Les

If the church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned (Ryrie)

If the church fulfills this covenant, she may also fulfill the other covenants made with Israel and there is no need for an earthly millennium (Pentecost)

Interesting topic and dialogue. I’ve stumbled across here and see you are reformed and I presume either post-mill or amill. I suspect your position goes all the way back to augustine’s original writings on subject. As I’m sure you know, there are many early church fathers with strong pre-mill positions. Many of the early disciples and church-fathers held to a literal kingdom. That said, how do you interpret Acts 1 where Jesus’ disciples ask is the time now when we will see you restore the kingdom to Israel?

I notice Jesus does not berate them for asking such a ’stupid question’ if the concept were out of the realm of possibility! Keep in mind this occurs right after Jesus opens their minds to the Scriptures in Luke 24. I believe the future kingdom on earth was expounded upon during that time of teaching and therefore Jesus reinforces the concept of the coming kingdom on earth of Israel by not denying it, rather He simply tells them it is not their place to know the timing of the event.

jc

Those are two excellent quotes. I’m going to save those for future use. Historic Pre-mill is one of the most inconsistent of all the positions, IMO, because they affirm the oneness of the church but still believe a Millennium is necessary. It’s baffling to me how they justify this.

Thanks for the comment.

You said: I suspect your position goes all the way back to augustine’s original writings on subject.

No, I’ve actually never read Augustine on this subject. I’d like to say that scripture convinced me to abandon my premillennialism, which is what I hope to share over the next few posts.

You said: As I’m sure you know, there are many early church fathers with strong pre-mill positions. Many of the early disciples and church-fathers held to a literal kingdom.

Yes, this is stated often, but I strongly disagree with this, and there are many reasons why:

First, it’s practically impossible to find early-church fathers who even believe in justification by faith, or even what we would consider orthodox Trinitarian views! The fact is crystal clear that they believed some very, very strange things in many areas, mostly because they were still trying to figure out what was scripture and what was Gnostic, etc. So the fact of whether they believed this or that is not of real importance.

Secondly, many of the writings are fairly obscure, and we must be careful about reading our own presuppositions into what the author is actually saying.

Thirdly, although there were a couple of early guys who held to a ‘kingdom’ (more on this as I answer your next question), what many fail to realize is that when they mention the second coming of Christ, and yet fail to mention a millennium, then that is basically an affirmation of non-millennialism. Yes, the Amill position wasn’t labeled and formulized in the early church, but it was certainly around from the very beginning of the church, in that many spoke of Christ’s return and judgment but said nothing of earthly kingdoms, glorified believers on earth, etc. That in itself is a adherence to my position. When Christ returns, it is all over. Another response to this question could fall under my answer to your next question.

You said: how do you interpret Acts 1 where Jesus’ disciples ask is the time now when we will see you restore the kingdom to Israel? I notice Jesus does not berate them for asking such a ’stupid question’ if the concept were out of the realm of possibility! Keep in mind this occurs right after Jesus opens their minds to the Scriptures in Luke 24. I believe the future kingdom on earth was expounded upon during that time of teaching and therefore Jesus reinforces the concept of the coming kingdom on earth of Israel by not denying it, rather He simply tells them it is not their place to know the timing of the event.

Will you point out where in this text an earthly reign is specifically referenced to?

You see, I believe that the kingdom must and will be restored to Israel. But what is Israel? A plot of land? The writer of Hebrews said

“For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.”

But wasn’t this the promised land? Hebrews again says that Abraham, whom the land was promised to,

“went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land…For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.”

Paul says that,

“the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.”

And Hebrews again says,

“you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem”

You see, I, like the disciples, am waiting for the kingdom to be restored to Israel. But just like when we read the early church fathers on the subject, beware of reading presuppositions of how ‘restoration to Israel’ is to be defined back into my or the disciples’ words. The kingdom will be restored to Israel, but Gentiles are included in this Israel as they are children of Abraham. The kingdom will be restored to Israel, but premillennialists cannot produce one text, Old or New, which points to the restoration being temporal, as Revelation 20 affirms that the 1000years is met with harsh rebellion at the end.

