Posted on 04/16/2008 11:29:37 AM PDT by fishtank
Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 1
Selected Scriptures
Now I've been telling you for a number of months that we were going to get in to the subject of eschatology, the doctrine of last things. We've been working our way through doctrinal emphases in Scripture, doctrinal themes. And we have covered a lot of ground, but we now come to the doctrines that relate to the end times. And in line with that, I want to try at least in the next couple of Sunday nights to establish a foundation for our understanding.
Now talking about eschatology is not without controversy. There are a number of viewpoints of what the Bible means when it speaks of future events. We understand that when you have a prophecy in the Bible that has not yet come to pass, not everything will be clear. In 1 Peter chapter 1 you remember Peter says that the prophets who wrote concerning Christ, concerning the things to come wondered what person and what time. That is to say that while they understood that someone would come, they understood whatever it was that had been revealed to them, the timing was not clear and the precise personages were not clear. We can take prophetic scripture at face value. We can interpret it the way we interpret any other passage of Scripture with the same use of the normal, natural means of interpreting language. And we should. And it will yield for us as clear an understanding of the future as the Lord wants us to have. It's not nearly as difficult as some people make it if you just take Scripture at face value.
Now to affix our thinking to one great future event which seems to be the most controversial, I want you to think with me about the coming Kingdom of Christ, known as the Millennial Kingdom because in the twentieth chapter of Revelation, the opening of that chapter, there is reference to the reign and rule of Jesus Christ on the earth which lasts one thousand years. In fact, one thousand is repeated six times in that brief text. That leaves me with the impression that God wants us not to question the length of its duration.
Excerpt here only. Remainder at link.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/90-334
This is a fitting article in preparation for the 60th birthday of modern, regathered Israel.
This is one area in which I disagree with MacArthur. I don’t think this issue is clearly resolved for us in Scripture, and is all too often automatically aligned in people’s minds to Dispensationalism - as your comment apparently shows.
This is one area in which I disagree with MacArthur. I don’t think this issue is clearly resolved for us in Scripture, and is all too often automatically aligned in people’s minds to Dispensationalism - as your comment apparently shows.
Hi. Thanks for the note. My own pastor went to Master’s yet he disagrees with JM as well on this issue.
Do you have any thought about why God would allow Israel to return to the land? (This is a heartfelt, honest question.)
The book of Romans tells us that most Jews according the the lineage of Abraham are blinded to Truth for yet a while; that true Israel is not according to such lineage, but according to the election of God - Who has broken down the wall that separated Jew from Gentile. While God has plans to redeem more from the tribes, there is now one people of God - those who are circumcised of the heart by the Holy Spirit.
I wonder what the significance of geo-political Israel is. I do not see it as Biblical prophesy as do the Dispys. Lord alone - truly - knows. We do know that not all who claim to the of Israel are elect. Dark glass, dim vision. Trust God.
BTW, as a patriot, I love your tag line.
“It is finished” ~ Jesus
The entirety of the OT (See Hebrews) points to Christ (the Messiah). (Unlike “prophecy buffs” whose intense focus is on something other than the Cross). Consequently, all prophecy ended with Malachi. There are no more “prophets” because Christ came “at the end of the ages” (Heb.9:26), finished the work his Father gave him to do (John 17:4; 19:30), voluntarily laid down his life (John 10:17-18), was resurrected from the dead (John 20:11-18), and already sits on his throne at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3), from where he is currently ruling (Matt.28:19), until he returns the second time, separates the sheep from the goats and makes all things new.
”The woman said, “I know that Messiah is coming, when he comes he will explain everything to us. Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am He.” ~ John Chapter 4:25-26
The Apostles, themselves, were Jews. They recognized Jesus as “the Son of God” and their “Messiah”. Their enemies knew that they viewed him as their “King” and mocked them by writing, “This is Jesus The King of the Jews” on the cross beam over his head, saying: “Hail, King of the Jews”. Matt. 27:29-37
Jews were the first members of the early Christian Church, until God showed them that, “..... he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and that circumcision is that of the heart..” Romans 2:28-29
And those (others) of the circumcision who believed (Jews) were astonished that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as they had: Acts 10:34-48; 11:18
“..For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.” ~ Romans 10:12
“..when [Jesus] had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down [on His throne] at the right hand of the Majesty on high..” Hebrews 1:3
Jesus Christ, “once - at the end of the ages - [has] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. ... To those who eagerly wait for Him, He will appear _a second time_, apart from sin, for salvation.” Hebrews 9:26-28
“...you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the _heavenly_ Jerusalem... For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven....” Hebrews 12:22-29
As Conquering King, Jesus gives his church (Jew & Gentile alike) this “Great Commission”: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth, Go therefore and make disciples of ALL nations ... I am with you ALWAYS even to the end of the age.” Matt.28:19
Amen...and I agree with John!
