If there is to be no millineum.......

[Guest]

From the MailBox on my website http://livebytruth.com the following hate email and response appears:

As usual, I received my share of hate mail. Words like “stupid,” “lukewarm,” and “heretical” were thrown about with careless ease. The nastiest letters I get usually come from people who believe we are living in the last days. When I set forth my position, answering them point by point, they tell me that they don’t want to debate; they just know I’m wrong. Here’s one example, written in all uppercase letters:


YOU KNOW IT DOESN’T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO KNOW THIS WORLD IS IN TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE SHAPE. THE PEOPLE HAVE BECOME WICKED IN MY 62 YEARS, GOING FROM MY CHILDHOOD WHEN YOU COULD LEAVE YOUR DOORS OPEN DAY AND NIGHT AND NOT WORRY ABOUT ANYONE COMING IN THAT DIDN’T BELONG IN THAT HOUSE. WHEN CHILDREN COULD WALK TO THE CORNER GROCERY STORE AND BUY A COKE FOR 5 CENTS. TEENAGE GIRLS COULD WALK HOME FROM SCHOOL OR A GIRL FRIEND’S HOUSE AFTER DARK AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING FORCED BY SOME PERVERT INTO A CAR OR BEHIND A BUILDING TO BE RAPED AND KILLED. WHEN WE AS KIDS COULD PLAY DOLLS, JUMP THE ROPE, HOPSCOTCH, THE BOYS PLAYING WITH CARS OR MARBLES AND WE DREAMED TO BIG THINGS WHEN WE GREW UP, YES, THOSE WERE THE GOOD OLD DAYS AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING WE COULD STILL REACH THE AMERICAN DREAM AND HELP OUR NEIGHBORS AS WE REACHED IT. SIR, I DON'T KNOW HOW OLD YOU ARE. I DO KNOW YOU HAVE SHOWED HOW STUPID YOU ARE AND THAT YOU ARE TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE FROM THE BIBLE OR MAYBE YOU TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE FROM A FALSE BIBLE. EITHER WAY JESUS IS COMING VERY SOON. I’M NOT GOING TO QUOTE ANY SCRIPTURES. THERE ARE TOO MANY TO PROVE YOU WRONG. SATAN HAS YOU BOUND AND YOUR EYES BLINDED. I PRAY GOD WILL SEND THE HOLY SPIRIT TO YOU TO REVEAL YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED. I PRAY YOUR EYES WILL BE OPENED WIDE AND YOU WILL KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT WERE IN THE VERY LAST DAYS BEFORE OUR JESUS RETURNS.

I’m 53 years old. Everything I know about history prior to 1953 has come by way of books and discussions with people who were there. I’ve read how bad things were when hordes of soldiers raped and pillaged, when tyrants ruled by whim, when cheers went up from the crowds when another head dropped in the basket after Madame Guillotine did her work,when mass starvation was the consequence of the Russian Revolution, when people died of simple infections because antibiotics had not been discovered, when polio struck the healthy until Jonas Salk developed his vaccine, when the Black Death killed tens of millions of people. I could go on, but you get the picture.

You mention dolls and automobiles. My mother grew up without ever having a doll. She’s 78. There were no supermarkets in her day. You mention houses with doors and locks. Do you realize how modern it is even to own a home with indoor plumbing? The light bulb was invented in 1879. The first manned flight did not occur until 1903. There are people alive today who were alive when the Wilbur and Orville Wright took to the air. We landed a man on the moon in 1969. Today, a person can fly across the country in less than 5 hours and across the ocean in half a day. You wrote me an email that I received in seconds after you sent it. Cell phones are as common as toothbrushes. I can still remember party lines.

