mightychurch.com

Hi all,
Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind” series seems to be doing the rounds in my neck of the woods, so I’m putting out a new call for any good, fresh articles or podcasts that explain Revelation really well and concisely. Something like a 5 to 10 minute piece on why Revelation is not necessarily a time-line of future events to be interpreted, but more of an A-mil position (but not written as bad as the wiki! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennial

This is a bit long, but might still be suitable: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ScriptureIndex/17/4262_An_Evening_of_Eschatology/ The audio goes for 2 hours apparently (haven’t listened, just read the summary.)

I personally would mention that these eschatological views follow fairly logically from the hermeneutic/metanarrative frameworks which their proponents hold, ie, Amillenialism follows from Covenant Theology and Premillenialism from Dispensationalism. Most debates I’ve seen around these issues don’t seem to recognise that their eschatological views are symptoms of their hermeneutic views, and that a better debate would be over the hermeneutic frameworks instead. It’s silly to debate symptoms without addressing the very real differences that undergird them.

And I’d then mention that many people reject both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism ;).

Wow, that’s an interesting reply there Dannii. Can you unpack what you mean by “hemeneutic metanarrative” because I think I know what you are saying, but might call it something different like “biblical theological paradigm”.

“Paradigm” works too.

Probably the most popularised framework these days is Goldsworthian Biblical Theology (GBT). But GBT depends very heavily on Covenant Theology (CT) (though that doesn’t seem to be explicitly explained much that I’ve seen.) The key, and controversial, point of CT is the Covenant of Grace, an ahistorical “covenant” between God and all his people. It means that there can be only one group of God’s people, so it makes no sense to talk about both the Jews and the Church as God’s people now, hence illogicalness of premillennialism.

But amillennialism is equally nonsensical to dispensationalists, who believe that God has related to people in up to 8 essentially unrelated ways over history. I don’t really know much about hardcore dispensationalism, but to deny the millennium would be seen as denying God’s faithfulness, as they sincerely believe he has unfinished business with the Jews.

The flaw with 666 and All That is that the authors basically assume CT and GBT, without stating so, and without mentioning these other paradigms. They dismiss all talk of the millennium in half a page. Now it is fair enough to say that the millennium has no place in the paradigm they use to understand the Bible, but it seems unfair to dismiss pre/postmillennialism without explaining that they come from completely different Biblical paradigms. I’m not saying that they should have spent a lot of time explaining these different paradigms, just that they should have been unfront about which paradigm they use, and that their eschatological views flow logically from it, and that the other eschatological views flow logically from other paradigms.

There are people who reject both CT and Dispensationalism. Probably the most well known would be New Covenant Theology. I’m not sure if I agree completely with it, as it really is very American and deals more with American versions of CT, rather than the Australian versions that I’m familiar with (like GBT.)

Here’s what I currently believe. Understand that it’s a hermeneutic still in its infancy ;)
CT is very old, and came about long before Meredith Kline’s work on Suzerain–Vassal treaties. Kline himself believed CT and his work provided a lot of depth to the study. But I think that he, and other CTs, haven’t let their beliefs be reformed enough by his research. Understanding Deuteronomy and the other covenants in the Ancient Near East context is so foundational, but from that understanding, I don’t think the Covenant of Grace should be considered anything like a covenant. It’s ahistorical, there were no witnesses, the parties are vague, the requirements on each party are vague. I believe that all the benefit of the Covenant of Grace can be kept by simply saying that God’s Modus Operandi is grace.

This then frees us from saying that there must be one homogeneous group called God’s People. I believe that each covenant should be approached on it’s own terms: God makes the covenant of Genesis 9 with all land life, including animals. Many of the other covenants include all of the Hebrew people, but some (Phinehas, David) involve just one subsection of that. Some covenants are unconditional, others are very very conditional. You’re a part of some covenants genetically, but other covenants you must deliberately join. CT flattens all of this out, but I think we should embrace these differences.

What this means is rather than just looking at a Bible passage and asking “People? Place? Rule?” we can ask more nuanced questions. Sometimes it might be more work to study passages, but I think it’s worth it. All of the Bible after Gen 9 involves people under Noah’s covenant… which probably isn’t relevant, but it’s still worth considering. More important is Abraham and the Sinai/Deuteronomy covenants. Rather than flattening them to one set of promises we ask how does a Bible passage (perhaps something about the exile for example) relate to God’s unconditional and eternal promise of Abraham’s descendants occupying the promised land? But how does it also relate to God’s conditional promises of blessing and curses in Deuteronomy, conditional on their behaviour?

The flaw with 666 and All That is that the authors basically assume CT and GBT, without stating so, and without mentioning these other paradigms.

Woah there, you’re talking about some of my best friends. As far as I know they are men of integrity and only excluded all those extra paradigm approaches for the sake of brevity and clarity to an audience not quite as initiated into all this last days silliness. To the best of my knowledge (so far) I agree with their book.

They dismiss all talk of the millennium in half a page.

As is their right, especially when they are explaining that it is the symbolic apocalpytic language in the text of Revelation itself that is determining their view. Indeed, do you know anywhere in the whole bible that uses the number 1000 as an accurate numerical description? How about God owning the flocks on a 1000 hills? ;-)

It seems to me that the burden of proof falls on those who want to read Revelation (and the millennium) as anything OTHER than symbolic.

I don’t get why you’re dismissing the obvious Covenant contract God drew up with Abram. God SAYS it is His covenant in the passage.

Don’t we also know that covenants often occurred with animals split in 2? (In a “May this happen to me if I break my vow” kind of way?)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+15&version=NIV

 12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
 17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river [d] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

Rather than flattening them to one set of promises we ask how does a Bible passage (perhaps something about the exile for example) relate to God’s unconditional and eternal promise of Abraham’s descendants occupying the promised land? But how does it also relate to God’s conditional promises of blessing and curses in Deuteronomy, conditional on their behaviour?

Great question, and I take it this is where the Pre-mils and Post-mils and dispy’s have problems. I understand GBT (and correct me if I’m wrong) to answer that God’s promises of security to the land were not unconditional, not when one studies the covenant. I also understand that Jesus transformed all the big promises. Jesus lived the perfect life for us, was (and is) the perfect High Priest for us, became the perfect Israelite, indeed, was Israel as the focus narrows right down to Jesus, until finally after his death and resurrection the gospel goes forth and the new ‘tribes’ of Israel, the church start moving out.

Where’s the land here? Well, it’s like the Sabbath… transformed into a New Earth / New Heaven’s kind of dimension that is both now and not yet. So in one sense any country is ‘the land’ where the gospel is going. All creation is now ‘the land’ as Jesus said to go out into all the world. All foods are now OK, even the non-Jewish ones. I take it even Australia is equally holy, is equally ‘the land’. The gospel and kingdom of God are going all across the world, and with it I’m sure the implication is that all the earth is now “the land” for the people of God.