LOL ... there are few things more pointless than an ardent advocate of the doctrine of Election telling us that it's important to believe in Premillenialism (or post, or whatever....)
What are the consequences to the Elect of not being a premillenialist? None -- God's will is that they're still Elect.
What are the consequences to the non-Elect of being a premillenialist? Again, none -- they're supposedly damned no matter what they believe.
And what are the consequences of changing one's mind, in either case? None.
I love stuff like this....
Some of the Reformed and Presbyterian Christians I have encountered in my Christian life seem to believe that all Biblical interpretation begins and ends with John Calvin and/or the 16th century. It’s as though he has become the Protestant version of Thomas Aquinas.
My take is that this was MacArthur’s attempt to go from being on defense to switching over to offense. Despite the self-assurance with which the lecture was delivered, in many ways, the lecture seemed like a rather desperate attempt to stem the rising tide of interest in Reformed amillennialism in the Reformed-evangelical conference circuit, where many are now openly rejecting MacArthur’s beloved dispensationalism. At least that’s how it seemed to me.This is obviously the weakest part of MacArthur's theological system....
Upon hearing the lecture, it is apparent that Dr. MacArthur is being facetious when he claims Calvin for the dispensationalists. That’s a good thing because Calvin was very clear where he stood on chiliasm (millennialism). “This fiction is too puerile to need or to deserve refutation. Nor do they receive any countenance from the Apocalypse, from which it is known that they extracted a gloss for their error, (Revelation 20:4,) since the thousand years there mentioned refer not to the eternal blessedness of the Church, but only to the various troubles which await the Church militant in this world” (Institutes 3.25.5).
As Richard Muller pointed out back in 1993, there is every likelihood that John MacArthur's "Calvinism" would probably not be recognized by Calvin himself (See Richard Muller's response to attempts like MacArthur's to co-opt the term "Reformed," Click here: Riddleblog - "How Many Points?").
John MacArthur on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Israel and Hermeneutics: A Few Comments by Kim Riddlebarger
This essay will attempt to set the record straight and respond to MacArthur’s message in four parts.
Part 1: MacArthur’s Major Thesis
Part 2: MacArthur’s Historical Position
Part 3: MacArthur’s Interesting Objection
Part 4: MacArthur’s Jewish Evangelism
Part 5: MacArthur’s Deep Burden
Part 1 will consist of Chapters 2-5 and examine the charge of supercessionism and its accompanying accusations. Part 2 will consist of Chapter 6 and seek to clarify in historical terms the real nature of MacArthur’s eschatological position. It asks the question, Is MacArthur simply an old-fashioned premillennialist? Part 3 consists of Chapter 7. It takes up a particular argument that MacArthur uses against Amillennialism in his message and in other places. It probes the question of the consistency of Amillennialists in only applying the promises made to Israel—and not the curses—to the Church. Part 4 consists of Chapter 8. It probes MacArthur’s claim that Amillennialism harms Jewish Evangelism. Part 5 consists of Chapter 9. It raises the question of the legitimacy of MacArthur’s deep burden to promote Premillennialism. The attempt of the Together for the Gospel conferences to promote a common front among Reformed Evangelicals place MacArthur’s sermon in a striking context. Chapter 8 asks, Should MacArthur Make This an Issue? You may be surprised at my answer.MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto by Sam Waldron
Most Dispys belive that all Biblical interpretation started in the 19th century. (Darby-Moody-Scofield).
But you've asked a very interesting question fishtank, "...why God would allow Israel to return to the land?" Truth is, I don't know. But I do know that God has NEVER raised up a nation in scripture because He favored them. Even the Israelites were meant to bring judgment on the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites. Israel turned out to be just as idolators as the inhabitants with Solomon burning children alive to Molech and the kings and people killing the prophets of God.
In my heart I do believe that why Israel is formed today is most likely the beginning of the end. Perhaps God will call all the Jews to Israel and bring them to Christ, but I don't know. It's hard telling. But people who think God has a special love for anyone cannot understand that God does not show partiality. We are all treated as equals. We are all sinners in need of redemption. Those who reject His Son, are under His wrath.