Did you see how the earthquake in Afghanistan killed more than 40,000? The same magnitude of earthquake hit California a few years ago with only a few fatalities. What made the difference? The homes and other buildings in Afghanistan used archaic “good old days” construction techniques. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 killed 8000 people. Katrina killed a few hundred. What made the difference? We have technology that can track storms. You and I can turn on the Weather Channel and see the path of the eye of the storm. In 1900, there was no way to know how powerful a storm might be. Technology could have saved the lives of those caught in last year’s tsunami with a simple warning system. The government officials in these “good old days” regions of the world aren’t interested in such things because their worldview his little regard for human life.

Humorist P. J. O’Rourke says, “When you think of the good old days, think ‘dentistry.’” Gary North writes, “The greatest invention of the modern world is anesthetics. Prior to 1844, in preparation for an operation, you drank booze until you passed out—hopefully. Then the physician—‘sawbones,’ he was called—got started hacking away.” You can have the “good old days” of just a hundred years ago:


The average life expectancy in America was 47.
Only 14% of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.
Only 8% of the homes had a telephone.
A three-minute call from Denver to New York City cost $11, if you could get through.
There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S. and only 144 miles of paved roads.
The average wage in the U.S. was $0.22/hour.
The average American worker made between $200–$400/year.
A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000/year, a dentist $2,500/year, a veterinarian between $1,500–$4,000/year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000/year.
More than 95% of all births in the U.S. took place at home.
The five leading causes of death in the US were:
pneumonia and influenza
tuberculosis
diarrhea
heart disease
stroke

Only 6% of all Americans had graduated from high school.
If you wanted to travel around town, you traveled by horse. Do you have any idea what the streets were like when hundreds of horses defecatedin the streets? During hot days, the manure would dry and the air would be filled with bacteria-laden dust that people would breathe. When it rained, pedestrians would have to traverse through manure sludge. The flu epidemic of 1918–1919 killed somewhere between 20 and 40 million people worldwide. We have ways of combating it today.

Some say the rise of Islam is a sign of the end. People thought the same thing in the 15th century. Read the opening paragraph to the Prologue of Samuel Eliot Morison’s biography on Christopher Columbus, Admiral of the Ocean Sea (1942):

At the end of the year 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science, and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through the study of the pagan past.Islam was now expanding at the expense of Christendom. . . . The Ottoman Turks, after snuffing out all that remained of the Byzantine Empire, had overrun most of Greece, Albania and Serbia; presently they would be hammering at the gates of Vienna.
Plug the year 2005 where 1492 appears in Morison’s quotation, and it sounds like today. Things looked bleak. The world changed in a day when Martin Luther posted a scrap of paper on a chapel door in 1517.
One man wrote to me about the rise of homosexuality, as if this is something new. Nonsense. Paul was dealing with it and a lot more in the first century (Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–11). You are rehearsing what prophetic prognosticators have been writing for nearly two millennia. They all have one thing in common: They have all been wrong! I suggest that you pick up Francis X. Gumerlock’s The Day and the Hour: Christianity’s Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World. It will show how you are reading history through the eyes of your limited 62 years.

You say Jesus is coming “very soon.” How many times have we heard that? Oswald J. Smith wrote Is the Antichrist At Hand? The following copy appeared on the cover of his book: “The fact that this book has run swiftly into a number of large editions bears convincing testimony to its intrinsic worth. There are here portrayed startling indications of the approaching end of the present age from the spheres of demonology, politics and religion. No one can read this book without being impressed with the importance of the momentous days in which we are living.”

Sounds a lot like what you are claiming for today. Smith wrote the above in 1927! Nearly 80 years ago! The subtitle to the book is—“What of Mussolini?” That’s right. He used the same verses that people use today to “prove” that the end was near, Jesus was coming soon, and Mussolini was the antichrist. Smith admitted how foolish he had been after Mussolini met his just end.

The world is a mess because Christians have abandoned it. Christians turned back the tide of cannibalism, infanticide, abortion, homosexuality, and so many other evils over the centuries. But since the rapture doctrine, the Church has taken a back seat to evil making it a prophetic inevitability.