But not yet: yet it is not the land in the sense that God’s rule is universally recognised and implemented. So we patiently wait for our heavenly home, the New Jerusalem, to be delivered to us in a more eternal sense as this world is resurrected along with us into the New Creation Land / Kingdom / City / Home.

And won’t that be something!

Woah there, you’re talking about some of my best friends. As far as I know they are men of integrity and only excluded all those extra paradigm approaches for the sake of brevity and clarity to an audience not quite as initiated into all this last days silliness. To the best of my knowledge (so far) I agree with their book.

I won’t try to guess their motives. But I will say that when I read the book it was if they had said “here are some silly ideas you shouldn’t think too much about, as they clearly make no sense given the framework we’ve been teaching you.” I would have preferred they say “here are some silly ideas about end times. However it is important to note that are based on an understanding of the Bible deeply different to our own. To read about these ideas from their own perspective see X, or to read a longer critique from someone who shares our own Biblical framework, see Y.”

As is their right, especially when they are explaining that it is the symbolic apocalpytic language in the text of Revelation itself that is determining their view. Indeed, do you know anywhere in the whole bible that uses the number 1000 as an accurate numerical description? How about God owning the flocks on a 1000 hills? ;-)

It seems to me that the burden of proof falls on those who want to read Revelation (and the millennium) as anything OTHER than symbolic.

Why do you think I believe the number to be an accurate numerical description? Especially as I’ve said before that I do not…

Unfortunately I don’t have the book with me (so can’t give you page numbers), but I remember another flaw.
When they were discussing the millennium they basically said no other part of the Bible talked about it. In another part of the book they discusses Isaiah 65:17-25 and said it must refer to the eternal state.
It felt like the authors were somehow badly ignorant at this point. I think Isaiah 65 would be fairly commonly seen to be referring to the millennium by premillienialists. But the authors said it had only one interpretation, and then say there are no other passages that mention the period of the millennium. I only have a shallow understanding of Dispensationalism, but even I think that in their dismissal of it they didn’t do it justice.

I would have preferred them to have simply taught amillennialism than try to dismiss the others in the way they did.

I don’t get why you’re dismissing the obvious Covenant contract God drew up with Abram. God SAYS it is His covenant in the passage.

I’m not dismissing Abram’s covenant! I’m dismissing the ahistorical Covenant of Grace.

Here’s a quote from Introducing Covenant Theology (by Michael Horton, page 133):

Thus, God’s “unchangeable oath” and “everlasting covenant” in election and redemption can be administered in history through all the variety and contingencies that the biblical traditions themselves evidence.

He says this just after nothing that covenants could not be amended or corrected, but instead only new covenants must be drawn up.

The Covenant of Grace is an ahistorical one that was not made in history. Instead at various times God made historical covenants with some of his people. He gave the precise promises and demanded their obedience, he made rainbows and required circumcision. Because of a covenant’s unamendability, God had to make different ones through history. The problem is in calling the Covenant of Grace a covenant, as it is entirely unlike any of the historical biblical covenants. It is far better, I believe, to simply say that God always acts in grace.

Why does this terminology matter? Because if Grace is a covenant then there is only one covenant people. I don’t think that matches the Bible. Noah’s covenant, undeniably one of grace, is made with animals, who are clearly not the people of God. Nor could just any of the Israelites claim to be the recipients of God’s promises to David or Phinehas. The Biblical covenants are made between God and a subset of his people. Even Abraham’s… for was Melchizedek under his covenant? There were probably other Yahweh followers alive at that time too, like Shem, who was still contemporaneous with Abraham (if you accept the numbers…)

Introducting Covenant Theology page 182

Anchored in the covenant of redemption—that eternal pact between the persons of the Trinity—the promise is identified with Abraham, David, and the new covenant is in its essence unchangeable, inviolable, and without reference to the obedience or disobedience of human agents apart from that obedience of our Mediator, Jesus Christ. In this eternal covenant, we are beneficiaries but not partners. God will save his elect, overcoming every obstacle in his way, including us. Nevertheless, the covenant of grace in its administration involves conditions. It is a covenant made with believers and their children. Not everyone in the covenant of grace is elect: the Israel below is a larger class than the Israel above.

Here is where the implications of calling grace a covenant get really dirty: it turns the new covenant into something non-repentant unbelievers can be a part of. Yes Abraham’s covenant was communal, but the new covenant, on the whole, is not! The new covenant is between God and those who have repented and asked for the forgiveness that only Jesus can bring them. They are the ones within whom the holy spirit lives, and no one else! Baptism may be the sign of the new covenant, but the presence of the spirit is it’s guarantee. The covenant of grace has lead some, even in this forum, to say that the spirit can dwell within a child, but leave once they reject God. If that were the case then the spirit is no guarantee!

Don’t we also know that covenants often occurred with animals split in 2? (In a “May this happen to me if I break my vow” kind of way?)

Indeed the animals were often involved. It’s that kind of research that Kline and others have been so helpful in providing us with. But I think that just proves the point more: with the ahistorical Covenant of Grace there are no sacrificed animals, as it doesn’t happen in time. I’ve never heard the Covenant of Grace actually talked about in terms of a vow, instead it just seems to say that God will act with grace at all times to his people.

Great question, and I take it this is where the Pre-mils and Post-mils and dispy’s have problems.

I think all eschatological positions would agree that the solution to these kinds of questions lie in the “remnant”, for within the conditional covenant of Deuteronomy, God made the unconditional promise that he would always preserve a remnant. The differences in understanding come with the identification of the remnant. The Covenant of Grace requires there to be only one people of God, and so the remnant must be identified with the church. Dispensationalism says the remnant must be some portion of the original biological descendants of Abraham. I think it’s somewhere in between…

I understand GBT (and correct me if I’m wrong) to answer that God’s promises of security to the land were not unconditional, not when one studies the covenant.

This I have to completely disagree with! Read Genesis 13:14-18 where God tells Abram to walk around and kick up the dust about which God says “I will give it to you and your descendants forever.” How is that conditional? Abraham didn’t walk through heaven -  he walked through Canaan!

Now I believe that Jesus does transform the covenants, but not in the way you suggest. God really did promise Abraham and his descendants that land forever. But God has decided to give Abraham so much more than what he originally promised! He will get that land, physically, forever (or until this planet is destroyed), but he will also get the rest of the world, in that almost-but-not-quite-yet way, as well as the whole new recreated earth which we call heaven!

Jesus was the fulfilment to God’s promises to David in the way David would have understood, by being the eternal king from his own bloodline. But he is so much more than that too, for he is king of the whole world!

