taste death" statement. And quite honestly, if you expect me to buy that generation = race line, forget it. There are too many new testament scriptures that point to the immediacy of the kingdom to be ignored.
At the time the disciples were asking the question in Acts, there wasn't any point in answering them, because in a few days they received the Holy Spirit and realized that like their question in Matthew 24, they didn't know enough to ask an intelligent question on the subject. They were asking the question based on Jewish assumptions about the Messiah that were totally wrong.
Besides the fact that He explicitly said His kingdom was not in a place that could be pointed to, but within us.
Yes, because for those he was talking to and us, that is how we become part of the kingdom, since it a future event.
I love it! Christ Himself defines His kingdom as a spiritual thing and you disagree with Him? Priceless.
None. Now why did Jesus put the now in his statement (from my previous post) if there would not be a later physical millenial kingdom. And why did you leave that part of the verse out when you quoted it? You are avoiding my point. You don't want to talk about the Scriptures that show Preterism to be a sham.
Yes, ok, according to you Jesus came to the earth to set up a kingdom in spite of what the prophets said, chickened out when the people tried to make Him king, then changed His mind again when Pilate questioned Him. He could have called twelve legions of angels to be the military force for His kingdom and you think the recalcitrant Jewish leadership was an obstacle He couldn't overcome?
Do you really believe God lacked the military force to overcome the Pharisees or even Rome?
If Christ wanted an earthly kingdom, name one thing that could stand in His way.
I left out the "now" because I am referring to verses, not directly quoting them. I suppose if you insist on being childish about it I can start quoting every verse.
I did. The author does not show the fulfillment of Dan 9:27, the 70th week between 26AD-33AD. He claims it, but does not show it; he does not cite the historical events the would fulfill it. So again, if you would please do so? You say a step-by-step explanation is supplied. It is not. Perhaps it might help if I elaborated on what step-bystep explanation of Dan 9:27 would contain:
Dan 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.If this is in fact fulfilled prophecy, history, it ought to be easy to answer each of the above, with either bible cites, history book cites, or history website links.1) who is 'he'
2) what is the 'covenant'
3) when did he 'confirm' said covenant
4) who are the 'many'
5) what 'sacrifice and offering' was ended 'in the middle'
6) what was the 'abomination'
7) what was the 'desolation' that the abomination caused
8) in what 'temple wing' was the abomination setup
9) when was the 'abomination' setup on the temple wing
10) what is the 'end that is decreed'
11) where was that end 'decreed'
12) when was that end 'poured out on him'
That would be a step-by-step showing of fulfillment, rather than just claiming it.
Actually, he does. Here...
4. MESSIAH WAS TO BE CUT OFF. The 69 weeks (7 plus 62) were to measure unto Messiah "and AFTER" the 69 weeks "shall Messiah be cut off." Now "AFTER" 69 weeks does not and cannot mean "in" or "during" the 69 weeks! If Messiah was to be cut off AFTER the 69 weeks, there is only one week left in which he could have been "cut off"—the 70th week! —after three and a half years of ministry....here...
The first half of the "week", the time of our Lord's ministry, was definitely directed toward ISRAEL. But what about the second half—the final three and a half years of the prophecy—was it also linked with Israel? Did the disciples continue to preach for the duration of the remaining three and a half years (as Christ's representatives) especially to Daniel's people—to Israel? Yes, they did!...and here.Jesus had told the disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15; Mt.28:19; Acts 1:8), YET—and this is significant—after Christ ascended, the disciples still at first preached only to Israel! Why? We know of only one prophecy which would indicate that this was to be the course followed. It is the prophecy of the 70 weeks which implied that after the death of Messiah there would still be three and a half years that pertained to Israel!
In person, Christ came to Israel during the first half of the "week"—three and a half years. Through the disciples—for the three and a half years that remained—his message still went to Israel, "the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mk. 16:20). In a very real sense of the word, the ministry of the disciples was a continuation of the ministry of Christ.
Please see my post above #263 for clarification of what is missing.
I do not have a theology to defend nor do I synthesize a construct. I simply believe what the Bible says rightly divided.
Are you confusing the old covenant with the Abrahamic Covenant? The old covenant is the law covenant which is a conditional covenant. Romans 9:1-4 indicates there are the "covenants" and the "giving of the law" as separate entities. If the "old" covenant did it's job, would there have been the necessity for it to be replaced by a "new" covenant? The new covenant replaces the old because it was temporary and could never have made Israel spiritually fit to be the kingdom of priests and a blessing, per the Abrahamic Covenant. The new covenant is an expansion of the Abrahamic Covenant for the people to be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth. That's what the new covenant is all about, making Israel spiritually fit, and it applies to the Body of Christ because we also need to be spiritually fit. The difference is members of the Body of Christ are made spiritually fit the instanct they are saved whereas Israel must wait until the second advent of Christ.
