The False Doctrine of a 7-year Tribulation

[Arial]

What is this hour of trial which is coming on the WHOLE WORLD, to try those who dwell upon the earth? How are they to avoid it? Will they face it?

It involves this age. Will the persecution of the church get worse, possibly worldwide, the closer we come to His return? According to what we see in Rev, probably so. But that does not mean it will encompass seven years or three and a half years. Seven in the Bible represents a completeness and perfection. Not to mention, if I am not mistaken, the seven years is not actually in John's epistle of Rev, but inferred by a particular interpretation of Daniel's visions. Which then creates a literal three years. Whereas the time,times and a half time is is ambiguous at best,certainly not specific unless something has already been read into the Scripture. It could be a way of saying "cut short." And that is not spiritualizing. It is interpreting apocalyptic prophecy according to its clear use in other places in the Bible.

The dispensational view of Rev and other OT prophecies, has three ages, where Scripture in the NT only ever has two. This age (now) and the age to come. The consummation of redemption.

So everyone who has ever lived and will live since the first coming of Christ, are in this age. They have always dealt with tribulation and suffering. If it gets far worse than it is now on a world wide basis (persecution of the church, even unto being martyred has always existed, does exist now, and will continue to exist, in this age. It has never been on a worldwide basis and all at once) all those alive when it does become worse than it has ever been, will go through it. They can't avoid it. They will face it. That is why the book of Revelation encourages standing unmoved from the gospel and their trust in Jesus, and why it applied to the original recipients and to all Christians. It promises that Christ will return, the promise of a new heaven and a new earth are sure and certain. And that even if a Christian dies, they are not separated from Christ, and they will be bodily resurrected at His return to make all things new.

 

[Arial]

The consummation of redemtion is the beginning of His kingdom. The physical manifestation, which is the fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament.

Two ages. This age and the age to come. Jesus and Paul both used this expression in NT eschatology. They made it clear that there is a "this age" time before the consummation of redemption, which happens when He returns. And what follows His return is the age to come. There are not two consummations, one that involves Israel, and the other that involves the church--- Gentile and Jewish believers.There are not this age, then another age where national Israel gets their earthly king and kingdom, and then another age to come when redemption is really consummated for the whole world. Dispensationalism inserts into the story of redemption a dispensation that does not exist, and in fact can't.

Listen to what Jesus says to the rich young ruler in Luke 18:29-30 "I tell you the truth, no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come, eternal life.

In Luke 20:34-36 "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that (the one to come) age and the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection."

This age is characterized by things that are temporal. The age to come is characterized by resurrection life and immortality. The resurrection occurs when Jesus returns. The premillennialist view has a thousand years after his return in which people with natural bodies populate the earth. They have people repopulating the earth in natural bodies, when Christ says they will not.

Paul puts another pin in that balloon when he says in Eph 1:21 (speaking of the present exaltation of Christ) "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion,and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in that age to come,"

 

[Tambora]

You do know what the remnant was that Paul spoke of, right? The remnant...you know, the elect of God in the nation of Israel? A good description as given by God Himself to Elijah. My feeling is that when the Great Tribulation is over, the only survivors of the nation of Israel will be the remnant.

Every believer, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, are the people of God saved by grace.

 

[makesends]

Hey, I did not realize that either! How did you come to that realization and what do you even mean by it?

And how does any form of determinism negate covenant?

Hah! Amen that! Exactly!

 

[TMSO]

The consummation of redemption is not the beginning of His kingdom. That would be saying that He has no kingdom now. That He has not been exalted.It would take all meaning out of Luke 17:20-21 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they saying 'Look, here it is!' of 'There!" for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

This is the consummation of redemption:
Rev 20:14 Then Death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Rev 21:1-4 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and the will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more,neither shall there be mourning, nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

You are missing something. The Kingdom of God is among them. Why? The King is there. Yet, again, when the disciples asked about Jesus and the Kingdom, He basically told them it is yet to come. Which Kingdom? The Kingdom restored to Israel. The Kingdom of the Messiah.

"20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [h]Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all."

Paul is writing future tense. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. Future tense. If Paul was writing before Jesus was crucified, it could be referring to that. I do like how you left out a whole portion about the end.

Revelation 19

"The Coming of Christ​

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will [d]rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the [e]wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

17 Then I saw [f]an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of [g]commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.”

19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.

Doom of the Beast and False Prophet​

20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs [h]in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with [i]brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh."

This is Jesus second coming. Notice how it is not yet the consummation. There is more to go. That is the end of the 70th week, and then the fulfillment of all the prophecies in the Old Testament related to the millennial kingdom. (And there are quite a few.)

Then Revelation 20:
"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain [a]in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [b]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years."

So the first resurrection PRECEDES this 1000 years of Christ's reign, and occurs at His quite physical second coming.

"7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the [c]seashore. 9 And they came up on the [d]broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the [e]saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and [f]brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Wait, what about the final enemy death? You mentioned that, but it is all you mentioned. Is that because mentioning the rest runs contrary to your narrative?

Revelation 21 is AFTER the consummation, and after the final judgment.

 

[Mr GLee]

So the first resurrection PRECEDES this 1000 years of Christ's reign, and occurs at His quite physical second coming.