Jesus will be the fulfilment to God’s promises to Abraham in the way Abraham would have understood, by somehow giving to his descendants forever the land “from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen 15:18.) And similarly, he will do much more than Abraham ever will have imagined, but also nothing less!

But Jesus won’t be the direct fulfilment to God’s promises to Phinehas, for as Hebrews goes to great length to explain, he is in the order of Melchizedek, not Aaron!

It is these subtleties which show the flaws of Covenant Theology. Jesus is at the centre of so much of the Bible, of so many of the covenants. But some Bible passages, and some covenants, hardly relate to Jesus at all. The most you can say is that they’re about Jesus as much as everything in the universe is, because he created all things for himself! (Col 1:16) Luke 24:27 says Jesus “explained to them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures”. It does not say that he “explained that all the scriptures concern himself”!

God acts in more wonderful, and more complex, ways than simply through one overarching covenant of grace. It is to his credit and glory that he fulfils the many different promises he made to different people through history, especially when to a human they would seem impossibly contradictory at times.

But not yet: yet it is not the land in the sense that God’s rule is universally recognised and implemented. So we patiently wait for our heavenly home, the New Jerusalem, to be delivered to us in a more eternal sense as this world is resurrected along with us into the New Creation Land / Kingdom / City / Home.

And won’t that be something!

That’s something we can agree with!

Why do you think I believe the number to be an accurate numerical description? Especially as I’ve said before that I do not…

Hi Dannii,
I wasn’t saying you did, but just discussing where the burden of proof lay. It’s not a conversation about bible paradigms, but I think you’ve made a good case that they are important, but about how one reads the obvious symbolism in the passage.

The Covenant of Grace is an ahistorical one that was not made in history. Instead at various times God made historical covenants with some of his people. He gave the precise promises and demanded their obedience, he made rainbows and required circumcision. Because of a covenant’s unamendability, God had to make different ones through history. The problem is in calling the Covenant of Grace a covenant, as it is entirely unlike any of the historical biblical covenants. It is far better, I believe, to simply say that God always acts in grace.

I think I see what you’re saying now.

I think the GBT’s would say the unfolding nature of the various OT covenants are actually describing the greater reality which is God’s undeserved grace to His people, and that maybe Hebrews retroactively calls all the OT law and the prophets something to the effect of a covenant of grace? I don’t have time right now, but I’ll have to check the language. If the NT describes all those unfolding OT covenants as part of one super-package, then surely us GBT’ers have a good case? Romans clearly describes ALL God’s people as having been chosen by grace. It can’t be filed away under “election” even through predestination is also what is in mind. Romans 11 seems to indicate that everyone is in the same basket.

30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Your argument from Noah etc sounds like special pleading. God’s promises to Noah in a sense apply to all God’s people, both OT and NT, because it is a promise not to wipe out the creation in which we live. It’s not a covenant with animals, but a covenant with mankind that the WORLD in which we live will not be as dramatically wiped out again.

God’s promises to David end up going down through the generations and ultimately being fulfilled in Jesus, who is THE King. David is the type, Jesus is the fulfillment of that type. So in a sense, God’s promises to David become ultimately fulfilled in a manner applicable to all God’s people, both before David and after David, because of Jesus.

Re: the covenant applying to believers and unbelievers. I think we need to clarify the “eternal covenant” and the “Israel above” from the “Israel below”.

I’ll have to think further about which “Covenant” applies to which “Israel” before I reply to your concerns over the “Covenant of Grace” including unbelievers. Good question, but I’m not sure it is the Achilles heel you make out. It sounds more like an issue of definitions rather than a conclusive argument. (I tried to have a go, but haven’t quite got the brain-space to define my response).

Now, Genesis 13:14-18 must be read with Deuteronomy 30:11 onwards in mind… the “Life and death” passage, simply because it reminds me of what happened with Adam. He was given life and breath and form, and a land to live in, and yet a warning.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

This is just like Adam in Eden. The promise is that he could live there forever, IF he didn’t decide to reject God by eating of the tree of knowledge and making up the rules himself!

But let’s not forget that God DOES give us the land forever. It’s not just ‘in heaven’, but this world too is renovated, resurrected, and transformed. There is some kind of continuity, a very real sense in which we will have bodies and live in THIS world forever. In that much larger, “New Heavens and New Earth” sense, God does give the land to Abraham’s descendents forever… that land, and indeed every land that is the Lord’s “under heaven”, with all the sheep on a “1000 hills”. Heaven and earth combined somehow, in a way in which we cannot imagine.

If we look at how the theme of Abram’s descendants is fulfilled in the NT
in Gal 3:29

29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

and Romans 4:16 - 18

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
 18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

...then just as Abram’s promises of descendants from Gen 13…

I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth,

is fulfilled in the grander spiritual eschatology and covenant of grace, so to is the land!
You can’t logically insist that one promise from Genesis 13 is literal and then allow another promise from Genesis 13 as spiritual. Either I am or I am not a ‘descendant of Abram’, yet I have no Jewish ethnicity, but a fully Anglo background. So am I in or out?

Also: If the whole bible is about Jesus, and everything written then was for our benefit, then surely reading Gen 13 passages literally forever concerning Abram makes some of the bible about Jesus, and some of the bible promises more about Abram and his eternal benefit? That reads contrary to everything I see in the NT.

Lastly, thanks for the link to the discussion moderated by Piper. It has been interesting to listen to the debate, and I’m glad to see some humour displayed between the Premils, Postmils, and Amil variant. (I’ve not heard the “Millennium martyred saints in heaven” before… that I can recall anyway. What do you make of that view?)

Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind” series seems to be doing the rounds in my neck of the woods,

I think that many among those of pre-mil persuasion wouldn’t endorse the ‘Left-Behind’ series either.

I wasn’t saying you did, but just discussing where the burden of proof lay. It’s not a conversation about bible paradigms, but I think you’ve made a good case that they are important, but about how one reads the obvious symbolism in the passage.

What I think is that it’s completely futile to discuss eschatology without at least acknowledging that different paradigms are at play. If you acknowledge that but continue to discuss eschatology I think it’s just mostly futile. But fun?

Now as to symbolism… I don’t think we can know before God fulfills his prophecies how he will fulfil them. Think of Isaiah 53. Highly symbolic, but which God fulfilled fairly literally. The prophecies of Daniel however were fulfilled not nearly so literally, and it’s hard to precisely pin down which nations they refer to.