Abraham was able to embrace God's covenant for himself, and for his household, and for his descendents. Peter's pentecost proclamation preached that the blessings of the New Covenant were "unto you, and your children, and as many as the Lord shall call."
Peter proclaims at Pentecost "the promise" not the new covenant. Note Eph. 2:11,12 says "covenants of promise," with "covenants" plural and "promise" singular. There is a fundamental promise with Israel and the covenants come from that promise. The promise refers to the promise made to Abraham, which is the Abrahamic Covenant, for a land, a seed, or people to fill the land, and that the people would be a blessing.
However, in your theological construct, there is no room for entities such as families, churches, or civil governments. All that exists is the solitary soul, enrapt in exclusive communion with God. In your theological construct, there can be no such thing as a Christian nation, or church, or family. Just individual Christians.
God is forming the Body of Christ in His program for today in this age, or dispensation of grace. This is different than when He was forming Israel under His covenant program of law. God dealt with Israel on a national basis, and He will deal with them on that basis in the future after the Body of Christ has been raptured. That's why when the religious leadership of Israel, who spoke for all of Israel, rejected Christ then the Holy Spirit with the stoning of Stephen, God set His program with Israel aside temporarily and began forming the Body of Christ with the raising up of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles in the age of grace.
In God's program for today, individuals are saved as individuals, one by one, not by belonging to a Nation or to a church, nor according to being part of a family. We approach God as individuals and don't need a religious system, as did the Jews, to approach God. It's true that throughout the ages, individuals need to believe and have faith in the program God has in operation at that time. However, only relatively few Jews were saved during and after Jesus' earthly ministry and up until the time Israel was set aside temporarily. The nation as a whole wasn't saved so they could be the covenant people of God.
But God makes it very clear in His Word that He isn't dealing with a nation or even a church, but only through individuals. That's why belonging to a specific church or organization has no saving value. That's also why rituals, such as baptism, or praying a "sinner's prayer" or any other work of man doesn't save in and of itself. It's only faith that Christ died for my sins and that He was raised from the dead for my justification is what saves. If anything else is added, then God says it's a work which voids His grace. That's not a construct, it's what God clearly and plainly says in His Book.
God wants believers to fellowship and to be in fellowship. The fundamental unit God established is the family, but that does not mean there is family salvation. Assemblies of believers are to be established to edify the believers and as a support mechanism. God established nations, or nationalism, but only Israel as a Nation can be saved, but the saved can live in any nation. There is no such thing as a Christian nation, because God alone would need to do that. He is not blessing anyone or any unit in a visible sense today. Our blessings are spiritual and are in the heavens (Eph. 1:3). This again is what God says in His Book and is not some fabricated construct.
Christian:Do you mormons believe the Bible is the Word of God?
Mormon Missionary:Yes. (insofar as it is correctly interpreted)
Isn't "rightly dividing" the Bible the same thing as synthesizing a construct? Creating a theology?
No, it's a method of Bible study that recognizes the distinctions God has put, or made, in His Word. That way we can enjoy and get the profit from God's Word that He has put in it. Unfortunately, too many are like your Mormon analogy, you can be Scriptural and still out of the will of God.
Thanks, I'll look into these posts a little later.
I would definately agree with that.
Some of you may find this to be an item of interest, too:
A Response to John MacArthur on “Dispensationalism and God’s Plan for Israel” by Steve Lehrer
I have profited from John Macarthur’s teaching and so have most believers I know. He has been a strong and faithful witness for Christ and a great teacher of His Word.
But he is not above friendly criticism.
Recently a friend e-mailed me a transcript of a question and answer session with John Macarthur at Grace Community Church. One of the questions dealt with Dispensationalism. In Macarthur’s answer he laid down a challenge that those who believe the promises to national Israel in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the Church need to give biblical proof.[1] The following is an excerpt from the transcript of the Question and Answer session:
Question: What is Dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?
Answer: I will try to condense this because I don’t want to get too bogged down. Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control. I think it started out with a right understanding. The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of Dispensationalism was:
”That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God’s promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews).”
Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that’s all I want to take of it, that’s where I am on that), Dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.
