Dispensation(s)

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now what are they going to say I wonder? Maybe you shouldnta outa brung that up Larry

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm just repeating the Scriptures.

YES!!!! & Keep it up (what, no thumbs up!?!?!)

 

[kyredneck]

Now what are they going to say I wonder? Maybe you shouldnta outa brung that up Larry

24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.

Like Aaron says, this is the scripture.

 

[agedman]

I would agree with our Presbyterian brethren that God predestined one called out people for Himself from before creation. That would be in keeping with the Reformed view of predestination and election.

Nor does it particularly bring any discredit to the typical dispensation thinking as has been shared on this thread.

Being a holder of the "doctrines of grace" and viewing Scriptures through the lens of Pre-mil, and able to see the Scriptures in a dispensation outline do not conflict.

 

[agedman]

Conflict? At the least they are strange bedfellows. I do not have a major problem with Calvinists who believe in the historic premil position (although I do not subscribe to it), but Calvinists holding to Dispensationalism's form of premillennialism has always struck me as odd. It is difficult to dissect and separate Calvinism from Covenant Theology, although some attempt to do so (i.e. John MacArthur).

There is a difference (imo) between the teaching of dispensationalism and using political/economic/social events to outline the Scriptures into dispensations.

Their is really very little difference in the typical Pre-mil thinking of today and the dispensation premillennialism. Both indicate the apostasy of the church, both indicate that there will be a growing time of trouble and tribulation prior to the Second Coming, and both hold to a literal return and millennial reign of the saints and Christ in Jerusalem (though the historic pre-mil has the millennium as an undetermined length of time. And it is interesting that there is an assumption that when one states that they are pre-mill, they are also seen (whether or not it is true) as dispensationalists.

I have found that most Pre-mil folks also hold to some view of the rapture as ocurring before, during, or at the end of the Tribulation but before the Second Coming. Because both systems hold to taking the Scriptures as literal as possible, there is not that much disparity in the end time views.

One thing that folks need to keep in mind is that the typical modern dispensation teaching is for the most part a way to outline the Scripture eras.
Certainly, the ultra and hyper types of dispensation get into arguing just when did the gentile church begin. I personally think such discussions of that nature are fruitless.

One area that may distinguish some of the older teaching on dispensation, from that of the more modern, is the view of the church as it relates to Israel. Imo, most of the valued dispensation folks recognize that the gentile church isn't some separate entity that God established because the Jews rejected Christ. Rather, many dispensation folks (imo) acknowledge the approach of Romans 11, that the gentile believers become a part of the Jewish believers (not the national/political Israeli) until the time of the Second Coming. That the church has no distinctive national earthly residence, until the Millennium and the final estate in the New Heaven and New Earth.

On the BB, I would surmise that there are a number of members that would be in agreement with that views. But then, I am possibly wrong.

I recently (though I don't know were anymore) read where some of the new covenant thinking and dispensational thinking is being blended into a systematic approach to the Scriptures that may end up being really accurate. That more and more covenant thinkers are recognizing taking a more literal approach to Revelations presents no conflicts and actually resolves some areas of disagreement between themselves. Whether this article was factual or not, I had nor have the inclination to verify.

Most of all this post you knew. I suppose I write often for those who may be reading that do not directly participate.

 

[agedman]

There is a difference (imo) between the teaching of dispensationalism and using political/economic/social events to outline the Scriptures into dispensations.

Their is really very little difference in the typical Pre-mil thinking of today and the dispensation premillennialism. Both agree that the apostasy of the church will enlarge, both indicate that there will be a growing time of trouble and tribulation prior to the Second Coming, and both hold to a literal return and millennial reign of the saints and Christ in Jerusalem (though the historic pre-mil has the millennium as an undetermined length of time. And it is interesting that there is an assumption that when one states that they are pre-mill, they are also seen (whether or not it is true) as dispensationalists.

I have found that most Pre-mil folks also hold to some view of the rapture as ocurring before, during, or at the end of the Tribulation but before the Second Coming. Because both systems hold to taking the Scriptures as literal as possible, there is not that much disparity in the end time views.

