Old Testament Kingdom Prophecies. Literally or spiritually understood?

[John of Japan]

Jesus taught a spiritual kingdom only. And Isreal is believers only. Settle this and most falls into the proper place.

Well how odd. At His ascension, the apostles asked, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). And Jesus did not rebuke them nor call them "heretics," though you say that the premil view is heresy. Instead, He said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (v. 7).

So, Jesus taught in Acts 1 that there would be a literal restoration of the kingdom to Israel. I think I'll just stick with what Jesus taught.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well how odd. At His ascension, the apostles asked, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). And Jesus did not rebuke them nor call them "heretics," though you say that the premil view is heresy. Instead, He said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (v. 7).

So, Jesus taught in Acts 1 that there would be a literal restoration of the kingdom to Israel. I think I'll just stick with what Jesus taught.

Apostle John would be then a "heretic", as he held to a literal Millennium!

 

[Yeshua1]

My view is correct according to Jesus' teaching on the kingdom. It's a kingdom of faith, not of sight. Whatever is not of faith is sin.

Jesus is right now our High Priest, and He will move to His Hing once sets up his throne here on earth!

 

[Yeshua1]

Premillennialism is heresy according to the the Council of Ephesus 431.

Not per the Bible, do you hold Councils equal to scriptures?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are confusing Phariseeism with the New Heaven and earth.

New heaven Is eternal state, after His Millennium!

 

[Yeshua1]

A false doctrine on the second coming is worse.

Pre and Post Mil views are NOT heresy!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not according to Jesus.

Jesus disagrees with you in Acts, as does Peter!

 

[Yeshua1]

It is eternal and been here since Jesus first preached it. But the blind cannot see it.

Strange that you claim that a fellow Christian is in darkness, as in Jesus we walk in the light!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is a myth. In general, the church fathers were millennialists, and the Council at Ephesus did not call the premil view heresy. I dare you to give an original quote from 431 to prove your contention. You can't, because such a quote does not exist.

far as I know, ONLY position held to be actual heresy is the full blown Preterist one!

 

[Yeshua1]

So, then according to you the Gospel of the Kingdom is different from the Gospel described by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-8? That view is usually described as an ultra-dispensationalist view. Can you prove your definition of the Gospel of the Kingdom from Scriptures? Frankly, I completely disagree that it is "all that Jesus preached in the gospels." You have no proof whatsoever for that definition.

Jesus developed and enlarged the Theology for the Church thru the Epistles!

 

[robycop3]

Iscariot lost any faith he mighta had in Jesus when He didn't use His power to overthrow the Romans. Iscariot was a Zealot, same as the other Judas.(Judas, a variation of 'Judah', was a very common name among the Jews then.) The Zealots believed Messiah would come & free them from Rome, & JI thought he'd found his man in Jesus.

While he had indeed found Messiah, he didn't know the WHOLE prophecy about Him; thus, he figured he'd erred by believing Jesus was Messiah. I think the last straw for JI was when Jesus hid from a band of Jews wanting to make Him their earthly King.

Now, the earthly, physical KOG will commence when Jesus returns & disposes of the antichrist & his army, & takes the throne of David in Jerusalem. Right now, that kingdom is still spiritual.

And preterism, both partial & full, are phony & false as the KJVO myth is.

 

[Dave G]

Daniel said the Kingdom of God would appear during the times of the ancient Roman Empire.

We're still in the times of the ancient Roman Empire.
The two legs were East and West, while the clay signifies a mingling of the two with the peoples of the earth....
America is a good example of that mingling, as is Europe, IMO.

Finally, the ten toes ( ten kings ) have not yet been revealed.
That will happen during the Tribulation, which is 3.5 years long.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.

I agree.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
A new glorified body can.

Whereas in our first bodies the life is in the blood ( Leviticus 17:11 ), the believer's life is in Christ.

 

[Dave G]

In contrast, the Pharisees taught a literal physical kingdom based on a literal interpretation of Old Testament Kingdom Prophecies.

Precisely.
That is how Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah, among others, put it.

" 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. " ( Isaiah 2:2 ).

"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." ( Micah 4:1 ).

" And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem." ( Isaiah 27:13 ).

" At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart." ( Jeremiah 3:17 ).

" Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD." ( Zechariah 8:22 ).

For more, please see Zechariah 14.


I'm not sure how you get by all the prophecies of the coming kingdom and thousand years, but I don't.
I believe the words on the page, Dave.
To me, the prophecies are literal, just as the prophecies of His first coming were, so will be the prophecies of His second:

" And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." ( Zechariah 14:9 )

 

[Dave G]

Premillennialism is heresy according to the the Council of Ephesus 431.

The way I see things, the church-at-large was already going apostate beginning in the second century, and true believers began to be outnumbered by false brethren who came in unawares and took over.
What started out pure in doctrine and practice very quickly, by the time of John's writing Revelation, began to unravel, from my perspective.

That's why I don't generally recognize the councils of men, Dave.
Because many of them don't speak for me, and many of them I think were mainly populated by those who thought they were saved, but really weren't.