I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren’t in Scripture. For example, traditionally, Dispensationalism says, “The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don’t need to worry about it.” When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is.
So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a “leaky dispensationalist” and I suppose I am. So let me take you down to where I believe Dispensationalism (I don’t use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of Dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart—it is this:
“That there is a real future for Israel,” and that has nothing to do with some kind of extra biblical system. That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture. The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised. And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel—there is a new covenant. Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive—right? God’s going to raise them back up; God’s going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit. And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David’s line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem. You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.
It is at this critical point that we hope dialogue can begin between Dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians. Macarthur says that he has not developed a “grid placed over Scripture” to come to his conclusions about what Scripture means by what it says. His reasoning is that God has said in the Old Testament that there would be a future for national Israel and therefore, that is what will happen. This sounds reasonable until we take a closer look.
We believe Macarthur actually has a presupposition or theological “grid” that he imposes on Scripture. He assumes that what God said in the Old Testament is left without further explanation and interpretation. But God’s revelation does not end with the book of Malachi! God has given us the New Testament to help interpret and clarify what was written in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Macarthur is correct that it is wrong to play fast and loose with Scripture and that we must interpret Scripture without being fanciful or arbitrary. But if God tells us in the New Testament that some promise in the Old Testament is not to be taken literally, then we must listen. So if national Israel is promised a future in Palestine in the Old Testament, we should take that promise to mean exactly what it says, UNLESS God in the New Testament tells us that it actually means something different. We think that it is only reasonable to allow God to tell us what He means by what He wrote in the Old Testament. Macarthur continues:
So my Dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament—it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it’s on them.
The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an “Amillenialists,” or a “Covenant Theologian” that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel—an Amillenialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.
My answer to them is simply this, “You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me!” Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says “Israel” He means the “Church”? Where does it say that? That’s where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel.
The great thing about John Macarthur is not only the strength of his convictions but the fact that he is direct and to the point. He never beats around the bush! He is absolutely right that the burden of proof clearly rests on those who believe that the promises to physical Israel are fulfilled in the church, which is made up of Jews and Gentiles.
But notice the assumption that creeps into his challenge. “You show me IN THAT VERSE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me!”
His challenge limits both our ability and God’s ability to answer.
But if we view the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament we will find that there are many decisive answers to Macarthur’s challenge.
Amos 9; There is a prophecy in Amos 9:11-12 that is quoted in Acts 15:14-19 which will help us to understand how God, through the Apostles, interprets Old Testament prophecies concerning a future for national Israel.
Our first step in interpreting this prophecy in Amos is to determine its context within the Old Testament. Amos is prophesying against the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and dressing them down for their idolatry and social injustices. The prophecy focuses on the coming judgment God is about to bring on Israel with His chosen instrument, the Assyrians, in 722 B.C. At the end of a series of visions concerning God’s judgment on Israel, we read that God has plans to restore the nation of Israel:
In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name,” declares the Lord, who will do these things (Amos 9:11-12).
“In that day” refers to a time after the promised judgment on Israel which God poured out on them in 722 B.C. According to Amos, this “day” or period of time after the judgment of Israel, will be a time of restoration of the nation. “David’s fallen tent” refers to the divided kingdom.
When David ruled over Israel it was a united kingdom and it is considered the golden age of Israel in Scripture. But at the time Amos was prophesying, the kingdom was divided and Israel was at a moral and political low point. God, through Amos, was saying that in a day in the future God will unify the nation of Israel and make it like it was in the days of David and Solomon.
This is to happen for a reason: national Israel is to be unified in the future so that “they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations (Gentiles) that bear my name.” Now if we look up Edom in a standard Bible dictionary we find that “The term Edom…denotes either the name of Esau, given in memory of the red pottage for which he exchanged his birthright…, or the Edomites collectively…, or the land occupied by Esau’s descendants, formerly the land of Seir… It stretched from the Wadi Zered to the Gulf of Aqabah for c. 160 km, and extended to both sides of Arabah or wilderness of Edom.”[2] Therefore, when Israel is promised that they will possess the remnant of Edom, it is a reference to political and military supremacy over their national enemies.
To sum up, God, through Amos, prophesied that there will be a time in the future after the exile of Israel when the nation of Israel will have military supremacy over its enemies, political re-unification, and of course the expansion of its physical borders to its original size under David’s leadership.