Not a salvation issue

I would think the first resurrection "It is finished" opened the gate. It will be closed on the last day under the Sun. Thousand unknow, not revealed. . . no need to reveal .No sign was given.

Christ desire we walk by faith after the unseen things of our head, Christ

Revelations 1:1 introducing the kind of prophecy, "signified" using the temporal things seen to give the unseen things of God hid in parables called hidden manna in 2:17

 

[TMSO]

Hey, I did not realize that either! How did you come to that realization and what do you even mean by it?

And how does any form of determinism negate covenant?

You don't understand. Covenant theology was to soften/negate the extreme determinism of the reformers. Have you not researched your own belief? I mean, I haven't really researched either covenant theology or dispensationalism because neither are my belief. I may lean towards dispensationalism, but that does not make me a dispensationlist. Both are only several hundred years old. Are you going to ignore the fact that the church has been around for two millennia, and didn't have either covenant or dispensational views, except that they did mention dispensations on occassion?

Have I ever said otherwise?

Again you assume things about me that are incorrect. Of course prophecy that is given in signs and symbols has a literal component. I do not believe everything is spiritual. I don't think you know what that means anymore than you appear to not know the difference between spiritual and spiritualizing. It is pretty much the norm in dispensational views of the millenium and in interpreting apocalyptic prophecy, to say they are interpreting literally, when in fact they are literalizing.

And literalizing is: "interpret or represent literally." In other words, you are saying that they are doing something other then interpreting literally, by saying they are interpreting literally.

I have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.

I will have to cut and paste it, but I don't have time to look it up at the moment.

It is also common for those of a dispensational view of redemption to eventually fall back on this accusation. (BTW, ethnic Israel is Jewish Israel, national Israel.)

And how many times did I say it is the REMNANT, the ELECT of God who are saved in the end.

And at Jesus' second coming the temporal is replace by the eternal. Read your Bible. You have Christ returning and the temporal remaining for a thousand years.I could give counteless scriptures to support this, but at the moment I have neither the time nor inclination to waste time doing so. It would be pointless.

The temporal remains for the 1000 years, after which Jesus defeats death. You posted that part yourself. After the 1000 years, comes the verse you posted with the final defeat of death.

God's chosen people are all those in Christ through faith. Before Christ came, and for specific purposes, Israel was a chosen nation---a nation that did not exist until God created it.

So God never knew He would choose Israel? Somehow He came up with the plan of salvation, but no foundation for it? We didn't exist until we were formed and born, so does that mean we weren't chosen before the foundation of the world?

He chose them because He loved them, even though they were a stubborn and rebellious people. (His words not mine. And all unredeemed people are stubborn and rebellious by nature.)

He chose them as He chose all of us. By the good pleasure of His will. He felt like it. However, more then once He said it is because of the promises made to the forefathers.

Do I think Israel and her people still have a special place in His heart and in His purpose. Yes I do. Do I have any animosity towards Israel or Jews. Absolutely not!

You just basically stated that their election is different then our's. "He chose them because He loved them..." That isn't what Ephesians 1 says. You are the one who keeps saying that they are not treated any different. God chose, according to Ephesians 1 "According to the good pleasure of His will." I like to say that that is a really elaborate way of saying that He felt like it.

Do I believe that God has utterly rejected them. No. Does that of necessity mean that He intends to rebuild the nation, reinstitute the animal sacrifices, even as the final sacrifice sits on an earthly throne in Jerusalem, overseeing such an abomination (after He destroyed the temple in 70 a.d. to put an end to those sacrifices and that priesthood,) and do this for a thousand years, just to keep His promise of a sovereign nation and an earthly king? No!! Such a thing speaks to the insufficiency of Christ's work during His earthly ministry.

I have only one thing to say about this. Step very carefully. You have presented a strawman argument, first of all, and then tied your being right to the nature of God and Christ. Very dangerous ground to be stepping out on. Trying to tie Jesus to abominations, if your argument is wrong, and my argument, completely rewritten by you and incorrect, is wrong. So you are trying to say that I am tying God and Jesus to all these things, if the argument you say I am making, which I am not, is wrong. Consider when you put out the interpretation of Daniel 9 by an amillennialist. Did I not solely attack what he wrote/left out? Did I say that if his argument is correct, the God and Jesus are disparaged in some way? That they become evil? I never said anything like that. I dealt with what he said, where he was obviously wrong/injecting his own beliefs, etc. Why? Who could be considered as being righteous, or being in their right mind, to drag God out of heaven to use to beat down their opposition by saying, if you say you are right, look at what you do to God. I am not saying that this is what you have done, but... it seems to me to be very close.

We should be going over the prophecy point by point. As far as I am aware, unless I misread the person, even with the correct understanding, amillennialism still has an argument. However, I have a feeling you are also partial preterist, and not historical amillennial. I may be wrong, hence only having a feeling.