The promises will be realized in the New Jerusalem, heaven; they were never meant to be interpreted as political rule, a reign on earth, etc.

–
Nate

I think it would have been a clear rebuke from the Lord, or at least further clarification if the implied restoration of the historical kingdom was to be anything but the obvious…

Ultimately, I think it is fairly irrelevant what the disciples did or did not believe in this question. Just a few chapters later Peter needed a Divine vision to accept the Gentiles into the New Covenant. So obviously, their perception of this topic was far less than perfect for quite some time. But Jesus didn’t affirm or deny their words, so any real argument on your part, or mine, is essentially from silence. This being considered, we must judge it up against the rest of scripture, and I think it can be clearly shown from the rest of the New Testament that the premill interpretation of this and other passages relies on presuppositions, and not exegesis.

Nevertheless, the disciples use of restoration, I believe, instead of being a return or whatever to political/national/earthly rule, is ultimately rooted in the promises and kingdom of the Messiah.

Accordingly, I would agree with P.W.L. Walker regarding this passage when he says,

“Not only was Jesus seeking to turn the disciples attention away from such political concerns: he was also indicating that their forthcoming mission “to the ends of the earth” would itself be an indication of Israel’s restoration and the means whereby the truths of that restoration would be implemented upon the world stage. Israel was being restored through the resurrection of its Messiah and the forthcoming gift of the Spirit. The way in which Israel would then exert its hegemony over the world would not be through its own political independence, but rather through the rule and authority of Israel’s Messiah…Jesus’ concern, now as before, was not for political “kingdom of Israel”, but rather the “kingdom of God”, Acts 1:3.

1) to restore to its former state

2) to be in its former state

So you think that is what the disciples meant, but Jesus did not have that same understanding? This is where you and I disagree for there are a plethora of verses that speak of a kingdom coming to earth that will reside in the earth. Zechariah 14 is one of the clearest OT passages on subject which deals with Jesus’ return to the Mt. of Olives, Jerusalem and Israel in the future.

I agree with you that the argument may be from silence in Acts 1, but many passages scream the truth in other places….

“Here we have no lasting city…we seek the city above”

as a progressive dispy I have no problem holding to your view on Eph. 2, and the one people of God (nevertheless allowing for functional role distinction between Israel and the Church–i.e. relative to their roles in the unfolding of God’s salvation history).

It seems your thoughts are only dealing with Classic/Revised (i.e. Ryriean) Dispys.

In Christ

Well, it wasn’t my purpose to critique one particular system, but to rather give a general overview of the distinctions between Israel and the church which, IMHO, do not add up to the NT teaching on eschatology. But whether you’re progressive, Ryriean, or whatever, doesn’t really matter, as my main contention will be to show the exegetical issues with all forms of premillennialism. Hope you’ll come back and interact once I get a few more posts up on the subject.

–
Nate

Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luk 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 1Cr 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Cr 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

I believe these ‘big picture’ verses further affirm there will be a time of ruling and judgment to include the 12 apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel prior tto the END when the kingdom is delivered to God when all rule and all power and all authority is put down and the last enemy, death, is destroyed.

Joshua 21:45
Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.

It can’t be because the nation of Israel are His chosen people, because God tells us he is no respector of persons and He tells us who the true Israel and children of the promise are: the Israel of God, which includes the elect out of all nations, not just one.

It can’t be because the Jews rejected Him and so He went to plan B and will try again at a later time. That doesn’t make sense,

It can’t be to fulfill some prophecy because all the prophecies of the Kingdom of God are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the elect to whom the promises are made forever (not a 1000 years) in the perfect eternal kingdom.