MacArthur was also a bit disingenuous in his remarks insofar as he says premillennialism when when he really means dispensationalism. He gives the impression that all premils would agree with his assertions.
Thank you.
“Perhaps God will call all the Jews to Israel and bring them to Christ, but I don’t know”
Psa 106:35 But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works.
Psa 106:36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.
Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, [even] the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
Psa 106:39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.
Psa 106:40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.
Psa 106:41 And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them.
Psa 106:42 Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand.
Psa 106:43 Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked [him] with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity.
Psa 106:44 Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry:
Psa 106:45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.
Psa 106:46 He made them also to be pitied of all those that carried them captives.
Psa 106:47 Save us, O LORD our God, and gather us from among the heathen, to give thanks unto thy holy name, [and] to triumph in thy praise.
Psa 106:48 Blessed [be] the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.
A thousand years is as a day and the Lord remembers His promises.
Indeed God always keeps His promises. Man, however, consistently has trouble comprehending what He meant and how He will do so.
Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
The promises are made good to the spiritual seed of Abraham
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
“The promises are made good to the spiritual seed of Abraham”
True, but there is also the covenant to the physical seed of Israel which God has been keeping and will keep since He has said it is eternal.
Psa 106:45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.
This covenant was not kept for spiritual seed but physical Israel.
Didn’t the writer of Hebrews say that after the second convenant came in place (with Jesus), that the first covenant was done away with?
Yes, I believe it does say that clearly.
Nice to see.
I think I should get my popcorn, however.
Thanks.
--------
Mal 4:1 For behold, the day is coming, burning like a fire pot; and all the proud, and every doer of wickedness, shall be chaff. And the coming day will set them ablaze, says Jehovah of Hosts, which will not leave root or branches to them.
Mal 4:2 But to you who fear My name, the Sun of Righteousness shall arise, and healing will be on His wings. And you shall go out and frisk like calves of the stall.
Mal 4:3 And you shall trample the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day which I am preparing, says Jehovah of Hosts.
Mal 4:4 Remember the Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel, the statutes and judgments.
Mal 4:5 Behold, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah.
Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their fathers, that I not come and strike the earth with utter destruction.
“It didn’t take a thousand years from Psalms 106 to 2 Chrononicles or Malachi. These too are promises.”
“Mal 4:5 Behold, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah.
Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their fathers, that I not come and strike the earth with utter destruction.”
When were both of these prophecies fulfilled? It would appear that there is a gap in fulfillment, say a couple of God’s days.
“Yes, I believe it does say that clearly.”
Good, now just what was the first covenant the writer is speaking of and are there any others to be completed?
"[John the baptist] will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)
"10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ 11 Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.’ 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the baptist." (Matt. 17)
Jesus frames His response in the same "you've heard it said ..., but I say to you ..." fashion found in the Sermon on the Mount.
The disciples were obviously familiar with the OT prophecies concerning the coming "Elijah" as well as what was being taught by the rabbis. In His response to their question, Jesus plainly indicates that John the baptist completely fulfilled the prophecies. He gave them the proper interpretation. "But I say to you …". And we can see from verse 13 the disciples got His message about John the baptist.
There is nothing in Jesus’ response to lead us to believe there is still some yet-to-be fulfillment. Those who look to some future literal "Elijah" obviously missed Jesus’ interpretation of the OT. Jesus was clearly not a literalist on this one.
“Jesus plainly indicates that John the baptist completely fulfilled the prophecies. He gave them the proper interpretation.”
“‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already,”
Notice there is a future fulfillment and a present fulfillment in what Jesus said, just as in the annunciation. His message was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). A portion of the prophecy has not been fulfilled as yet, “the great and dreadful day of Jehovah” and “he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their fathers”.
“Mal 4:5 Behold, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah.
Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their fathers, that I not come and strike the earth with utter destruction.”
Notice there is a future fulfillment and a present fulfillment in what Jesus said, just as in the annunciation.
No, actually there is not. Jesus is not indicating any future (as in several thousands of years) fulfillment. Jesus is responding to remedy the views of the disciples, ala the formula common in the Sermon on the Mount, "You’ve heard it said ..., but I say to you ...".
There is nothing in Jesus’ words to make us even remotely think of a several thousand year future fulfillment.