This is one of those points where you are saying one thing on one side, but on the other side, it sounds like the opposite. It's like those who say that being against Israel today (zionist Israel) is not antisemitism. However, if one pushes them, it becomes immediately clear that antisemitism is at the core. They make it clear. The violence comes out. (You have these so called, non-violent, peaceful protests against Israel, where Jews are being stabbed in the eye with writing implements. Please explain how that does not show the true heart, next to them saying that, no, they aren't actually antisemitic.) The truth is coming out, as it always does. The Nation of Israel is not righteous, but God didn't choose/stick with Israel because they are righteous. No, in their rebellion, unrighteousness, sin, rejection, etc God has not rejected them. Do you know why Paul wrote what he wrote in Romans? Did Paul ever write something, just to write something? Did he not say that he was writing this so they would not be uninformed? Why was it important that they not be left uninformed? It was because there were people out there claiming that God had rejected the Jews. There were also judaizers that Paul also wrote about. Everything in the Bible, not just small little sections, needs to be taken into account. How did you treat it above? All of these horrible things, "just to keep His promise...." Well, all the things He is doing are to keep His promise. However, what you said is nowhere near what those things actually are.

I have a set framework. A lot of what I say is not that framework, but is in line with it. The framework is what I will not go past, without absolute evidence and proof. (And spiritualizing prophecies is not that. If you can show a literal fulfillment, line it up with all the rest of prophecy in the Bible, literally, then I would consider it. However, you presented the interpretation of Daniel 9 from an amillennialist that made blatant errors, and left out portions. The only response I got from you was, you're wrong. No explanation as to how he was right, and how my direct explanation, without changing anything, and defining the words correctly, was wrong. For instance, he said the statements that the 70 weeks decreed were to finish the transgression, make an end to sin, and to make an atonement for iniquity are all negatives. Which means that it is a bad thing to finish the transgression, make an end to sin, and to make an atonement for iniquity. Those are all negative things. To me, it seems to say, that to be positive things, the 70 weeks must be decreed to CONTINUE the transgression, to ensure sin maintains a place, and to ensure that the iniquity remains in place for all time. Since he said the actual rendition is a negative, then the opposite would be a positive.

God decreed positive things. An end of the rebellion, the end of sin, an atonement for iniquity (that they would be made right before God), all things that they want and need. An end to their rebellion against God. A positive thing. An end of sin. A positive thing. Atonement for inquity, a positive thing. All end results, not progressive. This seems to be something the author missed. These are not progressive. When the 70 weeks end, the transgression is finished, sin is ended, atonement is made for iniquity and has been completed, everlasting righteousness is brought in, and it won't leave because it is everlasting, etc. These are all positive things. You never did explain why finishing the transgression, making an end of sin, and making atonement for iniquity are negative things.

 

[Arial]

You don't understand.

Don't I? I wonder how you would know that?

Covenant theology was to soften/negate the extreme determinism of the reformers.

What has that to do with our conversation? That is what you are supposed to be addressing.

Have you not researched your own belief?

How do you think it came to be my belief? Is there another way in which it would become what I believe?

And literalizing is: "interpret or represent literally." In other words, you are saying that they are doing something other then interpreting literally, by saying they are interpreting literally.

Not so.
Literal: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. Free from exaggeration or embellishment; characterized by a concern mainly with facts.

Literalize: to make literal, as in literalize metaphors.

So to literalize apocalyptic prophecy is to give a literal meaning to what is obviously metaphor or what signifies or represents something else. And to never move from or think, outside that box.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
Hey, I did not realize that either! How did you come to that realization and what do you even mean by it?

And how does any form of determinism negate covenant?

You don't understand. Covenant theology was to soften/negate the extreme determinism of the reformers. Have you not researched your own belief? I mean, I haven't really researched either covenant theology or dispensationalism because neither are my belief. I may lean towards dispensationalism, but that does not make me a dispensationlist. Both are only several hundred years old. Are you going to ignore the fact that the church has been around for two millennia, and didn't have either covenant or dispensational views, except that they did mention dispensations on occassion?

You haven't answered the question. Not only that, you went from "determinism negate covenant" to "Covenant theology was to soften extreme determinism." You could at least have said that to you it does, or, admitted that you overstated the matter.

By the way, most of us believe what we do because of what the Bible says —not because of what any theology was intended for. Also, proponents of Covenant theology, like the Reformed and Calvinist, are not a homogenous bunch. @Arial's "own belief" is her own. I doubt she looks to documents about it, in order to find out what to believe.

 

[Arial]

And how many times did I say it is the REMNANT, the ELECT of God who are saved in the end.

Non-sequitur. The accusation that dispensationalists fall back on is calling those who disagree with their view that Israel is gets all the land back, Jesus on the throne, for a thousand years, are anti-samentic.

As to the non-sequitur---how many times have I said the same thing?

The temporal remains for the 1000 years, after which Jesus defeats death. You posted that part yourself. After the 1000 years, comes the verse you posted with the final defeat of death.

This is an example of your interpreting what I say by what you believe. Or did you never register the amillennial interpretation of the thousand years? It is a case of the dispensational view literalizing something that is often used representatively, and without even considering what to me, now that I have made my way out of the box, is obvious in the epistles, how the apostles viewed eschatological prophecy, concerning this age and the age to come. And how Jesus himself saw it.

The thousand years from that view becomes not literal, but representative of this age. An undetermined (except by God) period of time that encompasses the time between Christ's first and second advents---however long that may be. You ignore the scripture evidence I gave in post #262 here, and you ignored it when you responded to that post.