The Acts Connection: We find Amos 9:11-12 quoted in the New Testament by Luke in the book of Acts Chapter 15. God, of course, inspired Luke to interpret the passage from Amos in the book of Acts. Therefore, as we look at Acts 15 our job is to determine how Luke interprets Amos 9 in the light of the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.
The Context: In Acts 15 the Jerusalem council is meeting to discuss the question of whether or not Gentiles can be included in the people of God. In other words, can non-Jews be saved?
They were also addressing the related question concerning the law of Moses and what if any of that Law believers, especially Gentile believers, need to obey? Luke, in the book of Acts, records James addressing the first of these questions showing that the prophets legitimize Peter’s understanding of God’s grace reaching non-Jews by quoting the book of Amos:
Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: ‘”After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things that have been known for ages. It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:14-20)
James interprets Amos to say that God does save Gentiles and they too should be included in the people of God.
We also know from James’ interpretation that the phrase “after these things” in Amos 9 refers to this period in which God is saving Gentiles, that is from Pentecost to the second coming.
James understood that the period of time Amos prophesied about was actually taking place in the 1st century A.D.! He believed that the re-unification and restoration of Israel was happening.
But it clearly wasn’t a national re-unification because it included non-Israelites. In addition, Israel the nation was securely under the thumb of Rome at the time!
There is something else that is important in God’s use of Amos 9 in Acts 15. Notice that the reference to Edom seems to have been removed and the action resulting from the restoration of Israel has changed from possession of enemies to God’s election from among all peoples of the world.
The restoration of national Israel in Amos 9 is interpreted by God in Acts 15 to refer to the gathering of God’s elect, both Jews and Gentiles, to be saved and brought together into the church.
And this was not left to some time in the future, but it was happening in the first century and it is happening now according the book of Acts.
Jeremiah 31: The prophecy concerning the new covenant that is first mentioned in Jeremiah 31 and then quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10 is one of the most striking evidences that the promises to national Israel are fulfilled in the church.
In its old covenant context, Jeremiah 31:31-34 seems to be a prophecy about God’s future blessings for ethnic Israel and Judah sometime after Judah is defeated by the Babylonians:
“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “When I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
If we had only Jeremiah to guide us we would have to conclude that the new covenant is all about God’s plan for ethnic Israel.
But God in the New Testament Scriptures has given us an interpretation of these verses that tell us that they are fulfilled not in the nation of Israel but in the church today!
This new covenant is none other than the work of Christ on the cross for His people from every tribe, nation, and tongue.
Jeremiah 31 is quoted in Hebrews 10 with just such an interpretation.
The book of Hebrews is addressed to believers who were once Jewish and because of severe persecution are being tempted to turn away from the sufficiency of Christ back to the old covenant with its sacrifices and ceremonies.
So the author of the book of Hebrews argues for the superiority of Christ and His saving work over all that the old covenant had to offer. In Hebrews 10:11 we find the author comparing the sacrifices offered under the old covenant to the one sacrifice of Christ:
“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”
The author is clearly talking about the sufficiency of the one sacrifice of Christ to make sinners acceptable to God. Unlike the sacrifices of the old covenant that had to be repeated endlessly and even then only served to remind people of their sin, the one sacrifice of Christ actually accomplished atonement for sins.
Nothing is more central to biblical Christianity than this work of Christ on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God.
But in the very next verses the author quotes from Jeremiah 31 as referring not to some future for ethnic Israel but to the sufficiency of the one sacrifice of Christ to make believers acceptable to God!
“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts and I will write them on their minds. Then he adds: Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.”
The author of the book of Hebrews has taken a prophecy, which in its old covenant context seems to clearly refer to a promise that God will bless ethnic Israel in the future, and has interpreted that passage to be talking about the cross.
Although in its original context the new covenant seems only to apply to Israel and Judah, the application by God in the book of Hebrews is to all those who trust in Christ. In Jeremiah the promise of a new covenant seems to be for a people in the distant future, while in the Book of Hebrews the new covenant is the work of Christ and it applies to the church now.
John Macarthur challenged us: “You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me! Where does it say that?”
It is our opinion that this meets John Macarthur’s challenge for proof that Scripture actually does say that the promises to national Israel are fulfilled in the church.
But in order to arrive at this conclusion we must read Scripture properly, that is we must read the promises given in the Old Testament Scriptures through the lens of the New Testament Scriptures.
A true discussion does not hinge on one word in one verse. That is a niggling detail.
The new covenant required Christ's death and shedding of blood a priori. In hindsight, this is abundantly clear even in the law of Moses. There is simply no way for Christ to have ever come to earth for any reason except that death pursuant to the establishment of the new covenenant.
