A Case For Amillenialism

[Alive]

This is from Kim Riddlebarger's book of the same title. This is his closing comments in the preface to the updated publishing. I started this for two purposes.
1. To encourage folks interrested in the various eschatological positions, to read his book.
2. To also encourage folks who may not have, to look more closely at the Amillennial POV.

IMO, brother Kim does an exceptionally honest and fair look at all of the positions and comparing them to scripture very carefully along the way. You may not agree with him, but I can guarantee you will learn more about your own position juxtaposed against the others.
Iron sharpens iron.

________________________

In the case of Israel, God established his covenant with the nation at Mount Sinai. While this covenant was based on the works principle established under the original covenant of works (blessing promised for perfect obedience and curse threatened for any disobedience), this covenant was administered to Israel as part of the covenant of grace. This can be seen in the fact that God gave to Israel a priesthood, animal sacrifices, and a tabernacle (and then a temple) to relieve their guilt of sin and to instruct them about the coming Messiah and the nature of his saving work. This explains the typology present through the Sinai covenant and its temple, priesthood, etc.

When the nation of Israel comes under God’s covenant curses because of their repeated disobedience and lack of repentance, and the nation is first cast from the land during the Babylonian captivity and then again after the events of AD 70, this has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that God has his elect believers among the Israelites (and who are, under the terms of the covenant of grace, saved by grace through faith in the promised Messiah), even though the nation of which they were citizens (Israel) came under God’s covenant curse threatened in the covenant sanctions established at Sinai. Israel’s possession of the land of promise, therefore, was part of a national covenant and was conditioned upon national obedience. The New Testament writers are clear (much to the dispensationalist’s dismay) that the everlasting land promise God made to Abraham is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is the true Israel. This becomes clear when Paul universalizes the Abrahamic promise of a land in Palestine now extending to the ends of the earth (Rom. 4:13). Abraham is now depicted as heir of the world.

Therefore, to tie God’s choice of Israel to serve a critical role in redemptive history (as recipients of the Sinai covenant) to God’s choice of those particular individuals whom he chooses to save (“sovereign election,” to use MacArthur’s phrase) is to overlook a very important distinction made throughout the whole of the Bible. One might be part of the visible people of God yet not be a true believer, nor numbered among God’s elect. This is the classical distinction between the visible and the invisible church. To paraphrase Paul in Romans 9:6, “Not all Israel is Israel.” Yet, says Paul, within national Israel (which receives and possesses the land based on obedience—Josh. 21:43), there is an elect remnant according to grace (Rom. 11:5–6) whom God will indeed save through the merits of Jesus Christ received through faith alone. reface to the Expanded Edition P

So to argue as MacArthur and other dispensationalists do—that the Reformed view of the election of Israel to be God’s covenant nation is directly tied to God’s decree of those particular individuals whom he will save through faith in Jesus—does not reflect the historic Reformed position. The basis for MacArthur’s claim is the unfortunate conflation of Israel’s divinely ordained role in redemptive history with God’s sovereign choice of those individuals whom he intends to save. This reflects the dispensationalist’s rejection of covenant theology as expressed throughout the Reformed tradition and confessions and illustrates an unfortunate willingness to discuss sovereign election in the abstract—apart from the biblical means and redemptive-historical context in which God saves his elect sinners (i.e., the covenants of works and grace) as these covenants unfold in biblical history.

Unless and until these hermeneutical differences between covenant theologians and dispensationalists are resolved, Reformed amillenarians and dispensationalists are not going to agree about Israel’s role in redemptive history, nor will we agree about the way in which the New Testament reinterprets the Old in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ and the dawn of the messianic age. This is why I hope the debate will continue and why I ask you, the reader, to weigh these matters with both an open mind and a well-worn Bible. It is my prayer that this expanded edition of A Case for Amillennialism will help you do exactly that.

 

[Eleanor]

This is from Kim Riddlebarger's book of the same title. This is his closing comments in the preface to the updated publishing. I started this for two purposes.
1. To encourage folks interrested in the various eschatological positions, to read his book.
2. To also encourage folks who may not have, to look more closely at the Amillennial POV.

