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

[Guest]

This is, perhaps, a simplistic answer and you may not accept it...but try thinking of it like this. In America, we have elections for President. But even after the winner is determined there is an interim time when the previous winner finishes out his presidency.

Perhaps something similar happened on a larger scale in the 1st century. Jesus Christ, during His ministry, began to build a base of supporters. At the cross, He won the great victory. But it wasn't until after an interim period that His Kingdom received an 'official beginning'. Only after about 40 years was the previous administration 'kicked out'

I think all amillennialists, by the way, believe in some form of the 'now, yet not yet' principle because we all believe in the future, more visible, kingdom.

[Guest]

Hi Matt,
That answer isn't a real satisfying one to me at all. But then again, I gotta admit there's a lot of explanations from the other side (which I have chose to take) that aren't real clear either.

It's not the easiest study to make crystal clear from either side, that's for sure.

When you say you believe in a more visible Kingdom, am I right to assume you are speaking of a Kingdom not on the earth?

Thanks for the response,
Your brother
Aaron

[Guest]

Or another way to look at it is this:

Historians tell us that it was on D-Day that the Allies won WWII, for all intents and purposes. We can look back and see that at D-Day, Hitler's reign was broken. Yet some of the bloodiest fighting in Europe, such as the Battle of the Bulge, occured after D-Day. The Allied victory, although effectively accomplished, still had to be realized with tooth & nail fighting.

Likewise, Jesus established His Kingdom, yet we still look forward to it's full manifestation on earth.

[Guest]

Or another way to look at it is this:

Historians tell us that it was on D-Day that the Allies won WWII, for all intents and purposes. We can look back and see that at D-Day, Hitler's reign was broken. Yet some of the bloodiest fighting in Europe, such as the Battle of the Bulge, occured after D-Day. The Allied victory, although effectively accomplished, still had to be realized with tooth & nail fighting.

Likewise, Jesus established His Kingdom, yet we still look forward to it's full manifestation on earth.

I agree that God established his Kingdom in His first coming, but I think this passage is about His second coming and establishing the Kingdom in which He will visibly rule, and we shall reign with Him. This is what I believe is spoken of when He talks about the "kingdom of God is nigh" here. A future period, and the preceding signs point to that time.

[Guest]

Hi Aaron,

[20] And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
[21] Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
[22] For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
[23] But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
[24] And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
[25] And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
[26] Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
[27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
[28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
[29] And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
[30] When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
[31] So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

The part that I have italicized and underlined states that after all these signs and (according to you) the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, they would know that the "Kingdom Of God" is nigh at hand.

Have you ever read Josephus? If not, you should give it a try – it’s fascinating. Josephus was a Jewish historian who was present at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Here is a link where you can read his account, which he entitled The War of the Jews (beware, it's rather lengthy):
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

Read it with Luke 21/Matthew 24 in mind.

If you prefer, here are a series of significant excepts, from a Preterist website:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/

Looking at the verses you listed above, the most logical fulfillment of verses 20-24 is 70 A.D., wouldn’t you agree? The problem with a future fulfillment is that there's no way to prove or disprove it since the future doesn't yet exist (sorry, getting too metaphysical here). Theoretically, anything can potentially happen in the future - that's what makes Sci-Fi movies fun.

Verses 25-27 could be problematic, except for the fact that they use established prophetic language. I won’t go into a lengthy discourse on that here because I’m sure it’s already been covered in depth.

Skipping to verse 31 (since that’s the one you highlighted), Jesus is saying that when these momentous events occur, know that it is by the rule and reign of God. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. would’ve been a tragedy to the Jews that our own 9/11 pales in comparison to. The Greek word there which is translated as “nigh at hand” is eggus. It can mean “near” by positional proximity or “near” by time. Either way, it means “near”. I could see it as meaning either or both; when Jerusalem is surrounded and destroyed (in 70 A.D.) the basilea (rule and reign) of God will be nearby.

Luke 21 (as well Matthew 24) are clear that the subject was a series of events that would happen soon. This would be cause for great concern to those hearing Jesus.

It may have been a false assumption of mine, but I understood your position to be that at the death, and resurrection of Christ, (or possibly at pentecost) the Kindgom of God began. However, this seems to be saying it is after the tribulation that either has taken place or will take place. Because it is not even until "these things come to pass" that the Kingdom is nigh at hand.

It is not my belief that the Kingdom of God began in 70 A.D. I’ve never encountered such a thing taught as a Preterist position. Perhaps some do hold to it that I’ve just never come across. Nor would I feel comfortable saying the Kingdom began at any other point. I regret that in an earlier post I made the statement that "Jesus established His Kingdom..." If I had been in less of a hurry while writing I would've chosen my words more carefully.