The issue is the Bible, not what you or I see in the world today. I’ve made a case from an appeal to the Bible. Show me where I am wrong from the Bible. What five-cent Cokes, marbles, and hopscotch have to do with the return of Jesus is a mystery to me.

[Guest]

So Sean is Satan completely bound ? A yes or no will suffice? Not a long exhaustive explanation, a Yes or No....please...!

Maranatha

Crusader

[Guest]

Crusader, hve you stopped beating your wife? A simple answer please. No long response, just yes or no.

[Guest]

So Sean is Satan completely bound ?

Crusader,

Does Revelation 20:2 use the word completely or did you add that?

In Matthew 12:29 & Mark 3:27, where Jesus explains His power over Satan and His ability to drive out demons as binding the strong man, does that mean that all demonic activity ceased at that time? If so, did Satan play no role in the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus or the persecution of His followers? At what point did Jesus unbind the strong man?

[Guest]

Thanks for your responses fellas.

Les, I was especially interested in your idea that perhaps the land promise may well be fulfilled in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Les, this is basically my understanding. I believe that the promise made to Abraham concerning the land will be fulfilled after the return of Jesus. As I understand it, no unbelieving Jew from any epoch of time will ever have any part in the land promised to Abraham.


Sean, the promise of land was not conditional on the obedience of the Israelites – it was a promise to Abraham. Plus, it doesn’t seem to have been an unconditional promise. Abraham had to do some stuff! He had to: get out of his country (Genesis 12), offer those animals (Gen. 15), circumcise himself and all the males in his household (Gen. 17) and offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (Gen. 22))! But he did those things, and thus, God was ‘bound’ to fulfil the promises made to him. The disobedience of some of his descendants does not change the promises made to him, it simply means that those who were (and are) disobedient to God will not inherit the promises with Abraham – only the remnant of his descendants will.


JD, you said “Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior, is the fulfillment of every promise to Israel.” Can I just ask, are you suggesting (with Benjamin) that the promise of the land was fulfilled or is being fulfilled in a “spiritual manner.” If so, could you elaborate. For example, do you mean “spiritual” as in “non-physical”?

Or are you saying that when God spoke of the “land” being an everlasting possession of Abraham, He actually meant that the “whole world” would belong to Jesus Christ? If so, why did He specify exactly the borders of the land?

Or are you saying that the promise of the land was fulfilled already before Christ’s incarnation in the era of Joshua, the Judges and the Kings?


Benjamin, is it such a stretch to think that God could indeed create a new planet which is recognisable to the old one? In any case, I do not believe that the Earth will be totally destroyed by fire. I'm suitably convinced that Peter was using hyperbole in his second epistle based on Isaiah 65 and 66 which also use hyperbole. (I’m interested in the idea that Revelation 21 is referring to the same event in hyperbolic language though I’m still trying to work that out).


Finally, it seems that Galatians 3 is a key passage for you guys. That’s fine. I need to study that passage and get back to you on that. I agree that we must defer to Jesus and His apostles’ understanding of the Old Testament. We must also agree that there can be no contradiction in their testimony. Let me then raise another passage:

4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1

It seems that even after Jesus’ resurrection the apostles were indeed anticipating a time when the Kingdom would be restored to the nation of Israel. the word restore indicates that they were speaking of the very same earthly Kingdom that they were familiar with from their reading of the Scriptures (Old Testament). It seems this was after they had had their understanding opened by Jesus Himself that they might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:45). Interestingly, Jesus did not scold them for their thinking. Rather, He simply told them not to worry about the timing of this restoration.

What's the amills/pp take on this?

[Guest]

Ely,

If you really want to explore this issue with an open mind (and it sounds like you do), I'd recommend you get a copy of "Whose Promised Land?" by Colin Chapman - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080106 ... e&n=283155

[Guest]

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1

Hi Ely,

Judging from your response, I am so glad that you were able to get something from this thread, without being distracted by the cross-fire...

My journey to becoming amil and pp has to do with questioning the unreasonableness of certain dispensational teachings (i.e. temple being restored, etc.. based upon Hebrews I figured it had to be wrong)..