IMO, brother Kim does an exceptionally honest and fair look at all of the positions and comparing them to scripture very carefully along the way. You may not agree with him, but I can guarantee you will learn more about your own position juxtaposed against the others.
Iron sharpens iron.

________________________

In the case of Israel, God established his covenant with the nation at Mount Sinai. While this covenant was based on the works principle established under the original covenant of works (blessing promised for perfect obedience and curse threatened for any disobedience), this covenant was administered to Israel as part of the covenant of grace. This can be seen in the fact that God gave to Israel a priesthood, animal sacrifices, and a tabernacle (and then a temple) to relieve their guilt of sin and to instruct them about the coming Messiah and the nature of his saving work. This explains the typology present through the Sinai covenant and its temple, priesthood, etc.

When the nation of Israel comes under God’s covenant curses because of their repeated disobedience and lack of repentance, and the nation is first cast from the land during the Babylonian captivity and then again after the events of AD 70, this has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that God has his elect believers among the Israelites (and who are, under the terms of the covenant of grace, saved by grace through faith in the promised Messiah), even though the nation of which they were citizens (Israel) came under God’s covenant curse threatened in the covenant sanctions established at Sinai. Israel’s possession of the land of promise, therefore, was part of a national covenant and was conditioned upon national obedience. The New Testament writers are clear (much to the dispensationalist’s dismay) that the everlasting land promise God made to Abraham is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is the true Israel. This becomes clear when Paul universalizes the Abrahamic promise of a land in Palestine now extending to the ends of the earth (Rom. 4:13). Abraham is now depicted as heir of the world.

Therefore, to tie God’s choice of Israel to serve a critical role in redemptive history (as recipients of the Sinai covenant) to God’s choice of those particular individuals whom he chooses to save (“sovereign election,” to use MacArthur’s phrase) is to overlook a very important distinction made throughout the whole of the Bible. One might be part of the visible people of God yet not be a true believer, nor numbered among God’s elect. This is the classical distinction between the visible and the invisible church. To paraphrase Paul in Romans 9:6, “Not all Israel is Israel.” Yet, says Paul, within national Israel (which receives and possesses the land based on obedience—Josh. 21:43), there is an elect remnant according to grace (Rom. 11:5–6) whom God will indeed save through the merits of Jesus Christ received through faith alone. reface to the Expanded Edition P

So to argue as MacArthur and other dispensationalists do—that the Reformed view of the election of Israel to be God’s covenant nation is directly tied to God’s decree of those particular individuals whom he will save through faith in Jesus—does not reflect the historic Reformed position. The basis for MacArthur’s claim is the unfortunate conflation of Israel’s divinely ordained role in redemptive history with God’s sovereign choice of those individuals whom he intends to save. This reflects the dispensationalist’s rejection of covenant theology as expressed throughout the Reformed tradition and confessions and illustrates an unfortunate willingness to discuss sovereign election in the abstract—apart from the biblical means and redemptive-historical context in which God saves his elect sinners (i.e., the covenants of works and grace) as these covenants unfold in biblical history.

Unless and until these hermeneutical differences between covenant theologians and dispensationalists are resolved, Reformed amillenarians and dispensationalists are not going to agree about Israel’s role in redemptive history, nor will we agree about the way in which the New Testament reinterprets the Old in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ and the dawn of the messianic age. This is why I hope the debate will continue and why I ask you, the reader, to weigh these matters with both an open mind and a well-worn Bible. It is my prayer that this expanded edition of A Case for Amillennialism will help you do exactly that.

God told Miriam that he gave prophecy in riddles and not clearly (Nu 12:8).
The "millennium" comes from a literal reading of figurative prophecy, and contradicts apostolic teaching.

 

[TMSO]

God told Miriam that he gave prophecy in riddles and not clearly (Nu 12:8).
The "millennium" comes from a literal reading of figurative prophecy, and contradicts apostolic teaching.