I realize it is hard for some to conclude that Jesus was not interpreting the OT prophecies like Micah 4 "literally", but that’s precisely what He was doing.
So, contrary to MacArthur’s aberrant notions, not only was Calvin not a literalist dispensationalist (for good reasons), it’s pretty clear that neither was Jesus.
I recently discovered that some dispensationalists have come to this same conclusion, and so that have revised their form of dispensationalism and prophetic interpretation to assert that even though it’s pretty apparent that Jesus and His disciples did not always interpret the OT prophecies "literally" (as they understand the word) wrt His first coming, they must, as a matter of rule, believe they are "literally" fulfilled at His second coming.
This is an important concession to non-"literalists" since we have asserted all along that nobody in the NT interpreted the OT prophecies the way that dispensationalists do. As these guys are saying, in effect, "you’re right". What they don’t seem to realize is that this concession completely undermines their theory about the supposed "literalism" of what they think are second coming prophecies.
And so we are supposed to take "Elijah" prophecy literally and force him far into the future, even though Jesus didn’t take it that way.
Curious way of doing Bible interpretation. I guess that’s why MacArthur describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist" ... it’s so easy to shoot holes in.
“No, actually there is not. Jesus is not indicating any future (as in several thousands of years) fulfillment.”
“Elijah is coming first -—— Elijah has come already,”
Two distinct comings are mentioned, but the prophecy is, “Behold, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their fathers, that I not come and strike the earth with utter destruction.”
The annunciation does not mention “the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah” or “that I not come and strike the earth with utter destruction”. It simply prophecies a portion of Malachi, “And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17).
So where is the fulfillment of the other portion of the Malachi prophecy?
Classic rendition of eisegesis. Jesus is not saying there are two coming of Elijah. You need to read two comings into the text based on your literalist futurist views.
but the prophecy is,
And the infallible interpretation is given by Jesus and it does not involved two coming of "Elijah".
As we’ve seen before, the futurist needs to insert a gap of unknown thousands of year between Micah 4:5 and 6 to make the prophecy fit their theology. And they also need to reverse the order!
Futurists are good at gaps. Their system would not exist without them. But Jesus doesn’t mention any gaps in Matthew 17. The disciples understand that by "Elijah" the prophets were looking forward to John the Baptist, not John the Baptist and some far future "Elijah".
The day of the Lord is defined as the day of God’s visitation among His people. Certainly no Christian would deny that Jesus’ coming into history in the 1st century was the supreme act of God’s visitation. It was a day of both blessing and judgment. Blessing in that many of the early disciples were converts from old covenant Israel, being regrafted into the root and identified as Abraham true spiritual offspring. This was to fulfill the part about, "turning the heart of the fathers to the sons". At the same time many of old covenant Israel were cut off and suffered great judgment at the hand of God for the way they treated the prophets and the "son of the landowner"; "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it." (Matt 21:33ff). This was an act of judgment against apostate Israel and her leaders. Luke 21 speaks of it as being days of vengeance (cf. Luke 21:22). It fulfilled the part about it being a "great and dreadful day of Jehovah". Jesus wept over Jerusalem in Matthew 23 because He knew her fate for rejecting Him. It would indeed be a dreadful day for those who did not turn to Messiah Jesus in faith.
So there is no need to see some far distance fulfillment unless, again, you are guided by a sort of "literalism" that was foreign to Jesus and His disciples.
“The day of the Lord is defined as the day of God’s visitation among His people.”
So, “the great and dreadful (to fear, be afraid) day of Jehovah” is not “that I not come and strike the earth with utter destruction” but “God’s visitation among His people”.
Now why would His visitation among His people cause fear and dread? During the triumphal entry Jesus was called “Blessed”. He did not strike the earth with utter destruction, and in fact the destruction of Jerusalem was not as bad as Nebuchadnezzar, 600 years before, or the bar Kochbar destruction 60 years later.
“A thousand years is as a day and the Lord remembers His promises.”
When God communicates to man, I think it’s obvious that He communicates so that man can understand. As the following shows — same prophecy, but different instructions:
Daniel 8:26: “The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.”
Revelation 22:10: Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near.”
In the context of the prophecy of Micah is the promise of the "Sun of righteousness" who will come with healing in His wings. Israel of Jesus’ day was in a position to accept the healing of Jehovah, but many refused. Both Jesus and Paul testified, quoting Isaiah, "For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." (cf. Acts 28:27)
The promised healing came to the remnant, the true children of Abraham, who placed their trust in Christ and were regrafted into the root of faith. They are the Israel of God, and believing gentiles have also been adopted into the commonwealth of faith (cf. Eph. 2:12,13,19; Gal. 6:16).