Imagine you’re a Jew in the exile, and you’ve just read Jeremiah’s prophecy that the exile will be 70 years. It’s the only passage that mentions the timespan - the prophecies of the exile in earlier parts of the Bible like Deut 4 don’t. Before God fulfilled his promise to return them from exile I don’t think you could know whether that 70 years would be symbolic of another time or a fairly literal counting of the days. In that example he chose to make it 70 actual historical years! (Or did he? The Jews were taken into exile and returned in stages, so many were in exile for a lot longer.)

I think the GBT’s would say the unfolding nature of the various OT covenants are actually describing the greater reality which is God’s undeserved grace to His people, and that maybe Hebrews retroactively calls all the OT law and the prophets something to the effect of a covenant of grace? I don’t have time right now, but I’ll have to check the language. If the NT describes all those unfolding OT covenants as part of one super-package, then surely us GBT’ers have a good case? Romans clearly describes ALL God’s people as having been chosen by grace. It can’t be filed away under “election” even through predestination is also what is in mind. Romans 11 seems to indicate that everyone is in the same basket.

I think both Romans and Hebrews should a big difference between the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants. What Hebrews calls “old” is the Sinai covenant alone.

Now election, predestinations, grace and faith are always the same. No one gets reconciled to God differently (except in what the faith is in: more has been revealed to us than Abraham so we have faith in different things.) But God promised more than just forgiveness of sins and reconcilliation. He promised to sustain the earth, to give David an eternal dynasty, to give the priests peace forever (Phinehas.) The Covenant of Grace says that these are ultimately just different expressions of God’s grace to his singular group of people. I am arguing that they are distinct covenants, distinct promises made to distinct people. I believe that understanding of the covenants has a greater explanatory power for developing a Biblical Theology. People/Place/Rule is good… but I think the Bible indicates that God does not deal with his people uniformly or has only one type of rule at a time.

Your argument from Noah etc sounds like special pleading. God’s promises to Noah in a sense apply to all God’s people, both OT and NT, because it is a promise not to wipe out the creation in which we live. It’s not a covenant with animals, but a covenant with mankind that the WORLD in which we live will not be as dramatically wiped out again.

Genesis 9:9-10: “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth.”
It’s a covenant for the benefit of people primarily, but God said he made it with and for every beast of the earth too.

God’s promises to David end up going down through the generations and ultimately being fulfilled in Jesus, who is THE King. David is the type, Jesus is the fulfillment of that type. So in a sense, God’s promises to David become ultimately fulfilled in a manner applicable to all God’s people, both before David and after David, because of Jesus.

Exactly. But that can’t apply to Phinehas’ covenant, because as Hebrews so strongly points out, Jesus wasn’t a Levite because he was a Judahite. Jesus was the fulfillment to David’s covenant in the exact way David would have expected because he was his true descendant. But that doesn’t work with Phinehas. Now John the Baptist was a Levite, so perhaps we look there for a fulfilment to God’s promises to Phinehas. It’s still ultimately fulfilled by Jesus and his work, but it’s not a fulfilment in the same way as for David.

You can’t logically insist that one promise from Genesis 13 is literal and then allow another promise from Genesis 13 as spiritual. Either I am or I am not a ‘descendant of Abram’, yet I have no Jewish ethnicity, but a fully Anglo background. So am I in or out?

You have died and have risen in Christ. I think in a way it could be argued that you do have Jewish ethnicity - in that you are in Christ and the European ethnicity you were born with has died. But the more common Biblical language is adoption. We have been legally adopted into Abraham’s family. I think Christians receive all of Abraham’s promises literally, and spiritually.

Also: If the whole bible is about Jesus, and everything written then was for our benefit, then surely reading Gen 13 passages literally forever concerning Abram makes some of the bible about Jesus, and some of the bible promises more about Abram and his eternal benefit? That reads contrary to everything I see in the NT.

The Bible is all about Jesus, all about God, all about the Gospel. But content of each passage may not be. There are many passages about Abraham’s eternal benefits, that’s what the content of the passages is. But within the Bible they are about God and his faithfulness, which is possible because of Jesus and the Gospel.

Lastly, thanks for the link to the discussion moderated by Piper. It has been interesting to listen to the debate, and I’m glad to see some humour displayed between the Premils, Postmils, and Amil variant. (I’ve not heard the “Millennium martyred saints in heaven” before… that I can recall anyway. What do you make of that view?)

Sorry, I’m not familiar with it either.

I am arguing that they are distinct covenants, distinct promises made to distinct people. I believe that understanding of the covenants has a greater explanatory power for developing a Biblical Theology. People/Place/Rule is good… but I think the Bible indicates that God does not deal with his people uniformly or has only one type of rule at a time.

Well, I don’t want to get into a semantic game defining and redefining how God covenants. I guess my ultimate concern is what practical applications come out of your views.

I see the one God making promises that, in various ways, head towards putting the whole of Creation under Jesus his Son. On this journey I see consistency with the Covenant Theology view being fulfilled in Christian eschatology.

One ends up with a very weird set of expectations for 2 kingdoms, Christ’s rule over the church and some strangely limited, strangely powerless rule over Israel, if one thinks there are still Abrahamic land promises applicable to the Jews.

Lastly: If much of Revelation is about the last decade or so of human history, what actual good has it been for the church for the last 2000 years, other than to start many cults and distract many people from actual gospel work?

Genesis 13 again:
If I’m in God’s Kingdom, where are Abraham’s descendents? What are your expectations for Israel, if you actually feel some promises to Israel are forever? Because this earth is passing away, and will be resurrected under Jesus, and I understand that to mean everything.

Romans explains Israel is cut off, and seems pretty clear that only Israelites that trust in Jesus can be ‘grafted’ back in again. So what are you actually expecting for Israel, and how does this affect our understanding of world missions, and the future?

Finally: if the whole bible is about Jesus, and everything written then was for our benefit, then surely reading Gen 13 passages literally forever concerning Abram makes some of the bible about Jesus, and some of the bible promises more about Abram and his eternal benefit? That reads contrary to everything I see in the NT.

Well, I don’t want to get into a semantic game defining and redefining how God covenants. I guess my ultimate concern is what practical applications come out of your views.

I think you have to play the semantics game, otherwise you’re not on a level playing field. Dispensational premillennialists have their understanding because the view the Bible and see a number of dispensations, like the “Patriarchal”, “Mosaic”, “Ecclesial” and “Zionic”. Covenant theology amillennialists have their understanding because they view the Bible and see a single Covenant of Grace. If you don’t want to play the semantics game the only fair debate about eschatology you can have will be among amillennialists alone. To fairly debate premmillenialism you should approach it on its own terms (as I hope they would do when debating amillenialism. Though I expect many of them aren’t fair either.)