Therefore the "now" in that verse can not refer to a change in direction on the part of God.
1) who is 'he'
Christ.2) what is the 'covenant'
The covenant of his blood sacrifice. "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28)3) when did he 'confirm' said covenant
When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he was doing so in reference to his sacrifice. He confirmed this covenant on the cross.4) who are the 'many'
Refer to Matt. 26:28 above.5) what 'sacrifice and offering' was ended 'in the middle'
During the last week, after Christ's three-and-a-half years of ministry ("in the middle" of the 70th week), sacrifice and offering were ended with his perfect sacrifice on the cross. As you recall, the temple veil was torn in two. We also know that as believers in Christ our bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit. There is no longer a need for animal sacrifice and offering since we now have direct access to the Father. To say that animal sacrifice will be restored by God in the future is to say that Christ's blood wasn't sufficient.6) what was the 'abomination'
This may refer to the image of the Roman emperor placed in or near the temple. To have an idol in the house of worship would have been an abomination. Interestingly, in the same passage where Jesus refers to Daniel's prophecy, he says in Matt. 24:28, "For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together." One of the most prominent symbols of the Roman Empire was an eagle with outstretched wings.7) what was the 'desolation' that the abomination caused
The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.8) in what 'temple wing' was the abomination setup
Questions 8 and 9 are essentially one in the same. Most translations do not speak of a "temple wing." In reference to the "abomination," the NKJV translation of Daniel 9:27 reads, in part, "And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."10) what is the 'end that is decreed'
The destruction of Jerusalem.11) where was that end 'decreed'
In Daniel 9:27 and again in Matthew 24.12) when was that end 'poured out on him'
70 AD saw the desolation of Jerusalem.
Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that’s all I want to take of it, that’s where I am on that), Dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.
====
I agree with the above.
I would hesitate to say that I am a full preterist when it comes to eschatology, mainly because I am still studying it myself. However, I agree with the general summation of Matchett-PI's post #270—the promises of the Old Testament must be viewed through the lens of the New Testament.
One example of the importance of this concerns Joel's prophecy of the pouring out of God's Spirit:
And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;I have seen that passage quoted many times by my premillennialist college professors as a reference to the Millennium, when there will be 1,000 years of peace. However, in Acts 2 we read Peter's sermon and he specifically states that Joel was prophesying about the Day of Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit descended. When Joel's prophesy is read in the light of the New Testament, we see that he couldn't possibly have been referring to a future Millennium. He was referring to Pentecost.
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.
And also on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days (Joel 2:28-29).
John Macarthur challenged us: “You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me! Where does it say that?”
Actually, John is simply ignorant of what the gospel IS that Jesus brought, it seems. Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God saying "Repent and Believe." Those who think the message of the gospel was only about salvation, have really cut the heart out of the gospel. Salvation was not news to the Jews, they already believed that; they were the covenant people of God. They were looking forward to the coming kingdom.
And, here comes Jesus in Mark 1:14-15 telling them that the kingdom is here. The problem was that they were expecting the restoration of a physical throne of David and a military reign. Nevertheless, as Jesus tells Pilate, if His kingdom were of this world then His servants would fight. Nobody understood just what a Revolution in kind the kingdom would be. Few do even today.
Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore thie kingdom to Israel?"
And today's Disp crowd is just as ignorant as the Apostles and the Jews of Jesus' day were concerning just exactly what is the nature of the gospel and the kingdom! Those looking for a future kingdom should quit wasting time trying to figure out what is coming and start enjoying the kingdom that God has already given us!
Jesus, I believe only mentions the church 3 times, He mentions the kingdom of God more than 100. Almost all the parables are about the kingdom and even the Sermon on the Mount is a declaration of the kingdom of heaven: How blessed are the poor in spirit [those who know their need for God] for theirs IS the kingdom of heaven. I am right where I should be (Heb 12:22)! Now, let us deliver the kingdom message to the world as a witness (Matt 24:14) so this age will come to an end and we can begin to enjoy the riches of God's glory in the ages to come.
Nice to have a point of agreement! It's not enough to "believe the Bible." Mormons, JWs, Moonies, and unitarian pentecostals all "believe the Bible." Christians believe what the Bible teaches as well. Now, the foundational creeds of the church are handy summaries of what the Bible teaches concerning God, man, salvation, and eschatlogy. The creeds affirm that our Lord will physically return and we will be raised. The creeds have little to say beyond that, however, concerning the anticipated course of history.
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.