One thing that folks need to keep in mind is that the typical modern dispensation teaching is for the most part a way to outline the Scripture eras.
Certainly, the ultra and hyper types of dispensation get into arguing just when did the gentile church begin. I personally think such discussions of that nature are fruitless.

One area that may distinguish some of the older teaching on dispensation, from that of the more modern, is the view of the church as it relates to Israel. Imo, most of the valued dispensation folks recognize that the gentile church isn't some separate entity that God established because the Jews rejected Christ. Rather, many dispensation folks (imo) acknowledge the approach of Romans 11, that the gentile believers become a part of the Jewish believers (not the national/political Israeli) until the time of the Second Coming. That the church has no distinctive national earthly residence, until the Millennium and the final estate in the New Heaven and New Earth.

On the BB, I would surmise that there are a number of members that would be in agreement with that views. But then, I am possibly wrong.

I recently (though I don't know were anymore) read where some of the new covenant thinking and dispensational thinking is being blended into a systematic approach to the Scriptures that may end up being really accurate. That more and more covenant thinkers are recognizing taking a more literal approach to Revelations presents no conflicts and actually resolves some areas of disagreement between themselves. Whether this article was factual or not, I had nor have the inclination to verify.

Most of all this post you knew. I suppose I write often for those who may be reading that do not directly participate.

 

[Darrell C]

Now what are they going to say I wonder? Maybe you shouldnta outa brung that up Larry

"We" are still waiting for someone to respond to at least one question posed, and...

..."We" are not amused.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.

Like Aaron says, this is the scripture.

It is Scripture, and it contrasts the two Covenants, not one "Covenant of Redemption."

Galatians 4:21-22

King James Version (KJV)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I would agree with our Presbyterian brethren that God predestined one called out people for Himself from before creation. That would be in keeping with the Reformed view of predestination and election.

And as long as it is Reformed it's correct, right? lol

You guys are hilarious.

Okay, another attempt to point out the obvious, and just one little question: when are the Elect saved?


God bless.

 

[agedman]

I am curious. Do you know the difference between Dispensational premillennialism and Historic premillennialism?

Of course.

The basic difference is the manner of the time length of the Millennium. The historic premillenialism did not consider the time length of the Millennium to be taken as the literal number of years, rather held that it was of undetermined length.

Dispensational premillennialism includes a rapture that was not part of the historic. Other than that, the two blend rather well together like I showed the alignment each holds in the previous post.

What differences do you think exist between the end time views?

 

[agedman]

I recommend you get a hold of a book titled Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly. The latter part of the book does a very good job of explaining eschatology as understood during the apostolic and patristic ages.

The patristic age began with the generation that immediately followed the end of the apostolic age. During this time the early church very much believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was going return during their lifetime. They did not expect a rapture. Indeed the concept would have been foreign to them. Historic premillennialism (or Chiliasm) did, indeed, expect a literal 1000 year reign of Christ upon His soon-expected return. George Eldon Ladd expounds on this in his book A Blessed Hope.

The two forms of premillennialism do not blend together at all. While both look forward to a 1000 year literal reign of Christ, one sees the Church going through a seven year Tribulation and the other does not. This is a significant difference since Dispensationalism teaches that believers will be raptured before the Tribulation.

There is no doubt that the Church in the formative years looked for and expected the return of Christ, but anyone who neglects the instructions of Jude warns believers that they need to "agonize" (contend) for the faith as a warning against the encroaching apostasy of his day. Paul (Corinthians) warns of those who disguise themselves as believers yet are the enemy.

So, the first point I am making is that the earliest believers DID know that before Christ returned there would be a departure from the true faith.

Secondly, they did expect a rapture (though not called that) because again Paul addresses the issue of who precedes whom.

Third, Historic premillennialism (or Chiliasm - as TCassidy calls himself) certainly did expect a Millennial reign, however the length of the reign was of undetermined length - could be a 1001 or 999 depending on how the person constructed the "season" of the enemy's unbinding and deceit. This is one of the distinctions between the Historic Pre-mil and the modern dispensationalist.

Forth, it is true that main line Dispensational teaching does place the rapture as the start of the tribulation, however, there are those who take the view that a period of deception (that they believe a lie - Thessalonians) immediately follows the rapture and then the tribulation begins when Christ opens the first seal. But for the uninformed, the broad context was a time line that didn't get into such small particulars - only the main points.