You still don't understand that that is clearly not in the context, right?

12 Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman); 2 and they said, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” And the Lord heard it. 3 (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.) 4 Suddenly the Lord said to Moses and Aaron and to Miriam, “You three come out to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them came out. 5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called [a]Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward, 6 He said,

“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
7 “Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household;
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Even openly, and not in dark sayings,
And he beholds the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?”
9 So the anger of the Lord burned against them and He departed. 10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. 12 Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!” 13 Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “O God, heal her, I pray!” 14 But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut up for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she may be received again.” 15 So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again.

Note how the words God is speaking is solely for Aaron and Miriam. To anyone at that time who is a prophet among them [at that time], God will speak to them in drams and visions. However, Moses, who is faithful and more humble than any man who was on the face of the Earth, He will speak to Moses directly. What is the biggest thing Aaron and Miriam missed. "Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses. Notice how God did not say, why then were you not afraid to speak against Moses. God emphasized that they were speaking out against God's servant, which impugns on God who chose to make Moses His servant. And more than that. If they (Miriam and Aaron) are only hearing from God in dreams and visions, but Moses is hearing from God face to face, where is their fear? How are they speaking against Moses without fear, He who actually speaks directly to God.

This chapter, by context, is dealing solely with Aaron and Miriam's attack on Moses. That is it. What did they want? To supplant Moses. God would not have it. They were upset with Moses for marrying a Cushite woman. God is telling them He doesn't have an problem with it, what is their problem?

 

[TMSO]

In the case of Israel, God established his covenant with the nation at Mount Sinai. While this covenant was based on the works principle established under the original covenant of works (blessing promised for perfect obedience and curse threatened for any disobedience), this covenant was administered to Israel as part of the covenant of grace. This can be seen in the fact that God gave to Israel a priesthood, animal sacrifices, and a tabernacle (and then a temple) to relieve their guilt of sin and to instruct them about the coming Messiah and the nature of his saving work. This explains the typology present through the Sinai covenant and its temple, priesthood, etc.

If it is based on works, how can it be of grace? Why was Abraham's faith credited to him as righteousness, and not cashed in immediately under a covenant of grace? Why did Abraham look forward to Christ, and the covenant of grace (Hebrews)There is , if the covenant of grace already existed? There is a clear difference between the Israel sacrificial system which could not wash away sin, and what Jesus did. The sacrifical system was also, as Abraham, looking forward to what was to come.

When the nation of Israel comes under God’s covenant curses because of their repeated disobedience and lack of repentance, and the nation is first cast from the land during the Babylonian captivity and then again after the events of AD 70, this has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that God has his elect believers among the Israelites (and who are, under the terms of the covenant of grace, saved by grace through faith in the promised Messiah), even though the nation of which they were citizens (Israel) came under God’s covenant curse threatened in the covenant sanctions established at Sinai. Israel’s possession of the land of promise, therefore, was part of a national covenant and was conditioned upon national obedience. The New Testament writers are clear (much to the dispensationalist’s dismay) that the everlasting land promise God made to Abraham is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is the true Israel. This becomes clear when Paul universalizes the Abrahamic promise of a land in Palestine now extending to the ends of the earth (Rom. 4:13). Abraham is now depicted as heir of the world.

Except that is all wrong. The Old Testament is clear that if Israel repents, God will hear them and heal the land. The point has been made that if one follows the Leviticus principle in God's exiling of Israel from the land, the end of that exile, again, using the Leviticus Principle, is 1948. What happened in 1948? Israel became a nation again. What is the Leviticus principle? The length of the exile times seven. When calculated from the beginning year, the end year becomes 1948. God promised his punishment would be seven times over. " 18 If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."