I think there are three main areas of thinking which depend on these paradigms:
Your understanding of the OT, and especially the law. You can see that in the recent post about sorcery in the OT. We need careful explanations about the law and how it relates to us. We shouldn’t just throw it out completely, as that’s not what Jesus did! But neither should we say it’s binding either. It’s common in CT to view the law in three parts: civil, ceremonial and moral, but I think that’s an example of poor eisegesis.
Eschatology obviously. Before prophecy has been fulfilled there are obviously many fulfilments we could theorise, but which ones we like most depends on how we understand what went on before.
How we understand “the people of God” which impacts on our doctrines of church. This is what debates about baptism are really over, though it’s a lot wider than that too. What about irregular, nominal church members? What about those who attend church but haven’t fully decided about the gospel? What about those who later reject and leave the church? Should we view church membership as a covenant like Mark Dever suggests?

One ends up with a very weird set of expectations for 2 kingdoms, Christ’s rule over the church and some strangely limited, strangely powerless rule over Israel, if one thinks there are still Abrahamic land promises applicable to the Jews.

I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. But Jesus definitely has no “powerless rule”...

Lastly: If much of Revelation is about the last decade or so of human history, what actual good has it been for the church for the last 2000 years, other than to start many cults and distract many people from actual gospel work?

That damage is done, regardless of what it’s really about. But that shouldn’t stop us from trying to understand it correctly.
A lot of mission work actually came about under post-millennialism. They thought that by evangelising the world they would end the millennium and bring about Christ’s return.
Although I do believe that Revelation is about the end of this era, I believe it is also about our times. There is a cycle of tribulations, a cycle of anti-Christs, each worse than the one before. We all experience this, and Revelation gives us the hope we need. But ultimately there will be the final great tribulation and the final anti-Christ. And then Jesus will return to fix it all.

If I’m in God’s Kingdom, where are Abraham’s descendents? What are your expectations for Israel, if you actually feel some promises to Israel are forever? Because this earth is passing away, and will be resurrected under Jesus, and I understand that to mean everything.

I don’t think “forever” extends past this earth. Think of God’s covenant with Noah, in 8:22 he says that day and night will never cease. It’s an eternal promise, that will end only when the earth itself ends. I think it will be the same with his other promises that are about this world, including the promise of Canaan. And yet he will keep his promise even longer than that and the second earth will be given to Abraham too.
(The Bible talks about the final judgement in many ways. Whether the earth is destroyed and another created, or it’s remade, or reformed, rennovated, purified with fire… whatever it is, it’s clear that it will be a new beginning! This is our hope. Our hope even from peak oil.)

Romans explains Israel is cut off, and seems pretty clear that only Israelites that trust in Jesus can be ‘grafted’ back in again. So what are you actually expecting for Israel, and how does this affect our understanding of world missions, and the future?

Just that… the God will bring a remnant back to himself and they’ll be grafted back in, just as we are.

Finally: if the whole bible is about Jesus, and everything written then was for our benefit, then surely reading Gen 13 passages literally forever concerning Abram makes some of the bible about Jesus, and some of the bible promises more about Abram and his eternal benefit? That reads contrary to everything I see in the NT.

As I said last, it’s about God’s faithfulness. God can only be faithful to his promises because of Jesus’ death. Jesus is made mode glorious when he fulfils his promises to Abraham.

Powerless rule over Israel because:
* Israel the state rejects Christ
* Israel was kicked out of their homeland for nearly 2000 years, in which time God’s promises to Abram were completely null and void and effectless
* Israel still, today, has no temple and thus the whole Jewish faith is defunct
* Israel still does not own the whole land promised to Abram.

If God’s promises to Abram still stand, they’ve been severely thwarted for 2000 years and only have limited application today.

But ultimately there will be the final great tribulation and the final anti-Christ. And then Jesus will return to fix it all.

Anyone who denies Jesus came in the flesh is an anti-Christ.

John was writing to his generation to show them what was happening at their time. The Anti-Christ was Nero, but also represents any time the state rises up against God’s people. It’s all in Revelation 1:

  1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

It’s soon, and take John’s letter to specific churches (but also all churches) to heart, because the time is near. Not 2000 years later.

19"Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.

Phil Jensen explains that the greek for later just means, “Just after this thing” and does not actually mean “LATER” as in a significant period of time.

Finally: if the whole bible is about Jesus, and everything written then was for our benefit, then surely reading Gen 13 passages literally forever concerning Abram makes some of the bible about Jesus, and some of the bible promises more about Abram and his eternal benefit? That reads contrary to everything I see in the NT.

As I said last, it’s about God’s faithfulness. God can only be faithful to his promises because of Jesus’ death. Jesus is made mode glorious when he fulfils his promises to Abraham.

I don’t think you answered the question. But in your answer, I’d point out that Abraham is only saved because of Jesus, and not because of any particular faithfulness or works on his part. And just as Abraham had OUR faith (in a Lord he did not fully understand), I think Hebrews and Romans shows that the promises of being God’s people and land are fulfilled in a way he might not have visualised.

Nothing in the NT indicates that there are 2 individual kingdoms of God, but 1, us who trust in Jesus. Nothing in the NT indicates that the priesthood of old Israel remains, as their is only 1 high priest, Jesus. We also see Hebrews taking up the themes of our Sabbath rest being equated to heaven, and “making every effort to enter that rest”. This passage in Hebrews also seems to indicate that heaven / paradise / the new world is now THE land we should be struggling to enter.

Powerless rule over Israel because:
* Israel the state rejects Christ
* Israel was kicked out of their homeland for nearly 2000 years, in which time God’s promises to Abram were completely null and void and effectless
* Israel still, today, has no temple and thus the whole Jewish faith is defunct
* Israel still does not own the whole land promised to Abram.

If God’s promises to Abram still stand, they’ve been severely thwarted for 2000 years and only have limited application today.

What does the modern state of Israel have to do with anything? Clearly they are part of the Israel which has been cut off.

Yes, God’s promises have been severely thwarted. That’s the consequence of Israel’s persistent idolatry. We may not see them fulfilled today, but that doesn’t mean they’re any less applicable!

John was writing to his generation to show them what was happening at their time. The Anti-Christ was Nero, but also represents any time the state rises up against God’s people. It’s all in Revelation 1:

It’s soon, and take John’s letter to specific churches (but also all churches) to heart, because the time is near. Not 2000 years later.

That depends on when you date Revelation. It could have been written during Nero’s reign, or Domitian’s, or in between. I believe in multiple fulfilments. Yes it was about Nero, and Domitian, but it’s also about our future.
And so what about 2000 years? Christ’s return was said many times to come soon as well.

I don’t think you answered the question. But in your answer, I’d point out that Abraham is only saved because of Jesus, and not because of any particular faithfulness or works on his part. And just as Abraham had OUR faith (in a Lord he did not fully understand), I think Hebrews and Romans shows that the promises of being God’s people and land are fulfilled in a way he might not have visualised.