I have not read a historic pre-mil person who did not expect the church to be going at least a part of the way through what we might call the tribulation. They concerned themselves with the second coming and not with a rapture. They also concerned themselves with exposing the error of apostasy knowing that such would increase and become more prominent as the second coming drew near.

This reference is a good read and gives a quick overview of the various view of historic pre-mil. HERE
Basically the dispute revolves around the "rapture" thinking with a great deal of agreement between the two on other issues.

 

[TCassidy]

Well, as my name was dragged into the discussion I will offer my perspective. (A)gedman is correct in that I self-identify as a Chiliast. Or Historic Premillennialist. We believe the only time requirement is that a millennium (a visible kingdom of God upon the earth), for 1,000 years, will transpire after the second advent.

Some Chiliasts, then and now, allow for a catching away of the saints but most that do (and certainly all of the patristic Chiliasts) would be, today, described as Post Tribulationalists. Those who believe in a catching away also sometimes taught that the Antichrist first appears on earth and a period of Tribulation begins (again, sometimes taught to be 7 years).

The major differences between the two forms of dispensationalism is that Chiliasts believe the present age was predicted in the Old Testament while the Dispensationalists believe in what they usually refer to as a "parenthesis" or a “great parenthesis” introduced because the Jews rejected the kingdom.

We believe the "church age" was the focus of Old Testament prophecy while Dispensationalists believe this present age is seldom or never mentioned in the Old Testament.

I also recommend George Eldon Ladd's book, as well as J. Barton Payne's books. His "Theology of the Older Testament" was my Old Testament Theology textbook when I was in Seminary before most of you were born.

I also recommend Payne's "Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfilment" and "New Perspectives on the Old Testament."

For those of you not familiar with Dr. Payne, he received his Ph.D. from Princeton and was on the faculty of Covenant Theological Seminary, having taught previously at Bob Jones University, the Wheaton Graduate School of Theology, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He was an active member of the Evangelical Theological Society, and an ardent student of Reformed Presbyterian history. He was, of course, not a Baptist, but a Presbyterian.

 

[Darrell C]

While it is true that all Covenants have pointed to the Redemptive Plan of God, including the Covenant of Law (which is contrasted with the promises of God to Abraham), there is no reason to bring Systematic Theology into the conversation.

Does the Bible distinguish between dispensations is the question.



Now show where Scripture teaches "the Covenant of Redemption."

I agree with the statement in large part, however, the point I would make is that this is implicit to the teaching of Scripture, not derived from an explicit statement, and that is the same way that God dealing with men through various means at various times is derived. If you make it a matter of something peculiar to a particular system of Theology, it distracts from the focus.

And the fact of the matter is that while it may be viewed as correct to day "The Noahic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant all operate under the auspices of the Covenant of Redemption," what we cannot say is that "the Abrahamic is the New Covenant," or "the Covenant of Law is the New Covenant," but...these are distinct Covenants which simply reveal in a progressive manner that which would be clarified when the New Covenant was established.

And I would place your statement "The Covenant of Redemption has been a continuing covenant since Genesis 3:15" as incorrect, in that from the time of the promise of the defeat of Satan in the Garden until the very last Old Testament Sacrifice was offered...there was no equitable atonement nor remission of sins as that provided through Christ.

From an eternal perspective we understand the Security of the Old Testament believer was every bit as secure as our own, but, that doesn't nullify the fact that the Old Testament Saint was demanded to offer up vicarious sacrifice for the temporary covering of sin.

And those are two distinct Eras that cannot be denied. I doubt you would ascribe Old Testament Sacrifice (both Pre and Post-Law) as removing sins on an eternal basis as Christ's does. But, if you equate the redemption from sin achieved by Christ with the redemption of men in the Old Testament, that is what you do.



Not sure how we conclude a "Covenant of Works" when Adam was never demanded to work for relationship with God. Instead, we see prohibition concerning the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam did not have to "work" for that relationship, that was just the fact. Loss of that relationship cannot be equated to a true Covenant of Works, which only appears in the Covenant of Law, which was an "if/then" Covenant that stands separate from all other Covenants. Each distinct Covenant reveals the Gospel of Jesus Christ just a little more, and all of those Covenants did not require anything of man.