What did God also say in Leviticus? "40 ‘If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their forefathers, in their unfaithfulness which they committed against Me, and also in their acting with hostility against Me— 41 I also was acting with hostility against them, to bring them into the land of their enemies—or if their uncircumcised heart becomes humbled so that they then make amends for their iniquity, 42 then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and My covenant with Abraham as well, and I will remember the land. 43 For the land will be abandoned by them, and will make up for its sabbaths while it is made desolate without them. They, meanwhile, will be making amends for their iniquity, [o]because they rejected My ordinances and their soul abhorred My statutes. 44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them, breaking My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. 45 But I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am the Lord.’”

So what does God say about the everlasting promise made to Abraham. He will remember, that He might be their God. So no, God did not break His covenant with them, as it clearly states above. Never happened.

Therefore, to tie God’s choice of Israel to serve a critical role in redemptive history (as recipients of the Sinai covenant) to God’s choice of those particular individuals whom he chooses to save (“sovereign election,” to use MacArthur’s phrase) is to overlook a very important distinction made throughout the whole of the Bible. One might be part of the visible people of God yet not be a true believer, nor numbered among God’s elect. This is the classical distinction between the visible and the invisible church. To paraphrase Paul in Romans 9:6, “Not all Israel is Israel.” Yet, says Paul, within national Israel (which receives and possesses the land based on obedience—Josh. 21:43), there is an elect remnant according to grace (Rom. 11:5–6) whom God will indeed save through the merits of Jesus Christ received through faith alone. reface to the Expanded Edition P

So to argue as MacArthur and other dispensationalists do—that the Reformed view of the election of Israel to be God’s covenant nation is directly tied to God’s decree of those particular individuals whom he will save through faith in Jesus—does not reflect the historic Reformed position.

This would explain why John MacArthur is not reformed.

The basis for MacArthur’s claim is the unfortunate conflation of Israel’s divinely ordained role in redemptive history with God’s sovereign choice of those individuals whom he intends to save. This reflects the dispensationalist’s rejection of covenant theology as expressed throughout the Reformed tradition and confessions and illustrates an unfortunate willingness to discuss sovereign election in the abstract—apart from the biblical means and redemptive-historical context in which God saves his elect sinners (i.e., the covenants of works and grace) as these covenants unfold in biblical history.

The covenant of grace was put in place on the cross with Jesus death. The sign of the covenant of grace is the tearing of the veil in the temple. A covenant takes blood, and in this case, the covenant was sealed with the blood of Christ. The covenant of works was sealed with the blood of a lamb on the right thumb and right toe (and ear I believe) by Moses, and it was for ALL the people of Israel. (18 years and up I believe.) It was not the covenant of grace, but of works, which is the burden the Jews could not bear, according to Peter at the church council in Acts.

Unless and until these hermeneutical differences between covenant theologians and dispensationalists are resolved, Reformed amillenarians and dispensationalists are not going to agree about Israel’s role in redemptive history, nor will we agree about the way in which the New Testament reinterprets the Old in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ and the dawn of the messianic age. This is why I hope the debate will continue and why I ask you, the reader, to weigh these matters with both an open mind and a well-worn Bible. It is my prayer that this expanded edition of A Case for Amillennialism will help you do exactly that.

Israel has a place in redemptive Israel as the nation. It is from the nation of Israel that Jesus came. Seed of Eve, hope of Adam, become the second/new Adam. As the New Adam, He is the head of that new covenant of grace.

 

[Josheb]

IMO, brother Kim does an exceptionally honest and fair look at all of the positions and comparing them to scripture very carefully along the way.

Amen. I think Riddlebarger's book is one of the best apologetics for Amillennialism there is (I personally like it better than Hoekema's "The Bible and the Future," and that's an excellent book) and one of the better books on eschatology in general. Riddlebarger is an excellent exegete. If he cites a verse and the reader looks it up, then what the scripture states and what Riddlebarger claimed are likely to match (which is often not the case with Dispensationalist authors). His examination of this age and the age to come is very good, and he does a fair (if not wholly correct) job of separating partial-preterism from full-preterism, whereas most books on eschatology fail miserably at that. His treatment of Premillennialism in general and Historic Premillennialism in particular is fair, although his criticism of Dispensationalism is one Dispensational Premillennialist may find inaccurate. However, I first read this book when I was a Dispensationalist and I was persuaded by the book as a whole to re-evaluate my beliefs and this book was one of the impetuses for my dive into reading every book on Dispensational Premillennialism I could lay my hands on. In the end I am persuaded to hold Riddlebarger in much higher esteem than Darby, Chafer, Pentecost, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, and others. Although I do not agree with all of his conclusions, this is a book I read again and again and consult when contemplating end times.