Jesus talked a lot about His kingdom during his ministry here on earth, but not once did he ever mention anything about an earthly reign for a 1000 years over the nation of Israel. But what he did say was that His kingdom did not come with observance, it did not come with meat or drink, you would not say lo there it is or here it is. He told the Israelites their house was left to them desolate and the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another. He said the kingdom was at hand, was in you, has come upon you. He said that to enter the Kingdom we must be born again, our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. He said His kingdom was not of this world and left when the Jews came to make him king. Why? Because they were looking for the wrong kind of kingdom, an earthly kingdom and that is not what Jesus came to bring. So why do we expect Him to do just that at sometime in the future?

I would encourage you to study 1 Cor 15 very closely. This is the chapter that finally forced me to abandon premillennialism. Notice that you place a 1000year period between the verses15:23, “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming”, and 15:24, “Then [cometh] the end, when…”. Now, I have great difficulty in putting a 1000year period between ‘His coming’, and ‘the end’, but obviously others run to various other passages and force this millennium in there.
 
Secondly, you recognize above that the LAST enemy to be destroyed is death. But have you ever considered WHEN it is that death is destroyed? Paul in this chapter confirms that it is when the righteous are raised! See verses 51-55 of this same chapter. Paul says that, first, we will all be changed in a moment, at the last trumpet. And above, in verse 23, he confirms that ‘every man’, in Christ, will be raised ‘at His coming’. So, back to verses 51-55, where Paul then describes the new body (53-54), and then says: “When the perishable puts on the imperishable…then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory…”
 
Thus, this passage teaches us that the dead in Christ are raised at His coming, which is the defeat of death, the last enemy, and that upon our resurrection, then comes the end, when Jesus delivers the kingdom to His father.
 
V23, and V51-52: Christ comes and we are raised.
V26: Death is the very last enemy.
V24: There is nothing left after the last enemy, except eternity.
V54: When we are raised, death is defeated.
 
May the Lord bless our study of His word.
 
–
Nathan

Whether one believes the 1000 years to be literal or some undefined epoch, we clearly note that the resurrection of the just and unjust are separated by this epoch defined in that chapter to be 1000 years. So if you believe we are living in Revelation 20 now, when did the resurrection of the just take place as defined in 1 Cor 15?

I think you would agree the Great White Throne judgment has not taken place and therefore the resurrection of the unjust which occurs prior to the GWTJ has not happened yet. If I’m not mistaken you take 1 Cor 15 to include both resurrections?

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

And, Jesus told the apostles they would have a specific job in the future judging the twelve tribes of “Israel”…

IMHO, this verse does not apply to many other places in the OT where the Lord specifically addresses His restoration of national Israel (the saved remnant) that is divinely protected and gathered back into the land prior to the Day of the Lord. As we have previously established — in Christ there is no distinction of Jew or Greek. Certainly this is true and further clarified by the fact that through all of history there will be only two resurrections — one for the just(in Christ) and one for the unjust(those who are not saved).

I appreciate your questions, as they are good ones. Let me just suggest to you that most of these are very common objections to Covenantal/Amillennial teaching, and so they are dealt with in almost all Covenantal/Amillennial writings. I would strongly encourage you to read some of this material, even though you disagree, so that you better understand the position, and so you can see why so many of believers down through the centuries have held to these things. I once held to dispensational/premill, and asked a lot of the same questions you are asking, but when I read the other side, I became convinced of the opposing view.

First, I see absolutely no scriptural justification for more than one ‘last’ trumpets.

Secondly, yes, 1 Cor 15 deals with the resurrection of believers, which comes at Christ’s Second Coming.

Next, notice in Revelation 20 that the first resurrection is described as ‘souls’. Souls are not bodies, and many mistake them to be so. So, what is a resurrected soul? Clearly it is the new birth, being raised from the dead, brought to life, i.e, all terms describing salvation. Jesus summed this up nicely in John chapter 5:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Compare this with Revelation 20, and you will see how we describe the supposed ‘two’ resurrections. The first one is spiritual, as Jesus says ‘an hour…is now here’, meaning that it is something taking place right now. The second resurrection, which involves all those in the tombs, which refers to physical bodies, occurs for both the just and the unjust.