Nothing in the NT indicates that there are 2 individual kingdoms of God, but 1, us who trust in Jesus. Nothing in the NT indicates that the priesthood of old Israel remains, as their is only 1 high priest, Jesus. We also see Hebrews taking up the themes of our Sabbath rest being equated to heaven, and “making every effort to enter that rest”. This passage in Hebrews also seems to indicate that heaven / paradise / the new world is now THE land we should be struggling to enter.

In a way he might not have visualised, yes, but not in a way any less than he might have visualised.

I’m not suggesting there are two kingdoms of God, but that God’s promises of earthly things, insignificant as they are compared to the heavenly, are still his promises. As individuals the Jews are not God’s people, but somehow as a group, they are in way that gentile Christians are not.

Romans 11:28-29 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Jesus came as the suffering servant messiah. But he has not come as the victorious son of David messiah - that will be the second coming. We have reconciliation, salvation, heaven, the spirit. That’s enough for us, and a big challenge to embrace faithfully. But it’s not enough for God. He has more promises to keep.

Their ‘gifts and calling’ are not revoked, but are fulfilled in Jesus.

Check out how Hebrews considers the land.

There are promises regarding Kingship that are fulfilled in Jesus, promises regarding priesthood that are fulfilled in Jesus, promises and laws regarding the Sabbath that are fulfilled in Jesus and the heavenly rest, but the promises regarding the land are fulfilled in… the land?

I still don’t get why you’ll allow almost every other promise of God to be fulfilled in a Christological sense, except for the land, especially when Hebrews pretty much translates the land in a heavenly sense.

1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.[a] 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
  “So I declared on oath in my anger,
  ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ “And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.”[c] 5And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”

6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
  “Today, if you hear his voice,
    do not harden your hearts.”[d] 8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

Back to Romans

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

However, the context of Romans 11 is whether there is any hope for Israelites at all given their tragic rejection of the Messiah. Basically I take this passage to say YES the Israelites were called and were God’s special people, and God still loves them, but now we are ALL God’s special people, and ALL of us have been disobedient, and yet all of us together making up “all Israel” can be saved!

So I do not see any evidence here that God still has special earthly promises regarding land to the Israelites when they can only be ‘grafted back in’ by becoming Christians… in which case, their focus immediately becomes OUR focus, a focus on heaven / paradise / the new earth.

Hi Dannii,
basically this one is a classic. All about the “2 people of God”.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/The_Anti-Rapture_Page/famnight.htm

“1 don’t understand about God having two different people,” one of my stubborn daughters said. “There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, it says in Romans 10:12.”

Another said, “There is no respect of persons with God, Romans 2:11.”

The third added, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, Galatians 3:28.”

When no similar insolence was forthcoming from my son I turned my gaze on him. He had been thinking hard, and finally he turned to his mother and asked, “Mom, what was that about the wall being broken down?”

“That’s Ephesians 2:14-16, dear,” she said, smiling sweetly at him. “It tells how the Lord at Calvary broke down the former wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile and made of the two one new man, one body.”

“Well, isn’t Dad wrong then?” my only son asked.

“Well, he has studied a lot of books and charts, dear,” she said. “The girls and I are only going by the Bible.”

“Look,” I said impatiently, “if you don’t understand that, do you at least see that the Jews are God’s special people, a peculiar treasure to Him?”

“I know that in Exodus 19:5,6 the Lord told the Israelites that if they obeyed and kept His covenant they would be a peculiar treasure to Him, and a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation,” my wife said.

“Yes, yes,” I cut in, “that’s it!”

“But I haven’t finished, dear,” she said. “I think they must have disobeyed and then God found a new people to replace them because Peter uses those same verses to describe everyone who has been converted to Christ.”

“I never saw that,” I snarled.

“It’s in 1 Peter 2:9, dear,” she said.

I gnashed my teeth some more, audibly this time. When the noise died down, one of my daughters said she thought the church had succeeded to the promises originally made to the Jews.

“Listen, kid,” I snapped, “those promises were made to Abraham and his descendants through his son Isaac and through Isaac’s son Israel.”

“That’s clear from Genesis 12:7 and 22:18, Daddy, but viewed in the light of the New Testament it seems that we—all who are Christ’s through the new birth—are in fact the descendants of Abraham.”

Thinking that I was rising from my chair to strike the child, my wife threw herself between us. When she saw that I only intended to pace the floor, she sat down again and asked her daughter to continue.

“Well, Mom, as you pointed out to us long ago, the third chapter of Galatians makes it all very clear. Verse 7 says they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. Verse 16 explains that the seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made was Christ. Verse 27 says we who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. And therefore verse 29 says that if we are Christ’s then we are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.”

“I can quote scripture, too!” I shouted. “How about, children, provoke not thy father to wrath! That’s in there some place, too, you know!”

“That’s Ephesians 6:4, dear,” my wife said gently, “but you’ve got it backwards. It says, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.”

“Well, how can I help it?” I exploded. “She takes one isolated passage of scripture and uses it to tell me I’m an Israelite!”

“A spiritual Israelite, dear,” my wife said, watching with compassion my spastic ambulations across the living room floor. “But she didn’t really take an isolated passage. That one was about Abraham but you also mentioned Isaac and Israel. Well, Galatians 4:28,29 says that we who are born after the Spirit are, as Isaac was, the children of promise. And Romans 9:6-8 makes the same point, saying they are not all Israel which are of Israel.”

“Any more?” I asked sarcastically.

“Well, yes, she replied. “Romans 2:28,29 says that a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward In the flesh, but he is a Jew which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit. Oh, and Philippians 3:3 says we, that is, all the saints in Christ Jesus, are the circumcision, who worship God in the spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.”

“Well, if you’re going to favor all those New Testament scriptures above the Old Testament you certainly won’t reach the conclusions my books reach,” I said, again striving for sarcasm. Somehow my remark didn’t seem to make the point I intended so I hurried on.

A few comments:

There is a difference between an individual and the community they are a part of. A right relationship with God has always required perfect obedience, or faith in his perfect salvation, but the Law required the Israelite nation to have only “approximate obedience” (a term from Introducing Covenant Theology.) I take this to mean that idolatry put the nation into condemnation, while other sins can be dealt with through the sacrificial system. Galatians 3:28 I believe is primarily about the personal individual process of salvation in Christ, although other passages shows that racism isn’t acceptable either! But Paul doesn’t address there issues wider than salvation.

The issue is not “two peoples” (although some may say it is.) There is one “people of God”. The question I am trying to raise is, does God deal with all his people homogeneously? I don’t believe he does, and have presented Phinehas and David as simple examples. A flaw with CT and GBT is that it portrays God as acting essentially equivalently to all his people. David’s promise of an eternal dynasty is turned into a promise God gave to the nation.