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm going to repost this post in the Book Review board.

 

[Eleanor]

You still don't understand that that is clearly not in the context, right?

You still don't understand that it's not about context, right?

God stated a general principle regarding his giving of prophecy.

Principles are neither affected nor altered by context, they apply in all contexts.

Principle revealed in Nu 12:8: God gives prophecy in riddles.

 

[Red Baker]

In the case of Israel, God established his covenant with the nation at Mount Sinai. While this covenant was based on the works principle established under the original covenant of works (blessing promised for perfect obedience and curse threatened for any disobedience),

Agreed.

this covenant was administered to Israel as part of the covenant of grace.

This is incorrect. The two covenants ran sides by side before the cross, totally separated. The covenant of grace was only good for the very elect among the nation, the children of God's promises. 2nd Samuel 23:5; Psalms 32:1,2, etc. They alone understood this to be true, just as David knew.

The covenant of grace was gradually revealed from Abraham unto we get to the NT.

Israel has a place in redemptive Israel as the nation.

Incorrect~as a nation there are no promises for them that has not been fulfilled. There are children of God's promises from children from all nations, including the Jews.

 

[Eleanor]

Agreed.

This is incorrect. The two covenants ran sides by side before the cross, totally separated.

Was not the covenant of Sinai added to the covenant of Abraham (Gal 3:19)?

The covenant of grace was only good for the very elect among the nation, the children of God's promises. 2nd Samuel 23:5; Psalms 32:1,2, etc. They alone understood this to be true, just as David knew.

The covenant of grace was gradually revealed from Abraham unto we get to the NT.

Incorrect~as a nation there are no promises for them that has not been fulfilled. There are children of God's promises for children from all nations, including the Jews.

 

[Alive]

Agreed.

This is incorrect. The two covenants ran sides by side before the cross, totally separated. The covenant of grace was only good for the very elect among the nation, the children of God's promises. 2nd Samuel 23:5; Psalms 32:1,2, etc. They alone understood this to be true, just as David knew.

The covenant of grace was gradually revealed from Abraham unto we get to the NT.

Incorrect~as a nation there are no promises for them that has not been fulfilled. There are children of God's promises for children from all nations, including the Jews.

The law given to the Jews was gracious. The Law leads us to Christ--its primary purpose in redemptive history.
The Law teaches that we need Christ.
This is how I mean this.

 

[Alive]

The Topic is a case for Amillenialism

 

[Alive]

BTW---I should note that I asked Kim's permission to quote from his book. He thanked me and said most do not ask.

 

[Red Baker]

Was not the covenant of Sinai added to the covenant of Abraham (Gal 3:19)?

It was indeed added "along side of" (not to) the covenant made to Abraham and his seed, which was Christ.

But, in what sense was it added, and for how long was it added along side of the covenant of grace? Paul will tell us.

Galatians 3:19~Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.​

Paul by the Spirit raised an obvious question or argument, Why then did God give the Law? Of course, Judaizers sought to bewitch the Galatians that it was needed for justification! They would object to Paul, if the Law was not for justification, then what was it for? If the covenant promises to Abram are antecedent and superior to and unalterable by Moses’ Law, what was the purpose for Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the rest?

