The reign of amillenial theology

No misconception here! Amils say that the literal Theocratic Kingdom spoken of in the OT must be understood in a spiritual NOT literal sense. The references which you so lightly gloss over as “all fulfilled in the Gospel” are quite specific in detail. God has always ruled over the earth! It has always been His, and He has done as He was pleased. Christ’s rule in Heaven now is little different than it has been from the beginning. He is not on David’s Throne which was an earthly throne in a Jerusalem (DID YOU EVEN READ THE REFERENCES? OR DOES THE SPECIFIC WORDING NOT REALLY MATTER ANYWAY?)

No way you can be “astounded” that I do not view the many detailed and specific promises as fulfilled in the Gospel. HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING ELSE I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS THREAD? IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE HEARD OF CONTEXTUAL LITERAL GRAMMATICAL HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION?

If we are going to look at the Messiah sitting on David’s throne it is not sufficient to look at it ONLY from the viewpoint of a New Testament citation of Amos 9:11 without looking at both the context of the passage and the Davidic Covenant upon which it is predicated. THIS IS MY GRIPE WITH AMIL THEOLOGY!!! IT TAKES A BRIEF CITATION THAT IS NOT EXPLAINED IN CONTEXT IN ANY GREAT DETAIL AND DIVORCES IT FROM THE CLEAR CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN AND CALLS THAT BIBLE INTERPRETATION!!!

First, Peter did not make the statement to which you allude! However your lack of precision in this regard is not surprising. Peter said that the Gentiles had heard the Gospel from his own lips and had believed. The result of his preaching and their faith was that their receding of the Holy Spirit demonstrated that Jews and Gentiles are now on equal footing in the Church on the basis of faith. JAMES says, “Simeon (Simon Peter, ) hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” James continues, “15 to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”

Second, note what James does and does not say: James does say that what Peter has described is in full AGREEMENT with what the prophets said. He does not say that ALL the words of this, or any prophecy have now bees spiritually fulfilled by the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus, and now the birth of the Church. That is what amils assume, that is not what James says.
Peter cited Joel 2 in his sermon in Acts 2, yet all that Joel prophesied did not come to pass then and much of it has not yet come to pass. The principle of double, or split reference is clearly demonstrated by Jesus’ citation of Isa 61:1-2 when He stops reading in the middle of the verse and announces “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4:21). There is no indication in Acts that all of the prophecy in Amos 9 is fulfilled!, only that the words of Peter are in full agreement with the OT Scripture.

Third, what does the prophecy to which James alludes really say? It is from Amos 9. Let’s look at the passage

11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: (the Tabernacle of David has not been built “as in the days of old”. The passage requires a literal physical fulfillment. The amil spiritual fulfillment does not fit the prophecy.)

12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Israel has not yet possessed all the heathen.)

13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. (This fits with a literal interpretation of a literal Theocratic kingdom, it does not fit with amil theology, so it must be allegorized away.)

14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. (Bring again the captivity... sounds like restoration to the promised land per Deut 30, Matt 24, Luke 21. Building the waste cities and inhabiting them, vineyards, gardens, fruit...? Amils must spiritualize all of this to make it fit their theology. Premils can take the Word of God as it is written.

15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. (Israel was “pulled up out of their land” at the destruction of Jerusalem. This was foretold by Jesus and the OT prophets. If that part was literal, TELL ME, HOW CAN THEIR RESTORATION BE ANY LESS LITERAL?)

NO. I do not see the numerous OT prophecies as having been fulfilled. NOR is Acts 15 and indication that they were FULL filled. It only indicates that they were PART filled. AND THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT ONE DAY, THEY WILL BE FULFILLED IN ENTIRETY!!!

 

DD,

You are something else...

You know if you had a little scholarly reserve you might actually come across as knowledgeable.

Irenaeus was a chiliast. No argument there. But you have marshalled his work to support your position, and in doing so you have distorted what he said. I'd encourage you to actually read his collected works - it's very interesting.

He viewed an "intermediate state" as being necessary. No believer could ascend to heaven directly because Christ did not.

He notes:

For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master.” As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight [to heaven], but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this [privilege] (Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch 31, section 2).

His description of the earthly millenium:

. That the whole creation shall, according to God’s will, obtain a vast increase, that it may bring forth and sustain fruits such [as we have mentioned], Isaiah declares: “And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every prominent hill, water running everywhere in that day, when many shall perish, when walls shall fall. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, seven times that of the day, when He shall heal the anguish of His people, and do away with the pain of His stroke.” Now “the pain of the stroke” means that inflicted at the beginning upon disobedient man in Adam, that is, death; which [stroke] the Lord will heal when He raises us from the dead, and restores the inheritance of the fathers... (Against Heresies Book 5 Ch 34, section 2).

What I said about Irenaeus was exactly right. He was millenial (chiliastic), believed in an intermediate state, and was heavily influenced by Jewish messianic writing.

He was not, and cannot be said to be a "rapturist" or a "pretrib premill".

He was "mill"!

 

Yep. Jewish messianic writing, like the Old Testament. Literal Theocratic Kingdom.

And you and I agree that we could not seriously argue for dispensational premil on Rennie.

 

RJ,

Yes Irenaeus was very dependent on the OT - but I was referring more to 2 Baruch and (less so) 4 Ezra.

I agree the OT is more than just messianic writing!

 

DD,

I have a good familiarity with Irenaeus' writings. You really should study before you speak.

Irenaeus believed in a millenium, and considered it a physical intermediate state in preparation for heaven. And wouldn't this make sense since Valentinus saw an intermediate spiritual state? You cannot know Irenaeus and deny this. And no offense but the fact that you just bought a book about Irenaeus doesn't mean you know him - unless you read it.