There is no vision of "utter destruction" on the entire world pictured in Micah 4. That’s a poor assumption on the part of literalists.
All you have demonstrated is that you are trying to be true to your system as painful as that may be. I will give you credit for that much.
Sorry.
“When God communicates to man, I think it’s obvious that He communicates so that man can understand.”
I’m not sure where you are going with this but God’s time is not our time unless He makes it definite. To Abraham He told him his progeny would be slaves for 400 years but He did not tell him when it would take place. To Abraham, He told him Isaac would be born but it was another 12 years before He told him “next year at this time”. Isaiah foretold a child would be born of a young woman (virgin in Jesus’ case) and it was another 700 years before the duel fulfillment came to pass and over 4,000 years since it was prophecied to Eve. Jesus’ announcement that Isaiah 61 was being fulfilled in Him and yet there are parts of the prophecy yet to be fulfilled and it is really a tri-part fulfilling of prophecy; Isaiah, Jesus then and Jesus to come.
“You are skillfully avoiding the substance of my posts: viz. neither Jesus nor his disciples understood the Micah prophecy has comprising to separate and distinct appearances of “Elijah” separated by thousands of years.”
You don’t know that, it is just part of your interpretive system. Here is a prophecy in Isaiah 61 and Jesus’ taking a portion of it and applying it to himself at that time. Notice Jesus only speaks to the first two verses of the Isaiah prophecy. In order to be consistent with your interpretive scheme, although Jesus does not mention the rest of the prophecy, He is including the fulfillment in His Luke 4 message.
Isa 61:1 ¶ 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;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Isa 61:3 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.
Isa 61:4 ¶ 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.
Isa 61:5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien [shall be] your plowmen and your vinedressers.
Isa 61:6 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.
Isa 61:7 For your shame [ye shall have] double; and [for] confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.
Isa 61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Isa 61:9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they [are] the seed [which] the LORD hath blessed.
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears
“I’m not sure where you are going with this but God’s time is not our time unless He makes it definite”
Again, Daniel was told to seal up the prophecy because it concerned the DISTANT FUTURE and John was told to not seal up the same prophecy because the TIME IS NEAR.
If God was communicating with God in those verses, then you might have a point. But God was clearly communicating with man.
“Isaiah foretold a child would be born of a young woman (virgin in Jesus’ case) and it was another 700 years before the duel fulfillment came to pass”
And notice that Isaiah did not say the time was “at hand” or “soon” in the prophecy about Christ. Because the Bible was written to man, not to God.
The question here is of communication, and God knows how to communicate with man.
1) Old Testament 2) New Testament
“John was told to not seal up the same prophecy because the TIME IS NEAR.”
Except John is writing about 95 A.D.. So what is the point of the prophecy? Where is the new heaven and new earth?
“1) Old Testament 2) New Testament”
Interesting thought. so the Old Testament is done away with; odd that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament would be quoting as authentic from something out of date or even calling it inspired scripture. Even odder that we still have it as part of the canon.
Hi all,
Thanks for you replies. I am truly trying to understand this interplay among the different viewpoints.
My local church is pastored by two amillenialists, but both pastors studied at Master’s College.
I got saved through a ‘DTS’ church in Texas, which was of course strongly dispensational.
At that time, I was ignorant of the (mostly) Pres/Reformed amil position. For many years, I assumed that the amil view was an RCC view that was held over by churches like the Anglican, Lutheran, etc. My personal theory at this time is that it is just that - a holdover from the RCC, and that those two churches (Anglican/Episcopalian and Lutheran) are joined by the Pres/Reformed in their amillenialism.
At this point, I do think that there is a political-ecclesiastical common ground that is shared by the following organizations:
The Roman Catholic Church
Anglican/Episcopalian
Lutheran
Pres/Reformed
Eastern Orthodox
All of these churches have had, or continue to have a strong union between political power and ecclesiastical power. I do think that this possession of temporal political power has given some sort of a justification, or rationale, or possibly some kind of a thought process that makes an amillenial viewpoint more palatable or attractive.
In my personal history, I was RCC until my early to mid twenties, and am now quite middle aged. Since my first local evangelical church was a DTS operation, dispensationalism was quite easy to understand and accept, once the hold of the RCC had been loosed from my thinking.