What was Eve required to do that her Seed would deliver the death blow to the Serpent? Nothing.

What was required of Noah to ensure God would never again judge and destroy the earth as He did in Noah's day? Nothing.

What was Abraham required to do that through him all families of the earth would be blessed? Nothing. If we attribute works to Abraham then we nullify the fact that he is accounted righteous based on faith. And faith is not an effort, it is a result.

What was David required to do that his Seed should be King? Nothing. This too was the declaration of God, not a condition of that Covenant.

Finally, what does the New Testament believer, who is inducted into relationship to God through the New Covenant...do? Nothing. The argument of the Arminian, "Well...I had to believe didn't I?" is in error, because before they believed, just as we see in every Covenant God establishes with man (even the Covenant of Law)...it is God that initiates interaction and enlightens men to His will.

This is not an understanding developed by any System of Theology...this is the clear presentation of Scripture itself.

So I invite you to discuss the Scripture, rather than Systematic Theology. This is not about sectarian division, but about what Scripture actually teaches independent of the terms coined to describe concepts in the Bible.

And while we could understand a concept of two dispensations and label them the Covenants of works and the Covenant of Redemption, because we see elements of both, at the same time it is because we see elements of both that we draw a distinction between Promise and Reality. What is provided to men under New Covenant Relationship was not provided to them under any other Covenant. We do see salvation has always been by grace through faith, but that does not mean we equate the covenants to the point where we neglect the distinctions drawn between the differing eras. Men were commanded to shed the blood of bulls and goats, now they are not. We are ministers of the New Covenant...the Prophets were not. The New Covenant was not operative then, now it is.

These distinctions lead to a proper understanding of Scripture. If it were not important to draw these distinctions...they wouldn't have been drawn.


God bless.

Iconoclast, you have "disliked" this post, please share why with an address of the post.


God bless.

 

[kyredneck]

We believe the "church age" was the focus of Old Testament prophecy while Dispensationalists believe this present age is seldom or never mentioned in the Old Testament.

Thank you! I just learned something! (about Historic Premil, I already knew the focus of OT prophecy)

Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. Acts 3:24

 

[Darrell C]

We believe the "church age" was the focus of Old Testament prophecy while Dispensationalists believe this present age is seldom or never mentioned in the Old Testament.

That's a little misleading.

Could you provide prophecy that distinctly teaches of the Age between Christ's comings?

The Church Age?

And I don't mean prophecy that we can understand in light of New Testament Revelation.

Can you show anyone that actually understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Anyone?

You can't, because if you could...you nullify New Testament teaching which is clear that the Gospel was not revealed in those days.

But like to see you do this.

And by the way, where do you get your name was "dragged into this?"


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

That's a little misleading.

Could you provide prophecy that distinctly teaches of the Age between Christ's comings?

The Church Age?

And I don't mean prophecy that we can understand in light of New Testament Revelation.

Can you show anyone that actually understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Anyone?

You can't, because if you could...you nullify New Testament teaching which is clear that the Gospel was not revealed in those days.

But like to see you do this.

And by the way, where do you get your name was "dragged into this?"


God bless.

Blessedwife, could you explain why you disliked this post?


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

Acts 10:43 To him (Christ) give all the prophets (Old Testament Prophets) witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

 

[Darrell C]

Acts 10:43 To him (Christ) give all the prophets (Old Testament Prophets) witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Hey, great verse to show how God has ministered differently through the Ages!

But how about mentioning some of His other names, which were known to men in that day:


Isaiah 9:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.


Great contribution!

Keep up the good work.


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

This present church age as prophesied in the Old Testament.

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Micah 4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.
5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.

Please observe the following facts about these two prophecies:

1. The word "mountain" is to be understood in the sense of government; and this government of the Lord's House, his church, is to be exalted above all other institutions.

2. The Lord's House is "the Church of the living God," the church that Jesus built (1 Tim. 3:15).

3. All nations shall have an opportunity to be a part of the coming kingdom both Jews and Gentiles ("all nations shall flow to it").

4. That the church is to be established in the last days, the closing days of the Mosaic dispensation, the last dispensation of time, the days of Messiah (Heb. 1:1,2; Acts 2:16,17).