A few years ago I had the privledge of studying through the Bible at the GCS in Thunder Bay... when we got to Acts, I had the exact same question as you put forward.

I don't have a 100% pat answer for you, but some alternatives and some thoughts.

First, let me put forward 3 alternatives for understanding Acts 1:6:

1) They didn't get it (it is later in Acts with the Cornelius occasion that God continues to open their eyes to clean/unclean, etc..)
2) Self-interest (perhaps they wanted to rule the 12 tribes)
3) Echoes Is 49:6 (the second half of this verse is quoted by Paul in Acts 13:47 as applied to his ministry to the Gentiles. I think by extension, it can be applied to all Christians. The Messiah obviously came to Israel and I suppose the 'preserved ones' would be the faithful who actually did and have come to Christ)

There may be 'better' answers, but at least two options don't involve 'spiritualizing' the question, eh?

Tx
Les

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

Yes, the physical land promise was fulfilled, as noted in the book of Joshua. While some say that because the Jews don't possess all of Israel curently, that God has to "keep his promise" by giving them the land.

However, Galatians 3, and other passages tell us that Christ is their fulfillment, and the Gentiles coming to faith in him, along with Jews is the fulfillment of Israel (Christ) ruling the earth.

Yes, the Lord will reign over the whole earth, an even "fuller" fulfillment, eh?

JD

[Guest]

4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1

It seems that even after Jesus’ resurrection the apostles were indeed anticipating a time when the Kingdom would be restored to the nation of Israel. the word restore indicates that they were speaking of the very same earthly Kingdom that they were familiar with from their reading of the Scriptures (Old Testament). It seems this was after they had had their understanding opened by Jesus Himself that they might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:45). Interestingly, Jesus did not scold them for their thinking. Rather, He simply told them not to worry about the timing of this restoration.

What's the amills/pp take on this?

I really like the way N.T. Wright addresses this question (for example, in his book "The Challenge of Jesus"). He takes the approach of looking at the historical mindset of the Jews in Judea at the time of Jesus.

Although a remnant of Jews had returned from the Babylonian exile in about 537 B.C., and they had rebuilt Jerusalem and the temple, they had been almost constantly under occupation by one pagan nation or another. First the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Greeks, then the Seleucids & Ptolemies, then finally the Romans. There was a 100 year period of independence brought about by the Maccabean revolt, prior to the Romans coming in 63 BC, but the Hasmonean dynasty founded by the Maccabees ended up being corrupt and oppressive as well.

In a very real sense then, at the time of Jesus the Jews saw the Babylonian exile as not yet having ended. Sure, the Jews were back in their land with their holy city and temple, but they were ruled over by pagans and their own officials were corrupt puppets of the Roman Empire. The glory of God had not returned to the temple.

The all-consuming question among the Jews in the 1st Century was, "When will God vindicate us by overthrowing these pagans and establishing His kingdom in Jerusalem?" Many "messiahs" had arisen in the years before Jesus (and many did after) who attempted to lead a revolt and establish the kingdom. They were always crushed by the Romans.

The Jews dealt with the problem of God's delay in restoring Israel in four primary ways:

Some blamed the Jewish people for offending God with their less-than-holy lifestyles. If the people would "get right with God" by following the Law (as they interpreted it), God would act. These were the Pharisees.

Some believed that God would not act until the Jews rose up in armed rebellion against the Romans. If they began the revolution, God would send a messiah to lead them to victory. These were the Zealots.

Some decided to cooperate and collude with the Romans. They had a modicum of power and priviledge under the Romans and wanted to protect it. These were the Sadducees.

Some decided to escape the whole mess by forming communities out in the wilderness, where they would wait for God to return. These were the Essenes.

All of these groups had something in common, which is that they expected God to militarily overthrow the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom.