Thus, the first resurrection in Rev 20 is souls, as the text says, and the second resurrection is the physical resurrection, which happens upon Christ’s Second Coming.

Next, regarding your response to Hannah, the thesis of my post (which you obviously don’t agree with) is that true Christians are a part of the true Israel of God. Thus, as Paul said, if we are in Christ through faith, we are children of Abraham (synonym for being a Jew), and heirs according to the promises. So whatever promises were given to Israel in the OT are promises that we Christians will partake in, therefore negating the fact that these promises will be fulfilled in the political, secular realm. The new heavens and the new earth, the new Jerusalem which comes down out of heaven, is the fulfillment of these promises, and all who are in Christ will partake.

Nathan – Thank you for your detailed response. I understand well your position, however I do not believe it to be the doctrine of the apostles and the early Church. When I read the verses above, the Greek word ZAO for ‘lived’ clearly states these souls are now embodied and ‘living’ beings with the benefits and entitlements of a resurrection body. After all, what is the first resurrection if it is only spirit and soul with the Lord as you state? If you want to defend the ‘living soul’ position then you need to understand these are special souls that did not do specific things with regard to the ‘beast’. Where are all of the other saved souls not tied to the beast?

If the souls in Rev 20:4 are souls of saved humans (and they are), then they are already in the presence of the Lord! No, the first resurrection is more than a metaphorical reference to being saved by grace as we live in the world today as you state. Notice verse five above further defines the point of resurrection being the return to ‘life’ by saying the rest of the ‘dead’ – ‘LIVED’ not again until…

These verses are clearly teaching the two resurrections separated by a period of time (I take the 1000 literally and you do not) – the first being saved souls which are reunited with resurrection bodies and the second resurrection being lost souls which are reunited with their physical bodies.

You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that Revelation 20 doesn’t place the events of it with Israel per se. What then is the ‘beloved city’? Is it not Jerusalem? Please see Strongs for information on this text.

You also say – “The second resurrection, which involves all those in the tombs, which refers to physical bodies, occurs for both the just and the unjust.
Thus, the first resurrection in Rev 20 is souls, as the text says, and the second resurrection is the physical resurrection, which happens upon Christ’s Second Coming.”

The Bible makes it clear there are only two resurrections. The first is the resurrection of the ‘just’ and the second is the resurrection of the ‘unjust’. You are tying the receipt of your glorified body to the resurrection of the ‘unjust’!

The Bible nowhere teaches a ‘resurrection of souls’! It only teaches the resurrection of dead bodies. That is what resurrection is all about – dead bodies coming back to life. To say that Revelation 20:3-5 refers to mankind being saved as a type of resurrection is eisegesis to fit your eschatological framework.

Act 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

This verse teaches us that there are two resurrections. The timing is not the same and the results are not the same either. The saved person receives a glorified body at the resurrection of the just. The lost person receives their physical body back so that he can be judged at the GWTJ and then punished forever in the Lake of Fire.

I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I do not see where the Bible teaches the resurrection of souls symbolically or literally. Once a believer dies, their soul immediately goes to be with the Lord. That saved soul waits in heaven for the time of the resurrection of the just to receive its glorified body… Likewise the lost soul goes to Hell (Luke 16) and awaits its final judgment at the GWTJ where the decayed body of that soul will be resurrected and united back with it for the judgment and ultimate sentencing to the Lake of Fire.

Even Ephesians 2 talks of being dead in our trespasses and sins and then are made alive in Christ to newness of life. Certainly one must be born again of the Spirit to be saved and that is what this teaches, but I do not see these verses jumping to the specifics of a resurrection body. The glorified body is a benefit of the new birth and it will be obtained at the resurrection of the just in 1 Cor 15. I think one of the disagreements you and I have on this issue is you want to take one chapter (1 Cor 15) for example and make it fit your position. I think we must take all of the chapters that deal with the resurrections and put them all together to understand the fullness of the teaching. I know Revelation 20 is not a chapter your position likes, but it CLEARLY puts a time period between the resurrection of the just and unjust. If this is Scripture, and it is, then why do you try to make these two resurrections simultaneous?

Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1Th 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Here we have the ‘trump of God’ tied to the rapture. I believe this Scripture harmonizes with 1 Cor 15. Both places have a trumpet blasting — the reference in 1 Cor 15 says ‘last’ and this text does not. Paul teaches us that those who are alive when this occurs will be transported to heaven to meet the Lord in the clouds. Not the Mount of Olives as Acts 1 and Zechariah 14 teach is where the Lord Jesus will physically return to earth at the Day of the Lord.

My point is Isaiah 27, especially verse 13 refers to a trumpet that will be blown to regather the Jews. This is at the Day of the Lord and I do not believe the last trump of 1 Cor 15 follows this trump…

When you read the OT and the prophecies and promises made there, do you see them as national Israel centered or as Christ-centered? In other words, do you think that the many books of the prophets are about the nation of Israel, or are they really about the Christ to come and His work? Christ said the things written in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms were about Him: Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

So I see all these promises and prophecies being fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and since they are fulfilled in Him, and I am in Him, then these promises are also made and fulfilled to me.
Ryrie has made the accusation: The covenant theologian in his zeal to make Christ all in all is guilty of superimposing Him arbitrarily on the Old Testament. He does the same with the doctrine of the Church and with the concept of salvation through faith in Christ. (Ryrie)

Statements like these really puzzle me. This is a leading dispensaionalist. How can one read the OT and not see Christ in it, or salvation by faith through Christ, when everything about the tabernacle and sacrifices and priesthood pointed to Christ? How can you not make Christ all in all, when the scriptures say that ALL of the promises God ever made are “yes in Christ?”

As far as how many resurrections and the timing of them, I have a link I can supply you with that lists the scriputres regarding them and provides a pretty clear outline. I will post it if it’s all right with Nathan.

Many thanks for your comments. I am going to break the conversation off here, for a variety of reasons:

-Your questions are very basic/common objections to my position, and they are answered, and yes refuted, in just about all non-millennium literature. I would encourage you to read up a little more about my position before you so strongly oppose it.

-I have already made it clear that I intend to prove from the New Testament that an exegesis of any and all passages referring to the Second Coming/Resurrection/Judgment lead to no other position than that one resurrection, one judgment, one coming of Christ, one Day of the Lord, and one trumpet are clearly and forcibly taught. I do not have the time to jump into all the passages here, but I welcome you and yes challenge you to interact with me on this subject once I have an opportunity to post again.

-I would encourage you to consider your accusation that I am using eisegesis in light of your own interpretations. Eisegesis is inserting our own ideas into the text rather than simply letting the text speak. If you would like to juxtapose all of the New Testament texts concerning the end times, I promise you that I will stick to the actual wording, as you will be forced to continually insert your own system into the text.

-I would also encourage you to consider that Revelation 20 is a very symbolic text, and that the gospels and epistles do not often use such imagery. Rev 20 speaks of chains, keys, dragons, bottomless pits, etc., and yet, ironically, you take things in this passage very literally, but when I point out in Ephesians chapter 2 that believers have been ‘raised’ and ’seated’ with Christ in the heavenly places, you apparently pass it off as figurative without giving it a second thought! What more do you want? I can show you that everything, everything, that is described in Revelation 20 before the end of the 1000years is spoken of in the *present tense* in other New Testament passages of scripture. But, strangely enough, many are so stuck on a wooden-literal interpretation of Revelation 20 (well, they take some things literal and some things symbolic -depending on what they want the passage to say), that they miss the forest for the trees! Please take your time studying this passage. Interpreting it is not as easy as you may think.

Until future posts on this subject, may God’s grace be with you in the study of His word,

-Nathan