So God never knew He would choose Israel? Somehow He came up with the plan of salvation, but no foundation for it? We didn't exist until we were formed and born, so does that mean we weren't chosen before the foundation of the world?

How is it even possible for someone to so completely distort what I said as you do here? Either you are purposely using this straw man tactic, or it shows an inability, for whatever reason, to not be able to comprehend what I said, or to read into it what is not there. Which is entirely possible as the same thing is done with Scripture all the time. How did what I said about God creating Israel turn into "we didn't exist until---." How did it turn into me saying that God never knew He would choose Israel?

He chose them as He chose all of us. By the good pleasure of His will. He felt like it. However, more then once He said it is because of the promises made to the forefathers.

I was simply paraphrasing Deut 7:7-8. Do you still have a problem with what I said? That does not contradict Eph and the rest is a red herring.

You just basically stated that their election is different then our's. "He chose them because He loved them..." That isn't what Ephesians 1 says. You are the one who keeps saying that they are not treated any different. God chose, according to Ephesians 1 "According to the good pleasure of His will." I like to say that that is a really elaborate way of saying that He felt like it.

It is what Deut 7 says---God speaking directly to Israel. The NT also tells us that God chose us because He loved us before the foundation of the world. The very act of choosing/electing is a product of love! The good pleasure of His will is equal to and part of His love! Nothing I said stated, inferred, or implied that I was saying Israel's election is different than ours. "And, "He felt like it" diminishes it to the level of the argument against election that calls it arbitrary.

Also, you completely failed to acknowledge what I said about how I look at Israel and the affection I have for her---as you continue to do in the rest of your post. I guess to acknowledge it would destroy any possible excuse to accuse me of anti-semitism.

 

[Arial]

@Arial's "own belief" is her own. I doubt she looks to documents about it, in order to find out what to believe.

That is correct. I learned what it was from reading Reformed writers on the subject. Not the history of Covenant theology. And then I decided from the Bible whether it was a legitimate theology. I find it to be because I see it in the Scripture. And I learn more about it from the Scripture. Contrary to the statement made by @TMSO that it wasn't around until after the Reformation (which also isn't true---most of the Reformers were covenant) Covenant theology begins in Gen 1 and remains consistent through the book of Revelation. It keeps the Covenant of Redemption flowing smoothly and steadily forward through all the historical events, to it consummation. Keeping the Redeemer center stage, that Seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent. It keeps Christ's mission and purpose of undoing what Adam did---to mankind and all of creation---in focus.

As opposed to chopping up the flow to take a time out or pause in which national Israel becomes the focal point of redemption, and the consummation as shown in Rev 21, and promised throughout the Scripture, is a sidebar and not really the consummation.

 

[Arial]

I have only one thing to say about this.

What you should have said instead of what you did say,would something that actually related to what I said in the post. What you did was present an implication that could not be legitimately found in anything I said. In fact, it was in direct opposition to what I said.

You have presented a strawman argument, first of all, and then tied your being right to the nature of God and Christ.

What exactly is the straw man? I expect a direct response to that, given what you are saying. I am right, it was not a straw man argument because it is what you have stated again and again. That being, that Israel is going to be reestablished as a nation, with Christ as King, the animal sacrifices reinstated, and this for 1000 years. If you do not understand what I mean by that speaking to the insufficiency of Christ, and what an abomination it would be to sacrifice animals in a rebuilt temple while the final sacrifice rules as King---then ASK me. Don't sit there and tell me what dangerous ground that is to walk on. If your cannot see how abominable that would be, no matter how dispensationalists spin it, I don't know what more to tell you.

And I did not tie it to the nature of God and Christ. I tied it to the person and work of Christ. If what you say is going to happen is necessary, IN ADDITION TO what He did at Calvary, in order for God to be keeping all His promises to national Israel---then Calvary was insufficient. YOu are simply telling God how He must do things, instead of correctly interpreting Scripture and prophecy in a way that presents it as sufficient. The NT tells us how those promises are kept and complete in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross.

Trying to tie Jesus to abominations, if your argument is wrong, and my argument, completely rewritten by you and incorrect, is wrong.

Let me ask your this. Do you believe the animal sacrifices will be reinstituted for a thousand years while Israel possess the land and Christ reigns in a temple that has been rebuilt? If you don't, I apologize, but it is the belief of many dispensationalists that are interpreting Rev in the same way you are, including MacArthur. And I may be mistaken but I think you have said the same thing. Until you answer that I will work off of the view that they are, in order to pose my questions.

Why was the temple destroyed in 70 a.d., and the line of priest never to be able to be traced back to the tribe of Levi again? In fact none of the tribes can be traced back to the tribal origin. Some are missing in the 144,000 named in Rev, and Joseph and his son Manassah are mentioned but not Ephrahim. (I do not fully understand this, but nevertheless it is there.)

In what way have I rewritten your argument?

After you answer those questions, I will move forward.

So you are trying to say that I am tying God and Jesus to all these things, if the argument you say I am making, which I am not, is wrong.