If you look at the way people reacted to Jesus in light of these expectations, so many things make sense. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem, for example; or the Sadducees and Pharisees, usually at odds with each other, working together to finish Jesus off (the Sadducees because He was a threat to their racket and the Pharisees because He was a threat to their understanding of what God wanted). The Zealots, it is often postulated, saw in Jesus the spark that could ignite the revolution (which some historians believe is why Judas betrayed Jesus - to cause an uprising).

If you read the Gospel of Matthew in this light, you see Jesus constantly saying (in so many words) "The kingdom of heaven isn't like that, it's like this." The Kingdom of God ("heaven" in Matthew's Gospel, which is oriented towards Jews and doesn't want to offend them by saying 'God') will not be established by military tactics or by radical personal holiness or by buying into the Roman system or by hiding out in the desert, but by love and sacrifice and mercy. It will be more like a hidden process (leaven spreading through dough, a tiny mustard seed growing into a large plant) than some spectacular event.

So the disciple's question in Acts 1 shows us that they were still holding onto the "messiah as warlord" expectation. Jesus had spent 3 years instructing them, but where they finally "got it" - where all the pieces came together for them - is in Acts 2. Jesus' response to them in Acts 1 is the setup for Acts 2 (and a prophecy about what was shortly going to occur). Jesus didn't need to correct their faulty expectation - that would be taken care of at Pentecost and as they would move out; remembering all He had told them during His time with them.

The interesting part, to me, about Luke 24:45 is actually Luke 24:27 and 24:44. Jesus refers to everything that was written in the Law, Prophets and Psalms (in other words, the Jewish scriptures) about Himself - not about some elaborate "end-times" scenario.

[_Sean]

Sean, the promise of land was not conditional on the obedience of the Israelites – it was a promise to Abraham. Plus, it doesn’t seem to have been an unconditional promise. Abraham had to do some stuff! He had to: get out of his country (Genesis 12), offer those animals (Gen. 15), circumcise himself and all the males in his household (Gen. 17) and offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (Gen. 22))! But he did those things, and thus, God was ‘bound’ to fulfil the promises made to him. The disobedience of some of his descendants does not change the promises made to him, it simply means that those who were (and are) disobedient to God will not inherit the promises with Abraham – only the remnant of his descendants will.

When you say: "the promise of land was not conditional on the obedience of the Israelites"

It most certainly was conditional to the Israelites. Because they did not have the faith of Abraham and were not obedient, they were thrown out of the land. But as you said, this does not carry over to Abraham. Nor does it overthrow what God promised to Abraham and Christ.

Finally, it seems that Galatians 3 is a key passage for you guys. That’s fine. I need to study that passage and get back to you on that. I agree that we must defer to Jesus and His apostles’ understanding of the Old Testament. We must also agree that there can be no contradiction in their testimony. Let me then raise another passage:

4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1

It seems that even after Jesus’ resurrection the apostles were indeed anticipating a time when the Kingdom would be restored to the nation of Israel. the word restore indicates that they were speaking of the very same earthly Kingdom that they were familiar with from their reading of the Scriptures (Old Testament). It seems this was after they had had their understanding opened by Jesus Himself that they might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:45). Interestingly, Jesus did not scold them for their thinking. Rather, He simply told them not to worry about the timing of this restoration.

What's the amills/pp take on this?

I agree with what Les Wright said. It's clear they didn't have complete understanding of this. Jesus said there was more He wanted to tell them but they couldn't bear it at the time, but He would reveal it when the Spirit comes and reveals it to them. We see a progression of this revealtion through Acts.

So while Jesus opened the understanding of the Scriptures to them, it may have been to show that the Christ was predicted to have to suffer and die, not necessarily all things. Paul quotes more than once from the OT to show the Gentiles coming in to true Israel.

Besides, restoring the kingdom to Israel is not different than restoring it to the Church, since the Church is the combination of true Israel and Gentiles too. Do you think they were asking Jesus when the kingdom was going to be taken from Him (and the apostles) and given to the unbelieving nation of Jews?