By the way Irenaeus was very anti-gnostic and this heavily influenced his writings.

He saw the millenium as a time of "modos meditationis ad incorruptalem...justi praemeditantur incorruptalem et parantur in salutem."

I assume you don't need me to translate the Latin for you (I was a good catholic school boy once! )

 

Amen, Brother Daniel David -- Preach it!

 

Amill is the eschatology for gnostics.

Gnosticism is quite opposed to truth.

That much is true anyway.

 

On Chiliasm:

http://www.lasthour.com/Millenarian.htm

 

Are you a citizen of that Kingdom?

Did you actually read the pages on the exegesis of Revelation 20?

No. I said so in my first post.

The options are to accept the text as truth and therefore premillenial...

Already your first option is invalid because it begs the question. Does your belief that the beasts described in Revelation are metaphors for men and nations mean you are not accepting the passages as truth? No, it means you believe they were intended to be read as metaphors. In the same way those who take Rev. 20 as a metaphor are indeed accepting the passage as truth.

I thought I already showed you how a strict and rigid "literalism" is an invalid approach to the Scriptures. Indeed, in practice you deny that very premise. Are you still of the opinion the Scriptures contain no allegory?

Further Aaron, Jesus said that his disciples would rule Israel in the regeneration. When did the regeneration occur? Actually, I would like to ask that again to all amills, as they were scared off the last time I asked them that question.

Again, you're presuming an earthly kingdom. The issue of allegory needs to be settled first.

 

Granted.

God has always ruled over the earth! It has always been His, and He has done as He was pleased.

Calvinist!

(DID YOU EVEN READ THE REFERENCES? OR DOES THE SPECIFIC WORDING NOT REALLY MATTER ANYWAY?)

Yes, I read them, and yes the specific wording not only matters but is vital. But I'm dealing with the forest, not the trees, and you'll see that my response is not so light a gloss when you see what Christ said about the law and the prophets.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I find it amusing that one can affirm Christ fulfilled all the law, but not all the prophets.

 

Yes. This passage is always used
when i expound my premill position.

Possibly if Peter's writing was all one
had, then "premill" might be questionable.

What i have trobule with is premills who
notice that "Day of the Lord" here is the
same as the 1,000 years in Revelation chapter 20.
But they won't let me expand that to
include Daniel's 70th week right before
the Millinnial Reign of Christ.

 

DD,

You don't have a single reason to be amill.
There are reasons to be premill, yes. But there are also reasons that suggest amill. If there were a clear consensus will would not have disagreement.

Your belief is sin.

No. What is sin is your perpetually unChristian attitude.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that!

 

DD,

Chuckles, there is nothing unchristian about pointing out false teaching. You happen to embrace many. It is sin.

1 Jn 4:8 "He that loveth not knoweth not God."

Sorry DD - there are plenty of dispies on this board with whom I disagree. Almost all (except you of course) are cordial and Christlike in their disagreement. You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk.

I have been asking over and over for just one reason to be amill. Why don't you give me just one of them. You have been avoiding the issue since the beginning of this thread. Methinks you stall because you have no take.

I'll address it again.

Scripture speaks of the day of the Lord as nothing less than total upheaval. The new heaven and earth correspond to heaven, not some intermediate state.

Your reference to Mt 19 is a misinterpretation. The point of the verse is that they who suffer here will be great in heaven.

Your reference to Rev 5:10 is likewise wrong. Doesn't "kingdom of priests" mean anything to you? Maybe Exodus 19:6? Christ has lead us out of bondage by His death and resurrection. We reign because of that. There are some textual issues in that verse. The "reign" is future in some manuscripts and present in others.

Your reference to Revelation 20 is the main hurrah of premillenialism. But a close examination of all of Revelation shows that 20:7-10 is a recapitulation of Rev 16:14-16 and Rev 19:19-21. All the same battle.

I realize relativity is a major aspect of your theology, but not mine.

I'm not really sure what that means. But I've read plenty of premill dispie stuff. Take the "Counterpoint series" volume on the "Millenium and Beyond". The premill guy presents his case and debates the amill guy without name-calling. Perhaps "security" is a feature of my theology. I'm not afraid to discuss it with others in debate and I'm secure enough that I respect others without putting them down.

 

In Matthew 26 Jesus told his followers that the bread and cup were His body and blood. Does this text support or deny Transubstantiation? It does neither. It is nonetheless true that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have any part in the Son of Man. So what is the nature of that eating and drinking? Does saying that this eating and drinking is spiritual make it any less real and true?

Does your text support or deny an earthly kindgom? It does neither standing alone. When one approaches your text ignorant of the truth that the Israel of God is made up of the children of Abraham by faith, and that the promises were unto Abraham and his Seed, meaning Christ, that the Temple is already rebuilt, that the house of David is already standing again, that Christ is already seated in the throne of His glory, it might appear that the text supports Premillennialism, but only then. His Kingdom is here and it will never end. Are you not regenerate? Are you not raised from the dead? Are you not already seated with Him in the heavenlies? (Eph. 2:4-7) To say that these things are spiritual is not to say they are not real or true. It's to say they are eternal. It actually agrees with the other teachings on the rewards of suffering much better. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory....

If your view of this text is correct, all I can say is, What a jip! To have temporary 1/12 rule of a infinitesimal fraction of the world's population in a dinky little piece of real estate that's going to burn up in only 1000 years?

But before we consider any more of your questions, answer mine first.

Are you still of the opinion the Scriptures contain no allegory?

[ January 16, 2005, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]