The Law was added to the promises made to Abraham, but they did not alter the promises. It was added to restrain the wickedness of God’s people, because of their sinful tendencies. By comparing spiritual with spiritual (Ist Cor 2:13), we can fill out this explanation further. It was added, because all men, including the people of God, are depraved; and they need a check on their lives to keep them from further sinfulness (Ist Tim 1:5-11; Matt 19:3-9). It was added, because the people of God needed to know how exceeding sinful they truly were to appreciate the promised Seed – Jesus Christ our Saviour and to see their absolute need of Christ's obedience and faith to God for his seed. (Rom 5:20-21; 7:7-13)~and in this sense it was their appointed schoolmaster until they came to spiritual maturity.

The Law of Moses was a schoolmaster to show the great need for a real Saviour, not become a stone Saviour through a code of works by which men could earn heaven (3:24)! But, once that person reaches spiritual maturity, they are no longer under the schoolmaster to bring them to Christ's faith and obedience alone for their justification before the law of God.

The Law as a religious system – moral and ceremonial – was only to last until Jesus Christ's faith and obedience was fully revealed through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Law and the prophets were until John the Baptist, and then they ended (Luke 16:16). The Law came by Moses, but grace and truth by the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:14-18). Since it is not a permanent form of religious service, it is inferior again (Hebrews 7:12).

It is good at a point like this to appreciate the greater glory of the gospel (II Cor 3:6-14).

The book of Hebrews was written to convince converted Jews of its great superiority.

Moses gave the Law to Israel, the mediator who received it from angels on Mt Sinai, when Israel left Egypt, 430 years after Gen 12:1-4 (Deut 33:2; Ps 68:17; Acts 7:53; Heb 2:1-4). God gave promises to Abraham directly, which shows another aspect of their superiority. Israel did not want God to speak to them, so they chose Moses (Ex 20:18-21; Acts 7:38). The giving of the Law was so terrible the people were afraid to have God talk with them, and they could not touch Sinai; so Moses intervened to bring the Law (Heb 12:18-21). Moses was a faithful man, but he was far inferior to Jesus Christ (Heb 3:1-6).

 

[LeviR]

The Topic is a case for Amillenialism

The covenants of promise refer to the covenant God made with Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and the covenant at Sinai.
The only covenant that has the power to give eternal life is the covenant made with the patriarchs.

 

[Mr GLee]

If it is based on works, how can it be of grace? Why was Abraham's faith credited to him as righteousness, and not cashed in immediately under a covenant of grace? Why did Abraham look forward to Christ, and the covenant of grace (Hebrews)There is , if the covenant of grace already existed? There is a clear difference between the Israel sacrificial system which could not wash away sin, and what Jesus did. The sacrifical system was also, as Abraham, looking forward to what was to come.

I would offer..

Faith seems to be the mystery wondering word???

One of the reasons I believe I was drawn to the living word after 33 years . Woke me up and I began began to read and wonder search Rejoicing in the milk of the word that teaches us God not seen is supernaturally Gracious

Like hidden manna Rev 1:17 (What is it). The food needed to do the will of the unseen Holy Father. The same kind of food disciples knew not of at first. to both will and do. (the key both)

Power to hear and finish the good will of Christ that works in those born again

Which without Christ's faithfulness He spoke not .

The signified tongue (using the temporal dying things seen. . mixed with the unseen eternal things of Christ's . . God's faithful understanding in parables

Faith. "Let there be " is a work . . and "it was finished" made perfect the testimony seen.

The eternal reward of grace is based on the faith of Christ's labor of love that he freely gives to us.

Hebrew 11: 6 But without faith (Christ working in us) it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he (not seen) is, and that he (invisible) is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Abram (father of one family or nation) The second earthly born was born again from above. Haran the first earthly. Abram was renamed the new born again name Abraham (the father of all the nations). Same as with Jacob the second born who new born agin name Israel

Genesis 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

The new born again faith (belief) as labor of love (Christ's seed spiritual eternal ) .

That eternal seed (Christ) passed on from Abel the second born to another second born to represent a person must be born again from above. The spiritual genealogy of that seed ended with the birth of the Son of man. Jesus. the first reborn of many sons of God (Christians) .Literally meaning Residents of the city of Christ prepared for the one bride. Names after her founder and husband , Christ .