I share many of John MacArthur’s conclusions, in that I do think that the amillenial position suffers from an illogical allegorism in Biblical interpretation. One thousand years means thousand years, in Revelation, for example.
I also fail to see the confusion that many amillenialist have with Romans chapter 11. Paul is very clear that there is ONE OLIVE tree, but that there are two branches, one natural branch (ethnic Israel) and one wild branch (gentile humanity).
How hard is this to understand?
For the sake of time, here are my fears about amillemialism:
(1) That they miss God’s testimony of God’s sovereign working in regathering ethnic Israel to the land. God is responsible for this. No one else is. One cannot interpret God’s sovereignty in two ways on the regathering of Israel. God did it, and He did it for a reason. See Ezekiel chapter 36 on this.
(2) I do think that we are at the very edge of the Tribulation, yet my pastor says the regathering of the Jewish people to the land means nothing.
(2a) Will the rebuilt temple mean nothing?
(2b) Will the resumption of animal sacrifice mean nothing? (Bear in mind, the sacrifices will NOT mean anything as far as sin atonement is concerned, but it’ll be prophetically significant.)
(2c) Will the cessation of those sacrifices mean nothing?
(2d) Will the appearance of a dynamic leader who causes that cessation mena nothing?
(2e) Will a government ID system for complete control of the population mean nothing?
(2f) Will a worldwide currency mean nothing?
(3) When the unsaved neighbor of an amillenialist asks an amil about all these issues, will the amil say that it means nothing?
********
I’ve got to bug out now, but I’ve had all this on my chest for many weeks now, and I needed a place to vent and to unload. My local church has gotten my quite concerned about their seeming amillenialism, and I’ve been very disheartened about the extremely sloppy sermons that have been given in order to justify this viewpoint.
For example, the pastor used this verse:
“From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake,..”
to prove a point, but did not use the rest of the verse, since it wholly contradicts his point:
“Romans 11 (NASB)
28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
OK. I have to run. To my amil brothers, please don’t take any of this personally.
For now,
fishtank
Actually it’s only the first verse and a half.
In order to be consistent with your interpretive scheme, although Jesus does not mention the rest of the prophecy, He is including the fulfillment in His Luke 4 message.
I have no problem with that. We know from His testimony elsewhere that all the of the law and the prophets were pointing to Him (cf. Luke 24:25,27,44). Jesus made His point in Luke 4 by quoting a portion of Isaiah 61, He was the one about whom the prophets testified. It’s obvious that the Jews got His point.
You want to read the verse this way, "Today this Scripture (and only this exact text of Scripture) is fulfilled in your hearing." But if we take it "literally", it wasn’t just "today" (that very day and only that day) that the prophecy was fulfilled, since Jesus’ entire ministry was about declaring "the acceptable year of the Lord." He taught them about the nearness of the kingdom of heaven.
There’s no reason to believe that Jesus intended to insert yet another multiple thousand year gap in the middle of Isaiah 61:2. That remains a theory. You cannot appeal to one improvable theory to help you resolve another theory.
So you’re back to your strained interpretation of a future "Elijah" in spite of Jesus’ words in Matthew 17 to the contrary.
Two that got away from MacArthur. Like Riddlebarger, I think that is the reason for his speech at the Pastor’s Conference. Stem the tide (if possible).
At this point, I do think that there is a political-ecclesiastical common ground that is shared by the following organizations:
Be careful cuz it is just as easy to identify futurist dispensationalism with all sorts of 19th and 20th century cults, like the Millerites, JWs, and Armstrongites
While guilt by association is a logical fallacy, still, I’d rather be associated eschatologically with the Lutherans than with the JWs.
I share many of John MacArthur’s conclusions, in that I do think that the amillenial position suffers from an illogical allegorism in Biblical interpretation. One thousand years means thousand years, in Revelation, for example.
That’s what his system tells him. But in order to assert that system he needs to ignore the context, which is a book chock full of images and symbols. Who made the rule that in Revelation all the number are supposed to be taken "literally" while the rest of the symbols are just that, symbols?
I also fail to see the confusion that many amillenialist have with Romans chapter 11. Paul is very clear that there is ONE OLIVE tree, but that there are two branches, one natural branch (ethnic Israel) and one wild branch (gentile humanity).
Where is the confusion?