I am not trying to say anything. I am saying that sacrificing animals that was temporary and pointed towards Christ would be an abomination. It would have been in the NT times after Christ's death and resurrection. Why? Because for a Christian to do so would be blatantly crucifying Christ again, trampling His blood underfoot, as Hebrews says. And for a Jew to do so, would be unbelief. So why would that suddenly become ok to do in what you say is the consummation of redemption?

Did I not solely attack what he wrote/left out? Did I say that if his argument is correct, the God and Jesus are disparaged in some way?

Yes, and they aren't. But you do imply that to not believe as you do is anti-semantic and that if we don't believe as you do, I hate Israel, don't believe prophecy, and spiritualize everything. You do say it means I don't believe God keeps His promises.

I dealt with what he said, where he was obviously wrong/injecting his own beliefs, etc.

He is only wrong if you inject your own beliefs into the prophecy.

Who could be considered as being righteous, or being in their right mind, to drag God out of heaven to use to beat down their opposition by saying, if you say you are right, look at what you do to God. I am not saying that this is what you have done, but... it seems to me to be very close.

What kind of flaming, emotional, rhetoric is that, being used for the sole purpose of propping up your false accusations. First you need to prove that I in any way dragged God out of heaven by saying the view presents speaks to the insufficiency of Christ. And I have explained that above. And do you not see that you are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of?

If I speak my mind and say what I see a particular doctrine doing, and it happens to be YOUR doctrine that I am addressing, tha becomes dragging God out of heaven. Again--- I was not dragging anyone anywhere. I was saying what the premillennial view (NOT YOU)does to the sufficiency of Christ.I have explained that above. If you have an issue with it then discuss that issue. Discuss would mean to evaluate it on its merits and address it in that way. Rather than spew all this ugliness, which you most definitely are accusing me of? ME. Not my beliefs or what I say.

 

[TMSO]

Don't I? I wonder how you would know that?

What has that to do with our conversation? That is what you are supposed to be addressing.

How do you think it came to be my belief? Is there another way in which it would become what I believe?

Not so.
Literal: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. Free from exaggeration or embellishment; characterized by a concern mainly with facts.

Literalize: to make literal, as in literalize metaphors.

I pasted that from a dictionary. Should I look somewhere else? You added "as in literalize metaphors". Have you considered that someone is just deciding, well that's a metaphor so you can't look at it literally. Have you read Old Testament prophecies, or read what literally happened in those times. I mean, fire from heaven consuming the sacrifice, and lapping up WATER? What is up with that? Are we to believe that was metaphor? The crossing of the Red Sea, was that metaphor? I mean, according to really knoweldgeable scholars, where they crossed was ankle deep. (I know that isn't true, but they are scholars, so, as you have taken upon yourself, and others have, can't they declare it a metaphor that isn't to be literally understood, simply because they can't see any way in their narrow mind that that could have literally happened?)

So to literalize apocalyptic prophecy is to give a literal meaning to what is obviously metaphor or what signifies or represents something else. And to never move from or think, outside that box.

There is literal meaning to the prophecy. It is couched in symbols and forms of speech, but some people drag out all kinds of strange meanings. The two witnesses, since the early early church were believed to be Enoch and Elijah, or sometime after, Elijah and Jeremiah, or Elijah and Moses. Much more recent there have been some really strange interpretations, but that is because believing it is actually two witnesses and people, as presented in Revelation, runs contrary to their beliefs. They bring up, well it says that everyone in the world will see them lying in the streets after they are dead. Well, it is true that in the past this would be impossible, however, as the last decade or so, it has become quite possible. Thanks to the proliferation of smart phones and internet, anywhere in the world, you can see what is happening, well, anywhere in the world. Then there is the news, who considering what the Bible says about these two witnesses, the majority of the people in the world will be overjoyed to see them dead, and will want to see them dead. The beast would most certainly ensure that everyone in the world will see how he overcame the witnesses of God. Look... God didn't protect them in the end. (That is by design.) Enoch and Elijah have never died. The Bible is clear that everyone dies... once. From early sources, it is said that they were translated to paradise, by God's design. There are traditions that say that Jeremiah never died, so same possibility with him. Enoch is a question mark, but it is understood that he never died. Some say Moses, but he died, so that is definitely a question mark.

 

[TMSO]

Non-sequitur. The accusation that dispensationalists fall back on is calling those who disagree with their view that Israel is gets all the land back, Jesus on the throne, for a thousand years, are anti-samentic.

You need to go back and study church history. They were. If you study church history, you will find out exactly why anti-semitism was so deeply engrained in the church, especially the Catholic church. Even Martin Luther hated the Jews, perhaps more than he hated the pope.

As to the non-sequitur---how many times have I said the same thing?

This is an example of your interpreting what I say by what you believe. Or did you never register the amillennial interpretation of the thousand years? It is a case of the dispensational view literalizing something that is often used representatively, and without even considering what to me, now that I have made my way out of the box, is obvious in the epistles, how the apostles viewed eschatological prophecy, concerning this age and the age to come. And how Jesus himself saw it.

You can find out how they views eschatology by what they asked Jesus. I have brought this up. They asked what would be the signs of His coming. They weren't talking about the second coming, because they didn't know He was leaving. The word for coming in the greek has to do with a king/royalty coming into the city. They were asking when Jesus would come into His Kingdom. They still held to that, because in Acts, they asked Him, "Will you now return the kingdom to Israel?" They were still asking about the millennial kingdom that was so clear to the Jews in the Old Testament prophecies. Jesus did not say no. Jesus did not say that there was no kingdom. He said it wasn't for them to know when God had chosen for the kingdom to be returned to Israel. That is the Father's business. What the Jews had missed was Jesus FIRST coming. They didn't know of a second coming.