That said, with a wide definition, can’t there be many peoples of God? There is only one “people of God” that is the bride of Christ, those who have faith in God’s gracious salvation. But in another way all people are God’s people and benefit under Noah’s covenant. Most Christians want to believe that God will relate with their as-yet-unbelieving children in some different way than the other children - and there could be Biblical support for it with “blessings to the thousandth generation”. The controversy is whether the promises and covenant God made with Abraham must be with only the “bride of Christ people of Christ”, or whether it was made with a subset of humanity.

I think we must critically look at what God actually promised Abraham. It was not a covenant about salvation, but was rather earthy. That we’ve been given similar spiritual blessings is wonderful, but that can’t change what God promised long ago.

I actually believe the predominant promise was actually the land. I don’t understand why. Possibly in their culture identity and worth etc were all bound up in controlling your own land.
Genesis 12 starts with the land, but then has many other blessings. But it still starts with the land! Without it none of the rest could follow.
13:14-17 - God confirms his promise of the very land Abraham is walking over.
The early parts of chapter 15 are about the promise of a true biological heir, but 15:7 says that the reason Yahweh brought Abram out of Ur was to give him the land. The covenant God then makes as he passes through the halves of the animals is to give them the land from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates.
17 is mostly about Abraham’s many descendants. But read verse 8. Possession of the land is the sign of being God’s people.
In chapter 22 God once again promises to bless the other nations (quite rare really for the significance the NT gives to it) and he swears by his own name, the event Hebrews 6 refers to. But how will the other nations be blessed? By Abraham having many descendants who will possess the land - the cities of their enemies.
And then you have the wonderful Psalm 105 (there are many like it) which tells of God’s wonderful faithfulness to his promises. Check verses 11 and 44.

Why doesn’t Hebrews focus on the earthly fulfillment of the land? Well remember its context - written to Jewish Christians who were considering rejecting Christ and returning to Judaism. This is why he points out the uselessness of the sacrifices, the failings of the priests. That Jesus is superior in every way. Hebrews 3-4 comes in this context: it is a warning to listen to God and remember what he has promised. The writer is pleading with us not to harden our hearts and reject Jesus and be unable to enter heaven. Although I guess it would be possible that some Jews were so focused on God’s promise of the land that it would lead them to reject Christ (even though there seems to be no logical link there) the vast majority of Hebrews is about the sacrificial system - that’s where the real temptation was (and where there is a logical link - you only need one sacrificial system, either the old or Jesus.)

There are promises regarding Kingship that are fulfilled in Jesus, promises regarding priesthood that are fulfilled in Jesus, promises and laws regarding the Sabbath that are fulfilled in Jesus and the heavenly rest, but the promises regarding the land are fulfilled in… the land?

I still don’t get why you’ll allow almost every other promise of God to be fulfilled in a Christological sense, except for the land, especially when Hebrews pretty much translates the land in a heavenly sense.

God’s covenant with David is fulfilled in Jesus because Jesus was a physical descendant of him!
He fulfills the promise made in Ps 110:4, but NOT Numbers 25:13. I think he directly fulfills only half of Jeremiah 33:17-18 and none of Malachi 2:4-5.
Does Jesus directly fulfill the Sabbath imagery? Hebrews 4 doesn’t explicitly mention him! (Excluding verse 14 onwards…)

So I don’t allow “almost every other promise” to be fulfilled in a Christological sense. Jesus is the direct fulfillment to many of God’s promises. But not all of them! Ultimately he still fulfills them, as God he must. But he is not the direct fulfillment as in the way he fulfills David’s covenant.

Maybe the question is “Does God treat all His people equivalently now?” I think the NT is clear.

A flaw with CT and GBT is that it portrays God as acting essentially equivalently to all his people.

No, this is it’s STRENGTH not it’s flaw, as we can see in the following example.

David’s promise of an eternal dynasty is turned into a promise God gave to the nation.

I think that is quite consistent with how the NT interprets it.

I think we must critically look at what God actually promised Abraham. It was not a covenant about salvation, but was rather earthy. That we’ve been given similar spiritual blessings is wonderful, but that can’t change what God promised long ago.

This is becoming a bit of a pattern. I show you the NT verses that describe how all Abraham’s promises have been fulfilled in a real, earthy, ‘national’ sense in the new nation of Christ, and you ignore them and go and focus back on Abraham’s promises… and insist, “But they were REAL promises to ABRAHAM!”

Hebrews
It is not just the context of Hebrews that somehow missed covering literal land promises in the Middle East. You’re arguing from silence. There’s no Middle Eastern land promises there because there ARE no M.E. land promises anymore! Arguing that the focus was merely somewhere else is a rather bold attempt to ignore the overall emphasis of Hebrews, which is all OT promises are fulfilled in Christ.

Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45, which definitely had the throne in Jerusalem in mind.

    8 But about the Son he says,
       “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
       a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

It’s not about David’s throne or lineage, but the Lord Jesus. David’s throne, and I take it the promises to David, are not important any more, as it was never about David to begin with. They are fulfilled in a vaster manner than even David could have imagined.

Hebrews 3 and 4 show that the Sabbath is now in Heaven, and along with it the promises about the Land are swallowed up and transformed into the eternal land in the new world.

Hebrews 5 answers “Where’s the Priest?” In the Land of course… Jesus the great High Priest is in Heaven / our new land.

Hebews 8 kills any pretensions about old promises to the Old Isreal dead as a door-nail.

    7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said: 
“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant 
       with the house of Israel 
 and with the house of Judah.
    9 It will not be like the covenant 
       I made with their ancestors 
       when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, 
and I turned away from them, 
       declares the Lord.
    10 This is the covenant I will establish with the house of Israel 
       after that time, declares the Lord.  I will put my laws in their minds 
       and write them on their hearts. 
 I will be their God, 
and they will be my people.
    11 No longer will they teach their neighbors, 
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ 
because they will all know me, 
  from the least of them to the greatest.
    12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” [c]
    13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Look at that last verse… very scary. I wonder if that is referring to the Day of the Lord / Judgement or to the more specific judgement against Israel in AD 70?