It was not until after establishing the law that a person must be born from above that men were empowered to first call having no communication previously. The Call to hear the invisible power The believers first experience of His Love

The law of the second born A person must be born again .

Genesis 25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

That powerful faith the unseen things of Christ coming from Christ .It powerfully worked in Abraham strengthened Abraham who was dead was in his trespass and sin. Again prior he had no faith Not little none that could please the invisible "needed to to both hear and do the will of the Seed Christ

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds,(Fleshly dying outward Jew) as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Romans 2:27-29King James VersionFor he is not a Jew, which 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, and not in the letter;(death) whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[TMSO]

You still don't understand that it's not about context, right?

Ah, eisegesis. I should have known. Try Exegesis. That works better. The context tells you whether it is a principle or not. If you read this correctly, it is not a principle, but what God tells Miriam and Aaron

God stated a general principle regarding his giving of prophecy.

No, or He would say that. He told Miriam and Aaron, who wanted to replace MOSES, who does not exist for all time but died along time ago, that He would not speak to their prophets directly (THEIR (Aaron and Miriam)), but only to Moses. God was telling them that He had no issue with Moses marrying a Cushite Gentile. And to top that off, to prove you were write, He struck all Israel with leprosy. Oh wait, only Miriam. Hmm. He also spoke DIRECTLY with Elijah and Elisha. He also gave direct prophecy to Joseph and Daniel. How else could they interpret dreams? Riddles were not given to them.

Principles are neither affected nor altered by context, they apply in all contexts.

Exept this wasn't a principle. He was telling Miriam and Aaron to lay off Moses, and that He was extremely upset that they showed NO FEAR in attacking God's servant, which impugns upon God.

Principle revealed in Nu 12:8: God gives prophecy in riddles.

It is not a principle. Stop misinterpreting scripture and making it say what you want. If it was a principle, God would have stated it as a principle. However, Moses died. So if it is a principle, Moses would have to be immortal so God could keep speaking directly to Moses.

 

[TMSO]

Agreed.

This is incorrect. The two covenants ran sides by side before the cross, totally separated. The covenant of grace was only good for the very elect among the nation, the children of God's promises. 2nd Samuel 23:5; Psalms 32:1,2, etc. They alone understood this to be true, just as David knew.

The covenant of grace was gradually revealed from Abraham unto we get to the NT.

Incorrect~as a nation there are no promises for them that has not been fulfilled. There are children of God's promises from children from all nations, including the Jews.

THe 70 weeks prophecy is not complete. And no, replacement theology is a damnable heresy. God said that the call (He called the whole nation of Israel) cannot be rescinded. He called them to be His people through all the covenants up to and including the Mosaic. There is no call to salvation in that covenant. That isn't until the New Covenant which is for the elect of Israel and the Gentiles. God did not grant Abraham salvation off the bat, but credited (future) his faith as righteousness. Abraham was looking forward to the day of redemption, as even Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day. The nation of Israel is the physical seed of Abraham. The CHURCH IS NOT. The promises of the Old Testament were made to the physical descendants of Abraham, up to, but not including salvation. That was left solely to those of Israel who were both physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham. Gentiles can ONLY be spiritual descendants of Abraham, and thus have no part in the promises God made to the physical descendants of Israel.

 

[CrowCross]

replacement theology is a damnable heresy.

I don't believe in replacement theology....but I would not say replacement theology nor a belief in Amillenialism is a damnable theology....as the belief in ones eschatology doesn't determine if one is saved or not.

In fact I would bet almost everyone saved didn't even hear about replacement theology, Amillenialism or the truth of the pre-trib rapture prior to being saved.

 

[Josheb]

You still don't understand that that is clearly not in the context, right?

The exegesis and logic of Post 2 may be wanting but the statement about the millennium is correct. It is a figurative term and if taken literally it contradicts whole scripture (not just what the apostles taught).

If it is based on works, how can it be of grace?

The works did not save from sin. This is a common misunderstanding about Covenant Theology.