The thousand years from that view becomes not literal, but representative of this age.

Why are you turning something given literally, and was understood literally in the early church, into a metaphor. (spiritualizing). The Old Testament gives all kinds of prophetic utterances to how the millennium will be. Do you see any of it? And those prophecies were not apocalyptic. They were predictive. Kind of like how God prophesied that it would be Cyrus who would release Israel from captivity.

An undetermined (except by God) period of time that encompasses the time between Christ's first and second advents---however long that may be. You ignore the scripture evidence I gave in post #262 here, and you ignored it when you responded to that post.

Except that Revelation clearly places the millennial kingdom AFTER Jesus second advent. It isn't couched in metaphor. Jesus comes back, destroys the armies of the beast, then Satan is bound, and in comes the thousand years. (Revelation 19). The timing is not metaphor. It is the battle prophesied in Ezekiel. It isn't by accident that the plague that falls upon the enemies who attack Israel actually has an analog in nuclear weapons. That prophecy can be literal in a supernatural cause, a physical cause, or both. I would go with both until seen.

How is it even possible for someone to so completely distort what I said as you do here? Either you are purposely using this straw man tactic, or it shows an inability, for whatever reason, to not be able to comprehend what I said, or to read into it what is not there. Which is entirely possible as the same thing is done with Scripture all the time. How did what I said about God creating Israel turn into "we didn't exist until---." How did it turn into me saying that God never knew He would choose Israel?

What about your distortion to say that if I believe that, then Jesus work on earth is incomplete? Really? That I am a heretic because I dont' agree with you're eschatology? Have I ever said that? You brought up that Israel didn't exist until, and God chose out of love. That divorces this choice from Ephesians 1, as I pointed out. God literally told us why He treated Israel as He did. No need for metaphor.

I was simply paraphrasing Deut 7:7-8. Do you still have a problem with what I said? That does not contradict Eph and the rest is a red herring.

"7 “The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of [a]slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."

What was lost in metaphor. The Lord did not set His love on you because you were more in number than any of the peoples. One statement. The Lord did not choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples. Another statement. The Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, because He loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers.
That is a proper paraphrase of Deuteronomy 7:7-8. One that keeps the actual literal meaning. It doesn't say God chose them in love. I mean, it is understood that God didn't hate them. However, the New Testament came out, and Paul told us why He chose the elect. The same goes to why He chose the nation of Israel. The obvious is because it was essential to His plan of redemption. The main reason is that it was according to the good pleasure of His will. This is why He chose Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He felt like it. It was the good pleasure of His will. It was also the basis of the fulfillment of His plan of redemption.

The very act of choosing/electing is a product of love! The good pleasure of His will is equal to and part of His love! Nothing I said stated, inferred, or implied that I was saying Israel's election is different than ours. "And, "He felt like it" diminishes it to the level of the argument against election that calls it arbitrary.

The act may be, but the specific act is not. There is no merit in God's choice. Paul says it was according to the good pleasure of His will. So whatever caused His will good pleasure. In other words, He felt like it. Why can't God be arbitrary. Why does He have to go off of a list of standards in choosing. Did He choose Israel because they were more in number than any of the peoples? Perhaps because they were stronger? Better looking? What standard did He use? If He didn't use a standard, other then "the good pleasure of His will", would that not appear arbitrary? Aren't we taught growing up, and as grown ups, that we may be very surprised by who we see in heaven? (Or don't see?) The reason why people use the word arbitrary is because it gives off a negative connotation. So connect that to God, and beat people over the head with it. God can do whatever He wants. Who are we to judge Him? Either His choosing is according to a standard (and they want to say it is their standard), or it is, in external view, arbitrary. He isn't choosing how we like/want, but how He likes/wants.

Also, you completely failed to acknowledge what I said about how I look at Israel and the affection I have for her---as you continue to do in the rest of your post. I guess to acknowledge it would destroy any possible excuse to accuse me of anti-semitism.

For consideration: you dismiss the 70 weeks as pertaining to Israel, even though God decreed that it is related to Israel. I have not ignored that you still speak of a redemption, even if I haven't mentioned it. Why? It still ignores what the 70 weeks says. And you ignored the two views of the 70th week. It ends at Jesus second coming, and it is the week of the Antichrist. Israel's redemption comes with Jesus Himself personally rescuing Judah/Jerusalem/the house of David from destruction at the hands of the beast/antichrist. It is at that time that God pours out a spirit of grace and supplication (for it is by grace ye are saved). Paul's salvation on the way to Damascus is an analog to the final redemption of the remnant of Israel. Jesus will present Himself to them, and they will recognize exactly who He is, and they will be saved. And they recognize because God will pour out on them the spirit of grace. God will reveal it to them, just as He revealed it to Jesus' disciples.