One set of branches are faithful Israel (the remnant) and one set of branches are the ingrafted gentiles. But what are they all apart of? If you say "Israel" then you have just affirmed what some folks disparagingly call "replacement theology", so be careful.
I’m not amil, so I won’t necessarily defend that system (although it is far better than aberrational dispensationalism). But much of what passes for amil criticism (e.g., MacArthur’s statements) really misrepresents the system, IMO.
When I see people reading the latest newspaper headlines and then trying to make sense of them though a system of Bible prophecy tea leaves, I know they are in serious trouble.
That's a pretty poor argument.
First of all there seems to be confusion about Old Testament vs. old covenant. The two are not the same. The Old Testament is still the word of God even though not every word has direct application to us today, e.g., Do you think that Joshua 4:8,9 applies directly to you or anyone else today? Should it be taken out of the Bible?
Second of all, when the OT prophecies were being applied to Jesus, the old covenant was still operative. The new covenant because operative with the death of the Testator (Jesus Christ), and made the old covenant no longer binding. Hebrews 8:13 describes it as "decaying and about to pass away". In other words, it was dead but the body still appeared alive. Like a corpse that appears to be sleeping. It’s not until you observe it for a longer period of time that it becomes obvious to all that the body is dead. And so that by the time of the destruction of the temple in AD70, it was finally apparent to all that the body (old covenant in the Mosaic ceremonial code) was really dead.
Yes I do want to take it literally since the Greek word for today is "Sēmeron", which means "this (very) day)" or "what has happened today". The Greek tense of the verb "fulfilled" is the perfect tense "an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated".
That part of the prophecy he quoted was fulfilled that day, The Spirit of the Lord was upon him and had anointed him to preach. However the rest of the Isaiah prophecy is yet to come, just like the Malachi 4 prophecy.
John the Baptist came in the "spirit" of Elijah but the complete prophecy of Malachi was not fulfilled. However if Elijah, since he did not die, is one of the two witnesses in Rev. 11 then the prophecy will be fulfilled for those days will be "the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah.... that I not come and strike the earth with utter destruction.”
“That’s a pretty poor argument”
Actually it is a very good argument to the answer given to the question.
“Good, now just what was the first covenant the writer is speaking of and are there any others to be completed?”
“1) Old Testament 2) New Testament”
The writer of Hebrews is not equating the first covenant with the Old Testament.
And Jesus said plainly to the disciples that John was Elijah.
but the complete prophecy of Malachi was not fulfilled.
That is your theory, not mine.
However if Elijah, since he did not die, is one of the two witnesses in Rev. 11 then the prophecy will be fulfilled for those days will be "the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah.... that I not come and strike the earth with utter destruction.”
Another theory that doesn’t even fit with the book of Revelation.
Actually, the tail end of the passage is better as, "… lest I come and strike the land with a curse (Hebrew: cherem)."
But certainly you would not argue that the presence of the two witnesses keeps the curse of God from falling on the earth (as the futurists envision the scenario). The entire book of Revelation is all about God’s curse upon the earth during this particular period of time. So how exactly can Malachi 4:5,6 be literally fulfilled during the futurist great tribulation?
BTW, the Hebrew that you translate as "earth" is used hundreds of times in the OT to specificy "the land" as in the land of Israel. E.g.,
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:" (Lev. 23:10)
Why do you believe that Malachi had the entire earth in view rather than the land of Israel? He says in verse 4, "Remember the Law of Moses". He is calling Israel to repentance. The curse will fall upon the land because of Israel’s failure to heed to law of God (cf. Deut. 28:15ff).
My take is that you don't believe Jesus' words literally that John fulfilled the Elijah prophecy, that John was Elijah.
But you do admit that neither Jesus nor His disciples ever mentioned any future Elijah, yes?
It is not a coincidence that Christ stopped quoting scripture in the middle of Isaiah 61:2 Seven
Now that we have convinced the Mormons, Catholics, and non-Calvinist protestants that they are on the wrong path the time is ripe for further culling the herd.
The thought that millenialists and post-millenialists are continuing in their heathen ways without the proper correction makes me shudder.
When FreeRepublic becomes a site that is welcoming to only the true believing pre-millenial Calvinists then we can finally develop a consistent view toward public policy that properly honors our saviour.
Malachi has NOT been fulfilled.... curious that it was Moses and Elijah with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. Note that we have plural fathers with children, in this prophecy of Malachi.
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.