The Council of Trent, for example, said nothing that I need to concern myself with, and its edicts do not bind me.
Neither did Vatican I, Vatican II, nor any of the other meetings of the visible church that occurred during the time of the "Early Church Fathers"...which were the forerunners of what we now call the RCC.
In fact, almost everything the Roman Catholic Church taught or now teaches, including a-millennialism and "Molinism", I find to be in error.
While I agree with some of what they teach about Christ, I only do so because they are in agreement with Scripture...

Which is, more often than not, the exception to the rule in my estimation.



Now, some articles written up and agreed to by men I do find myself in agreement with.
For example:

I agree with the London Baptist Confessions of 1644/46 and 1689, but not all the ones that came after them.
I agree with the Canons of Dordt...
But that does not mean that I go along with everything that John Calvin or John Knox taught or may have taught.

I agree with a great many things that John Wesley had to say...
But not his view of how salvation is accomplished by God.

I also agree with many things that John R. Rice had to say...
But again, not his view of salvation.

Finally, I'm "pre-millennial" and "post-Tribulational"...
and that is why I'm not "Reformed", in the traditional sense.


Good evening to you.

 

[1689Dave]

Well how odd. At His ascension, the apostles asked, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). And Jesus did not rebuke them nor call them "heretics," though you say that the premil view is heresy. Instead, He said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (v. 7).

So, Jesus taught in Acts 1 that there would be a literal restoration of the kingdom to Israel. I think I'll just stick with what Jesus taught.

Jesus is Israel and the restoration of Israel began with his resurrection. And is completed with the resurrection of believers (Israel) on the last day. Paul and Matthew teach Jesus is Israel.

 

[1689Dave]

So, then according to you the Gospel of the Kingdom is different from the Gospel described by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-8? That view is usually described as an ultra-dispensationalist view. Can you prove your definition of the Gospel of the Kingdom from Scriptures? Frankly, I completely disagree that it is "all that Jesus preached in the gospels." You have no proof whatsoever for that definition.

Peter preached the Gospel of the kingdom in its latest form. The same Paul preached.

 

[1689Dave]

This is a myth. In general, the church fathers were millennialists, and the Council at Ephesus did not call the premil view heresy. I dare you to give an original quote from 431 to prove your contention. You can't, because such a quote does not exist.

I don't have the resources but they did condemn premillennialism as heresy and affirmed Amillennialism as orthodoxy. Do your own search and prove it wrong.

 

[1689Dave]

I don't have the resources but they did condemn premillennialism as heresy and affirmed Amillennialism as orthodoxy. Do your own search and prove it wrong.

Only God can say something does not exist. You cannot prove a negative.

 

[1689Dave]

The way I see things, the church-at-large was already going apostate beginning in the second century, and true believers began to be outnumbered by false brethren who came in unawares and took over.
What started out pure in doctrine and practice very quickly, by the time of John's writing Revelation, began to unravel, from my perspective.

That's why I don't generally recognize the councils of men, Dave.
Because many of them don't speak for me, and many of them I think were mainly populated by those who thought they were saved, but really weren't.

The Council of Trent, for example, said nothing that I need to concern myself with, and its edicts do not bind me.
Neither did Vatican I, Vatican II, nor any of the other meetings of the visible church that occurred during the time of the "Early Church Fathers"...which were the forerunners of what we now call the RCC.
In fact, almost everything the Roman Catholic Church taught or now teaches, including a-millennialism and "Molinism", I find to be in error.
While I agree with some of what they teach about Christ, I only do so because they are in agreement with Scripture...

Which is, more often than not, the exception to the rule in my estimation.



Now, some articles written up and agreed to by men I do find myself in agreement with.
For example:

I agree with the London Baptist Confessions of 1644/46 and 1689, but not all the ones that came after them.
I agree with the Canons of Dordt...
But that does not mean that I go along with everything that John Calvin or John Knox taught or may have taught.

I agree with a great many things that John Wesley had to say...
But not his view of how salvation is accomplished by God.

I also agree with many things that John R. Rice had to say...
But again, not his view of salvation.

Finally, I'm "pre-millennial" and "post-Tribulational"...
and that is why I'm not "Reformed", in the traditional sense.


Good evening to you.

Scripture teaches Amillennialism unless you can prove Jesus agreed with the Pharisees on their millennial kingdom.

 

[1689Dave]

Precisely.
That is how Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah, among others, put it.

" 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. " ( Isaiah 2:2 ).

"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." ( Micah 4:1 ).

" And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem." ( Isaiah 27:13 ).

" At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart." ( Jeremiah 3:17 ).

" Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD." ( Zechariah 8:22 ).

For more, please see Zechariah 14.


I'm not sure how you get by all the prophecies of the coming kingdom and thousand years, but I don't.
I believe the words on the page, Dave.
To me, the prophecies are literal, just as the prophecies of His first coming were, so will be the prophecies of His second:

" And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." ( Zechariah 14:9 )

But the spiritual kingdom Jesus taught means all of these kingdom prophecies symbolize it. Do you agree with Jesus or the Pharisees?