Why was Abraham's faith credited to him as righteousness, and not cashed in immediately under a covenant of grace? Why did Abraham look forward to Christ, and the covenant of grace (Hebrews)There is , if the covenant of grace already existed?

All God's covenants occur by grace.

There is a clear difference between the Israel sacrificial system which could not wash away sin, and what Jesus did.

It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Except that is all wrong. The Old Testament is clear that if Israel repents, God will hear them and heal the land.

The Old Testament is also clear that if Israel did not repent and continued to disobey God, then He would destroy them (which would heal the land by ridding it of its corruption and desolation).

What happened in 1948?

Nothing. The only similarity the modern nation-state Israel has with Old Testament covenant Israel is the name. When it comes to Dispensationalists and other Christian modern futurists, they have been sold a box of lies and believed it.

The covenant of grace was put in place on the cross with Jesus death.

The covenant of grace was fulfilled, not started, on Calvary.

Galatians 3:15-18
Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

The promises of the Abrahamic covenant were spoken to Abraham and Jesus and the Law did not in any way nullify it. Everything about the Law in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy is a product of those promises, not an alternative of those promises. Likewise, everything spoken to Abraham and Jesus that day in Genesis 15 is a product of 1 Peter 1:20, the fact God knew Jesus as the perfect, blemish-free sacrifice before He created the world.

Israel has a place in redemptive Israel as the nation.

Circular argument.

It is from the nation of Israel that Jesus came. Seed of Eve, hope of Adam, become the second/new Adam.

And before that he came from God.

As the New Adam, He is the head of that new covenant of grace.

...which began before the world was created and announced to Abraham in Genesis 15.


More germane to this op, however, is the simple fact there has never been a moment anywhere in creation where Jesus was not King and Lord did not reign. The idea of an earthly reign of only 1000 years should be understood as an insult (and possibly heresy). In the Amillennial pov, there is no warrant or need for an earthly kingdom, nor for a temporally limited one, either.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

The Lord will remain seated at the LORD's right hand until the LORD makes footstools of all the Lord's enemies.

Matthew 22:41-46
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Judaism cannot be relied upon to correctly understand the meaning of Psalm 110. They did not understand.

Acts 2:29-36
Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."' Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.

The promise of an eternal throne was the resurrection of Christ, not a physical chair in earthly Jerusalem. That resurrection has already taken place. Jesus is NOW seated as King and Lord and there is no other rule above his. He has conquered sin and death and undone the works of the adversary. The "millennium" has begun.

Besides, there's nothing in Rev. 19 or 20 explicitly stating Jesus is physically on the earth. Nothing in the entire book of Revelation says any such thing until chapters 21 and 22.

 

[Josheb]

You still don't understand that it's not about context, right?

Sound exegesis is always about context. When you appeal to Miram you are implicitly applying a context. You're saying there is a priniciple found in that earlier passage of scripture that has relevance to something said later.

God stated a general principle regarding his giving of prophecy.

Which is context.

Principles are neither affected nor altered by context, they apply in all contexts.

Principles are context; the two are not mutually exclusive.

Principle revealed in Nu 12:8: God gives prophecy in riddles.

Perhaps, but God is not limited to riddles and not all prophecies are riddles. Sometimes prophecies are quite literal. Just because Num. 12:8 says God gives prophecy in riddles does not mean God always gives prophecies in riddles. Nor does it mean Revelation 20:2-6 is a riddle. God sometimes speaks literally and sometimes He uses allegory, or alliteration, or allusion, analogies, euphemism, foreshadows, hyperbole, rhetoric, satire, types, or any of the other literary devices available to Him.

 

[TMSO]

I don't believe in replacement theology....but I would not say replacement theology nor a belief in Amillenialism is a damnable theology....as the belief in ones eschatology doesn't determine if one is saved or not.

In fact I would bet almost everyone saved didn't even hear about replacement theology, Amillenialism or the truth of the pre-trib rapture prior to being saved.

I speak to only replacement theology.