The Kingdom of God has existed for as long as God has, which is forever. Jesus was not so much establishing a kingdom as He was showing them a kingdom that already existed, but which they had lost sight of. The Kingdom is spiritual, not physical. I see the advancement of the Kingdom as more and more people coming into the rule and reign of God. He is reconciling the world to Himself. Here’s a quick little Bible study that you might find helpful in this regard: http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlin ... ing_02.htm

[Guest]

Hi, Mort.
I just popped on real quick and haven't got to read your links yet, but I'll do so tomorrow. I'd imagine it's just what I had heard from Steve Gregg's lectures and from reading DeeDee Warren's commentary of Matt 24. I know all of what it will contain.
Josephus' writing of the star like a sword in the sky over Jerusalem, The light that shone out of the temple, the gate opening of it's own accord, etc. etc.
Here's just one question I would pose to you. Why would this mean anything when we are now seeing what dispensationalist say that the Bible predicted? It seems that preterists call dispies nuts for looking around and seeing Bible prophecy come to pass, but you guys look for things to substantiate what has already happened.
Look at Israel. They are a little country the size of New Jersey and they have an enemy on every side. Yet they are well protected and have been victorious in battle. They won their statehood in a miraculous way in the 60's. In this I can clearly see the hand of God at work and you would ask me to ignore this as coincidence, yet you expect me to hear and believe every word of Josephus?
I'm not saying that this isn't a convincing case for you, but I can't understand the double standard of not taking note of the dispensational view of prophecy and it's apparent current day fulfillment all around us.

Aaron

[Guest]

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for the reply. I've yet to see anything in modern times that strikes me as particularly relevant to Biblical prophecy. I think the Jews are a pretty amazing people, but there was nothing "miraculous" about the way Israel became a state. Again, I would recommend you read "Who's Promised Land" by Colin Chapman (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080106 ... e&n=283155).

In fact there are many disturbing questions about the modern nation of Israel, such as "How does the displacement and treatment of the Palestinians square up with the Old Testament emphasis on justice toward the poor, oppressed and aliens?" and "How do we reconcile the plight of Palestinian Christians (what few are left)?" and "If the establishment of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy, how do we account for the fact that it is a secular state with a high level of atheism and a low level of Christianity?" and "Is a nation that officially gives extremely preferential treatment to one particular race a racist nation?"

According to jewfaq.org (http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm):

"Zionism was not a religious movement; it was a primarily political. The early Zionists sought to establish a secular state of Israel, recognized by the world, through purely legal means. Theodor Herzl, for example, was a completely assimilated secular Jewish journalist."

"Under Israel's Law of Return, any Jew who has not renounced the Jewish faith (by converting to another religion) can automatically become an Israeli citizen."

"Most Orthodox Jews support the existence of the state of Israel as a homeland, even though it is not the theological state of Israel that will be brought about by the messiah."

The Jewish Agency for Israel (http://www.jafi.org.il/education/50/act/shvut/17.html) uses the following example to illustrate the limitations on the Law of Return:

"Oswald Rufeisen, a Polish Jew, converted to Christianity during World War II, and became a monk named Brother Daniel. After the war, he applied to immigrate to Israel, requesting to be registered as belonging to the Jewish community and to settle in Israel under the terms of the Law of Return. His request was refused by the registration office, and subsequently his petition to the Supreme Court in 1962 was rejected.

Consulted by the Court, the Chief Rabbi of Israel confirmed that Brother Daniel must be considered Jewish. Nonetheless the judge refused to accord Jewish nationality to any individual who had been born Jewish but who had voluntarily converted to another religion. This decision was based not on any legal criterion but on a criteria of public opinion (subsequently to become law). In the words of Judge Berensohn: "An apostate Jew cannot be considered Jewish in the sense understood by the Knesset in the Law of Return and in the popular acceptation of today."

So, are you saying that the establishment of the nation of Israel,

Which was accomplished by England, France and the UN at the behest of secular Jews,
Which the British had promised to the Palestinians in the McMahon-Hussein Agreement but reneged on,
Which the British simultaneously promised to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration (which, btw, contained safeguards to protect the civil and political rights of the Palestinians - all of which were later broken),
Which displaced millions of people whose families had lived there for hundreds (and even thousands) of years,
Which reduced the Christian church that existed there to scattered fragments,
Which destabilized the region to the point of crisis,
Which denies citizenship to Christian Jews,
Which restricts Christian evangelism and church activity,
Which has created, in Gaza, one of the poorest and most densely populated ghettos in the world,

- is all the result of the hand of God at work?

[Guest]

Yes without a doubt I do believe it is the hand of God at work that they are a nation again. There was a nation that was reformed to welcome the first coming of the Messiah. Wasn't God's hand in that? Didn't he bring them back together after dispersing them to Babylon and Assyria? Were they a godly sort of people in the time of Christ? Many were but many were definitely not. Since there were sinful people in the land does that mean it was not the hand of God that brought them there?

And as far as all the hands that were employed in bringing them together again, isn't that how God does things? He puts it in the mind of men to do His will. Bringing this nation together again is absolutely positively ordained by God Himself.

[Guest]

Umm, the nation that was "reformed to welcome the first coming of the Messiah" did not, for the most part, welcome Him and was destroyed.

God's hand was certainly in the return of the exiles from Babylon, but it was only a faithful remnant that returned.

The Jews that were dispersed to Assyria were not brought back together; they were assimilated and ceased to exist as a people (hence the term "the lost tribes of Israel").

I'd challenge you to do a study on God's view about nations that oppress others, as expressed by the Old Testament prophets to ancient Israel (pre and post exile).

I'd also love to see your scriptural support for the assertion that "Bringing this nation together again is absolutely positively ordained by God Himself."

[Guest]

I'd also love to see your scriptural support for the assertion that "Bringing this nation together again is absolutely positively ordained by God Himself."

Ezek 34:13-14
13 And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country.
14 I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel.
(KJV)

Jer 31:10
10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
(KJV)