 

[Eleanor]

First, a prophecy is a decree, and second,

See? It is just as I said, you are unable to look at the prophecy without making a big deal out of the seventy weeks, as though that is the POINT of the prophecy, and therefore nothing can be understood until exactly what that means for our world and time. Truthfully, it like asking a Catholic to read and understand the Scripture without superimposing Catholic dogma and interpretation onto it. I.e, every time it says "church" it means the Catholic religion and institution, and apostles means current popes and bishops.

And therefore you are unable to understand what I have said or what @Eleanor has said. You read the above quoted sentence without ever seeing as significant, perhaps without ever even seeing, the word "work" in it. Even though I purposely bolded it to draw your attention to it. It shows no genuine interest in considering what I or anyone else says.

It is a view, and a means of Bible interpretation, that acknowledges covenant and covenants, but puts them under a subheading of dispensations being the way God is dealing with humanity. When in fact He always relates first and foremost with both mankind and what is in creation (creation itself) through covenant. A covenant, whether formal or evidenced by covenantal language, is a relationship. It is how God establishes a firm and trustworthy personal relationship with people. It is how He reveals Himself and righteousness to a fallen and helpless world, and it is how He redeems them---by bringing them into a covenant established by Jesus Christ.

So you go right ahead and keep looking under rocks, and searching the skies, and reading the newspaper or watching the news, to see if Jesus is about to redeem ethnic Israel, and call that His return. To see when that seventy weeks will begin. I suppose it won't hurt anything. God loses none of those He has given to Christ. And it really makes no difference to me. It was just another conversation in which whatever I said was argued against, though never understood, never given consideration, and that went nowhere.

Keep in mind though, that it is possible this is the seventy weeks. That this is the thousand years as representative of an undetermined but by God, long period of time (not an alien concept to other parts of the Bible), that His kingdom already has come as He is crowned King now, having completed the work of redemption and returned to the Father. Consider the possibility that He is not sitting at the right hand of the Father waiting to be crowned as King over Israel.

Consider that the kingdom has come in the sense that until He returns to consummate redemption and destroy forever sin and death, (that is the kingdom my friend) the gospel is going out to the world, gathering in the flock. And consider that yes, persecution of the church will no doubt get worse than what we have ever seen, in that it will be world wide. Consider that is what is meant by satan being released to deceive the nations, whereas he was bound from deceiving the nations before. And consider that anyone who is still alive when that happens, is not going to be raptured out of it, but must endure it. Consider that may be the purpose of Rev. To strengthen and encourage the believer to stand firm. Underneath are the Everlasting Arms. Those who were the first recipients of the letter, were themselves going through great tribulation and persecution, sometimes compromising,sometimes losing hope.

You have to be

First, a prophecy is a decree, and second,

See? It is just as I said, you are unable to look at the prophecy without making a big deal out of the seventy weeks, as though that is the POINT of the prophecy, and therefore nothing can be understood until exactly what that means for our world and time. Truthfully, it like asking a Catholic to read and understand the Scripture without superimposing Catholic dogma and interpretation onto it. I.e, every time it says "church" it means the Catholic religion and institution, and apostles means current popes and bishops.

And therefore you are unable to understand what I have said or what @Eleanor has said. You read the above quoted sentence without ever seeing as significant, perhaps without ever even seeing, the word "work" in it. Even though I purposely bolded it to draw your attention to it. It shows no genuine interest in considering what I or anyone else says.

It is a view, and a means of Bible interpretation, that acknowledges covenant and covenants, but puts them under a subheading of dispensations being the way God is dealing with humanity. When in fact He always relates first and foremost with both mankind and what is in creation (creation itself) through covenant. A covenant, whether formal or evidenced by covenantal language, is a relationship. It is how God establishes a firm and trustworthy personal relationship with people. It is how He reveals Himself and righteousness to a fallen and helpless world, and it is how He redeems them---by bringing them into a covenant established by Jesus Christ.

So you go right ahead and keep looking under rocks, and searching the skies, and reading the newspaper or watching the news, to see if Jesus is about to redeem ethnic Israel, and call that His return. To see when that seventy weeks will begin. I suppose it won't hurt anything. God loses none of those He has given to Christ. And it really makes no difference to me. It was just another conversation in which whatever I said was argued against, though never understood, never given consideration, and that went nowhere.

Keep in mind though, that it is possible this is the seventy weeks. That this is the thousand years as representative of an undetermined but by God, long period of time (not an alien concept to other parts of the Bible), that His kingdom already has come as He is crowned King now, having completed the work of redemption and returned to the Father. Consider the possibility that He is not sitting at the right hand of the Father waiting to be crowned as King over Israel.

Consider that the kingdom has come in the sense that until He returns to consummate redemption and destroy forever sin and death, (that is the kingdom my friend) the gospel is going out to the world, gathering in the flock. And consider that yes, persecution of the church will no doubt get worse than what we have ever seen, in that it will be world wide. Consider that is what is meant by satan being released to deceive the nations, whereas he was bound from deceiving the nations before. And consider that anyone who is still alive when that happens, is not going to be raptured out of it, but must endure it. Consider that may be the purpose of Rev. To strengthen and encourage the believer to stand firm. Underneath are the Everlasting Arms. Those who were the first recipients of the letter, were themselves going through great tribulation and persecution, sometimes compromising,sometimes losing hope.