5. The place for the beginning of the Lord's House (church) was Zion or Jerusalem, "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. " In connection with this prediction see Luke 24:47 and also Acts 2:1-4.

6. From verse 4 of the context we learn who is to be the "judge" or "ruler" in that coming kingdom. "And He will judge between the nations, and shall rebuke many people. " It is the same "he" of verse 3, "and He will teach us of his ways, And we shall walk in His paths."

7. In verse 4 we are told of the peaceful nature of those who become citizens of the kingdom, "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. " This indicates the peaceful spirit of the men and women who make up the kingdom, its citizens (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:18).

Daniel also prophesied about the church of Christ in his age. Perhaps the best and most noted prophecy by Daniel concerning the church deals with the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:31-35).

Dan 2:31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Please notice the following facts about the passage;

1. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream in which he saw a great image with a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, and legs of iron and feet of part iron and clay.

2. He saw a stone, cut out without hands, strike the image upon its feet and destroy it; the stone went on to become a great mountain filling the earth.

3. The king was troubled about the dream, but was unable to recall it.

It was at this point that Daniel came upon the scene, the prophet was able to interpret the dream for the King.
Please notice the following facts in the interpretation by Daniel:

1. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that he, as king of Babylon, was the head of gold and after him would arise another kingdom inferior to his kingdom (cf. v. 39). Then a third kingdom would arise followed by a fourth (cf. v. 40).

2. Since the stone was to strike the image in his feet, and since the feet represent the fourth kingdom, it follows that the kingdom of God was to be set up during the existence of the fourth kingdom. Please observe verse 44 in this connection, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed" (Dan. 2:44).

It is not too difficult to identify the kingdoms in the prophecy because we have a definite starting point, please observe the following facts in this regard:

1. Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar, king, app. 600 B.C. The kingdom fell about 536 B.C. "Represented by the head of gold."

2. Medo-Persia: Established by Cyrus, king of Persia, and Darius, king of Media, fell about 330 B.C. "Represented by the breast and arms of silver."

3. Macedonia (Greek Empire): Established by Alexander the Great. Divided among his generals about 323 B.C. "Represented by the belly and thighs of brass."

4. Roman Empire: Established as a world empire by Octavius Caesar about 30 B.C. "Represented by legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay."

"In the days of these kings, " therefore refers to a time when Rome ruled the world, "And smote the image upon its feet" signifies that the event would definitely occur during the reign of the fourth kingdom (i.e., Rome).

The New Testament begins its story while Caesar still ruled the world. "In those days came John the Baptist" (Matt. 3:1,2). In what days? "In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Luke 3:1,2).

Summing up the prophecy of Daniel we notice the following five facts about the kingdom he foretold would come in the future:

1. It was to be established during the Roman Empire. And in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar John came saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Luke 3:1-6; Matt. 3:1-3).

2. This kingdom is to be established by the Lord. There is a sense in which all earthly kingdoms never were. This kingdom (the church) was established by the Lord, in person, present on the Earth, and is governed by him alone (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:20-23).

3. The kingdom to be set up by the God of heaven was to supplant all other kingdoms in that it is to become the last and final world power. According to Daniel's prophecy there will never be another earthly kingdom with world-wide dominion; that distinction indeed belongs to the kingdom of God.

4. This kingdom will never be destroyed. The kingdom Jesus built (i.e., his church), is to continue to the end of the world. Jesus is king in his kingdom now, Head of his Church now, and will reign until the last enemy (i.e. death) is overthrown (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Heb. 12:28).

5. The kingdom described by Daniel was to have a small beginning and later fill all the earth. Jesus spoke of his Kingdom as having a small beginning like the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31,32); he also refers to it as leaven in Matthew 13:33.

Finally, Isaiah prophesied that the Lord's House or his Kingdom would begin in the last days and the law would go forth from the city of Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-4; Lk. 24:47). The Law went forth from Jerusalem (Acts 2:1-38). This was the beginning of the Lord's Church, the establishment of Messiah's Kingdom, in the days of the Roman Kings as prophesied by Daniel (Acts 2:1-4; 11:15).

 

[kyredneck]

Outstanding post TC!