Given the context of this passage ranting against mortal priests (hello Phinehas) I’m guessing the later, that earthly priests were soon to disappear as Jerusalem fell. But priesthood itself survived, and was transformed and fulfilled in Jesus, the High Priest. I take it if Jesus can fulfil David’s throne, even though He never physically reigned, Jesus can also fulfil the ultimate goal of Phinehas’s priesthood, even if Jesus is not physically descended from Phinehas himself. (And one tiny promise to Phinehas in the overall sweep of the bible’s history is a very tenuous reason, in itself, to throw out Covenant Theology. Ditto for Malachi 2:45. According to the NT, I cannot imagine how you see a covenant with Levi being fulfilled literally because that would involve the Levites being Levites… priests, and we don’t have priests any more… we have Jesus the great high priest!
Well, look at that, I nearly committed heresy then. Don’t forget (as I nearly did) that we are ALL priests, descendents of Levi and Phinehas in a sense according to the new covenant verses I’ve quoted. I could go on through the book, but it is not just Hebrews.

It seems to me that the NT regards all the promises to Abraham as fulfilled, not just in Hebrews but everywhere. 1 Peter 2 says as much.

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by human beings but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house [a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
       “See, I lay a stone in Zion,
       a chosen and precious cornerstone,
       and the one who trusts in him
       will never be put to shame.”
    7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, 
  “The stone the builders rejected 
       has become the cornerstone,” [c]
    8 and, 
       “A stone that causes people to stumble 
       and a rock that makes them fall.” 
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
    9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Note the stumbling that Israel were destined for! Coupled with the Hebrews verse above, I just don’t see how anyone can argue that OT promises remain specific when the NT makes it so clear they are done with.

What was Jesus on about?
He’s there to destroy the temple and raise it again in 3 days! (The temple was the heart of the nation and focus of the land).

Jesus says the stones can become children of Abraham! (So much for Abraham’s descendants, with no disrespect to any Jewish Christians reading).

Jesus starts talking about even those miserable Samaritans worshipping on their mountain in spirit and in truth! Oh the humanity! Where will God’s judgement against Israel end? Nope… I can’t remember any Middle East land-specific promises in Jesus.

So rather than running back to the OT to try and prove your point again (and take us round the merry-go-round again), how about you show us a NT verse that supports your line of reading Abraham as still having a literal, ‘this world’ covenant promise that still applies? Because as far as the N.T. goes, God’s promises to Abraham and Phinehas and Levi about Land, and a Nation, and Priesthood, have all been abolished and reworked into THE real land with THE real High Priest in THE new covenant nation of Christian believers across all of history, time, and space, and even those who have already died… our new home in Paradise.

Hi Ros,
I take it you’re worried about the 4th kingdom?

  23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

  26 ” ‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

That’s Rome isn’t it? And the new kingdom that God establishes is the church. Verse 27 is the sort of Jewish thinking that got the Pharisees, and even the disciples, into so much trouble with Jesus.

Indeed, it formed the basis of their last conversation with Jesus. I can imagine him wincing, and thinking “You STILL don’t get it!”

6 So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

  7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

  9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

  10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

The one event of “The Day of the Lord” in the Old Testament becomes 2 events, the day of God’s judgement against the suffering servant (Jesus) and then the return of Jesus in triumph and judgement.

For more, try this page.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/The_Anti-Rapture_Page/famnight.htm

I know this thread was asking for the best SHORT explanation of “End times” stuff, but I’ve found some long ones.

Well, not that long, especially if you’re on a walk or doing the dishes as you listen to them on your iPod.

Here’s a recording of Graeme Goldsworthy on how we get Revelation wrong. It looks at the indicators people often miss as they approach the book. 1 hour.

http://audio.christchurch.com.au/97-126.mp3

However, for a much longer treatment it seems like Professor Kim Riddlebarger of “White Horse Inn” fame is running a whole series on “Amillennialism 101” and actually putting up his classroom presentations onto his blog for public consumption. How spoilt we are today! I get to listen to it as I run some of the more mundane office and housework tasks! How excellent.

http://links.christreformed.org/realaudio/A20081205-Amillenialism.mp3

I’ve started listening to the first episode, and it sounds like it is going to cover all the presuppositions of Dispensational theology, Covenant theology, and how these affect our eschatology.
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/welcome/

There’s also some photos of Kim and the White Horse Inn crowd, especially this one in a silly hat (on the right) as he accepts the position as J. Gresham Machen professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California.

I’m sure that’s a “White House” of a different colour to the old “White Horse Hotel” that was near Moore College. In fact, if I recall correctly, Moore eventually bought that property ;)

Thanks, Dave.  I too listen to mp3’s while doing the dishes.
 
But are you sure those links are right?  The first one seems to be by Prof Riddlebarger from 2008, doing a previous ‘Amil 101’ series.

Yeah, it’s his series for his students. All I was saying was he is one of the White Horse Inn guys, not that it is a White Horse Inn production as such. I was just drawing attention to the fact that I’d finally seen a photo of the White Horse Inn team… that’s pretty much all there is to it.

Um, I meant the first link you give is Riddlebarger not Goldsworthy on how we get Revelation wrong?

Ha ha ha! Oh man, U2 kept me up late last night and I can hardly hear. Or read.
I went back and edited that last post Ros and here it is again just to be sure. Sorry about all that.

http://audio.christchurch.com.au/97-126.mp3

Sounds good, because as I said before, its essential to recognise your Biblical metanarrative/frameworks before discussing issues such as eschatology.

However from the descriptions on that website it sounds like it might just be putting up CT against dispensationalism without considering other options like NCT. Dispensationalism is quite silly, but there are many other options. It emphasises discontinuities to the extreme, just like CT emphasises continuities to the extreme. I think the truth lies in between, with some continuities and other discontinuities, depending on what exactly was promised, and to who.

What’s this one mate — NCT — takes a stab, “New Covenant Theology”? Is that NT Wright or something?

some continuities and other discontinuities, depending on what exactly was promised, and to who.

I remember we discussed some of the individual promises made to certain OT people that their reign, or their line of prophets, or whatever it was would never cease. Then we looked at the language in Hebrews and other places in the NT and those verses looked fairly all encompassing.

That is to say, anything less than Jesus fulfilling everything in the OT scriptures is shrinking the awesome power of the gospel and heading into some kind of Dispensationalism or ‘failed first plans of God’ theology. When Jesus was executed it really was God turning His anger against sin in on Himself, and defeating the devil and all his works. It really was ‘the end of the world’, the end of the devil and all who rebelled against Christ, the judgement of all rebellion in the cosmos, the remission of guilt for all who trust in Christ and the end of the Old Testament mystery with the final revelation of all God’s plans for us.

Jesus resurrection really was humanity rising to glorious new life, this creation rising to a new existence, and the promise of the OT all fulfilled. And when the Holy Spirit was given to the church it was the fulfilment of all kinds of OT ‘apocalyptic’ images.

The NT wraps these themes up in comprehensive language, especially Hebrews. All God’s promises regarding Kings and Kingdoms, Prophets and Messengers, Nations and His People, Sacrifices and Saviours were all met in Jesus. There is no other alternative. The NT doesn’t allow it.