The evangelical church is besotted with this human fancy.

 

[Eleanor]

That was the end of the 70 years. That is not related to the 70 weeks, except that the 70 weeks started at the end of the 70 years. God is telling Daniel that while God is still against them, that will end after 70 weeks. God will redeem Israel, reconcile with Israel, when the 70 weeks end.

I understand that is your belief.

 

[makesends]

I understand that is your belief.

HI!

 

[TMSO]

That is correct. I learned what it was from reading Reformed writers on the subject. Not the history of Covenant theology. And then I decided from the Bible whether it was a legitimate theology. I find it to be because I see it in the Scripture. And I learn more about it from the Scripture. Contrary to the statement made by @TMSO that it wasn't around until after the Reformation (which also isn't true---most of the Reformers were covenant) Covenant theology begins in Gen 1 and remains consistent through the book of Revelation. It keeps the Covenant of Redemption flowing smoothly and steadily forward through all the historical events, to it consummation. Keeping the Redeemer center stage, that Seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent. It keeps Christ's mission and purpose of undoing what Adam did---to mankind and all of creation---in focus.

As opposed to chopping up the flow to take a time out or pause in which national Israel becomes the focal point of redemption, and the consummation as shown in Rev 21, and promised throughout the Scripture, is a sidebar and not really the consummation.

It is like Calvinism, which did not exist before Calvin. Obviously what he taught existed in various forms prior to Calvin, but he is the one who basically systematized it. Covenant theology did not exist until after the reformation. Martin Luther did not believe in it, because he had a different take on scripture. It is like dispensationalism. It is NOT solely futurist premillennialism as systematized by Darby. It also came into being around the 16th century, about three decades after Covenant theology. It is another way of viewing God's relationship with humanity. The Bible does not mention the covenants you speak of, it is someone's interpretation. It is the same for dispensationalism, except the Bible actually mentions dispensations. (Again, I speak to general dispensationalism.) Up to reformed times, there was generally two divisions understood in scripture. Works and grace.

Now I thought that the consummation was Jesus second coming and final judgement, as He said Himself. I guess I need to take that up with Him. The disciples asked three questions. When will this be, What will be the sign of your coming, and what will be the signs of the end of everything (consummation). The signs of His coming, that word for coming is for royalty coming in (the english doesn't really convey the meaning). He gave signs. However, when it came to the consummation, Jesus said He had no signs to give. Why? No one knows except the Father. As such, He wouldn't have any signs to give, or then He would know the time as well. So the second coming of Jesus in Revelation 19 is not the consummation. The coming judgement and final judgement, with the final defeat of death and hades, is the consummation. Revelation 21 is after the consummation. First verse simply states the original creation has already burnt up, and it is the New heavens, new Earth and New Jerusalem, which is the eternal age that follows the consummation.

 

[TMSO]

I understand that is your belief.

That is God's decree to Daniel, in response to Daniel's plea for himself, his people, and the city. Gabriel didn't flippantly throw out the word decree. The word is used because, as Daniel knows, a decree is immutable. Not even the person who put it out can change it or take it back. So no, it isn't my belief, it is how things are. If you read the six things that are the result of the decree, it says three things are ending, and three things will happen with those endings. The 70 weeks are to finish the transgression, to make an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, etc. So, if the 70 weeks are to finish the transgression, then when the 70 weeks end, the transgression is finished. Can't be more direct then that. If the 70 weeks are to make an end to sin, then at the end of the 70 weeks, sin is ended. If it is to make atonement for iniquity, then at the end of 70 weeks, atonement is made for iniquity. (That is, the atonement is fully applied.) If everlasting righteousness comes in at the end of 70 weeks, then at the end of 70 weeks, sin should be gone and everlasting righteousness comes in. It is all right there. And it is a decree, as Gabriel clearly states. A decree is NEVER ambiguous, and is always clear. If you don't see the results of the decree, then the decree is still in force.

 

[Tambora]

That is God's decree to Daniel, in response to Daniel's plea for himself, his people, and the city. Gabriel didn't flippantly throw out the word decree. The word is used because, as Daniel knows, a decree is immutable. Not even the person who put it out can change it or take it back. So no, it isn't my belief, it is how things are. If you read the six things that are the result of the decree, it says three things are ending, and three things will happen with those endings. The 70 weeks are to finish the transgression, to make an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, etc. So, if the 70 weeks are to finish the transgression, then when the 70 weeks end, the transgression is finished. Can't be more direct then that. If the 70 weeks are to make an end to sin, then at the end of the 70 weeks, sin is ended. If it is to make atonement for iniquity, then at the end of 70 weeks, atonement is made for iniquity. (That is, the atonement is fully applied.) If everlasting righteousness comes in at the end of 70 weeks, then at the end of 70 weeks, sin should be gone and everlasting righteousness comes in. It is all right there. And it is a decree, as Gabriel clearly states. A decree is NEVER ambiguous, and is always clear. If you don't see the results of the decree, then the decree is still in force.

If you believe the 70th week (7 years) is the time of tribulation like there has never been before, then how do you conclude that the 70th week (7 years) must be completed when Matthew says this:

Matthew 24:21-22 NET
(21) For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen.
(22) And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.