Was MacArthur a dispensationalist?

[TMSO]

It wasn't relevant to the question that was being asked of you.

It is relevant. It is the reason why one must consider scripture from a Jewish standpoint. Their cultural and traditional understanding affects how scripture is understood. (Not all of it.)

You didn't answer my question. You just asked three questins of me.

Does that say Christ is reigning now or not? That was my question.

It does not say Christ is reigning now. In fact, it doesn't say when He is reigning. To read into it is not the proper way to handle it.

As to the answer to your questions, Christ is the fulfillment all the offices--Priest, King, and Prophet. Now. Not during some thousand years, the beginning of which no one knows. As Priest he is mediating the covenant between believers and God. He is King now---he is God. Putting all enemies under his feet is future when he returns Rev 21.

He is not serving as king in relation to what we are talking about. It is necessary to consider Acts. It says that Jesus spent 40 days teaching the disciples of the Kingdom up until He left. After all of that teaching and discussion, the only question the disciples had was "Will you now return the Kingdom to Israel?" Considering that it is Jesus who taught them, there question has foundation. Jesus did not say know. As the continuation of what He taught in answering their question, He said it wasn't for them to know when God would return the kingdom to Israel. It is the Father's business, and the Father established that time/season by His power, so it isn't for them to know when. (Consider how the actions of anyone who is a believer would change if they knew Jesus wouldn't come back and establish the kingdom for over 2000 more years. Live how you want, just make sure you repent and believe before you die. Jesus isn't coming back any time soon... Whoo hoo... Party, like that servant who didn't know when the master would return, and got caught when the master returned unawares.

Daniel 2 says the Kingdom will not even be set up until the times of the 10 kings. And then, it won't start until the times of the Gentiles comes to an end. And the kingdom is just as huge as the final kingdom of the Gentiles. It also covers the whole Earth. So it will not be a tiny kingdom.

I'll try this all one last time.

 

[TMSO]

I would like to know what view you think spiritualizes it away and exactly what that spiritualizing is? Amillennial views probably vary in how they interpret the Dan prophecy you refer to but the method, or hermeneutic is to read prophecy according to how Scripture presents prophecy. It often has a direct application to those hearing it and it and is fulfilled in their time. But also extends into a time beyond them. I am not going to debate the meaning of the prophecy as I have already told you and that is not what this discussion is about. I will remind you however that Daniel was praying about a specific thing when God gave him the interpretation. And that was concerning a prophecy that Jerimiah had made and Daniel knew of, directly related to the Babylonian captivity. God answered that first, and it came to pass. The interpretation then extends into a complete fulfillment that happens post-incarnation.

Daniel was praying about something specifically. He had just finishing reading the scrolls of the prophets, which included Jeremiah. He was reading specifically about the 70 year exile while was coming to an end. He prayed for forgiveness for all Israel/Jews. The focus of his prayers had to do with Israel's history with God. Daniel believed that the end of the 70 years of exile would bring the Messianic Kingdom. An end of Israel's rebellion against God. Hence Daniel prayed for the forgiveness of sins for all of Israel, as that was a requirement to God turning back to Israel, and as Daniel understood it, the bringing about of the Messianic Kingdom. Hence God sent Gabriel with the answer to Daniel's prayer before Daniel even finished praying. He sent Gabriel to tell Daniel that it wasn't over yet. There is yet another 70 sets of 7 [years]. The proper translation of the Hebrew word is not week, but set of 7. And, being in the prophecies of Jeremiah, it was years, as in the 70 years of exile. The Leviticus principle? (7 times the punishment.)

Who has changed it?

Amillennialists, preterists, etc. Each have their own interpretation that does not follow a literal hermeneutic. For example, the 7 and 62 sets of seven have a defined start, and a defined end. The defined end says that many things will happen AFTER the 62nd set of seven. That is, the Messiah is cut off, and the people of the prince who is to come destroys the temple and city. And then, there is a specific beginning for one more set of seven that doesn't have a name. Why not? It isn't consecutive to the other 69. Just as the whole prophecy started with a single event, the decree to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem, this one week has a specific single event start. He (the prince who is to come) makes an agreement/treaty/covenant (not the same as an old Testament covenant) with the many for one week. This is not Jesus. This cannot be Jesus. Why not? The people of the prince who is to come destroy the city and the temple. Who destroyed the city and the temple? The Romans. Therefore the he is a Gentile of Roman descent, as the people were Romans. It could only be Jesus if it was the Jews who destroyed the city and the temple.

I never said he was reprimanded for being a Judaizer. Critical and comprehensive reading is also necessary.

Who said the oracles should be reinterpreted to shut the out? Or even reinterpreted the oracles? Do you just make stuff up to argue about?

So you agree that the Abrahamic covenant, Davidic Covenant and the covenant with the Levites stand as stated in Jeremiah 33? Do note that these covenants have full definitions in the Old Testament, and those definitions were stated by God Himself.

 

[TMSO]

There are views that disagree with your interpretation of Daniel. Interesting that you would consider your presentation as God speaking.

I didn't change what was said. I didn't come up with some novel change to what was said. I stuck with what was said. I will stick with what He said. For instance, one of those views says that the prince who is to come in Jesus. However, it is the people of (speaking to ethnicity) the prince who is to come who destroy the temple and city. (70AD) We know it wasn't the Jews who destroyed the temple and the city, so the prince who is to come cannot be Jesus. And since that is the "he" who makes the covenant/agreement/treaty with the many, it isn't Jesus.

Well, "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed." Luke 8:17

"16 “Now no one after lighting a lamp covers it over with a container, or puts it under a bed; but he puts it on a lampstand, so that those who come in may see the light. 17 For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light. 18 So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he [e]thinks he has shall be taken away from him.”"

A text without context is a pretext.

You do realize this is not a I'm right, you're wrong thing right? It's a discussion. It's a consideration thing. I believe that the foundation of prophecy you are building off of is crooked. THe building, a leaning tower of Pisa. This is a reconsideration of the foundation. You tweak an understanding of prophecy, and then that tweaks one's understanding of eschatology. This is the sort of discussion that should be going on.

 

[Arial]

I didn't change what was said. I didn't come up with some novel change to what was said. I

TMSO you came up with an interpretation of what was said. Amil comes up with an interpretation of what was said. Everyone who reads Daniel comes up with an interpretation of what was said. They may just believe the interpretation that someone else has given and only be able to ever see it one way. Disagreeing with you---I repeat--does not equal changing what was said. Not even Daniel understood the interpretation given of the vison of chapter 8.
27And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.

And chapter 9 concerns a whole other situation.

For instance, one of those views says that the prince who is to come in Jesus. However, it is the people of (speaking to ethnicity) the prince who is to come who destroy the temple and city. (70AD) We know it wasn't the Jews who destroyed the temple and the city, so the prince who is to come cannot be Jesus. And since that is the "he" who makes the covenant/agreement/treaty with the many, it isn't Jesus.

Non-sequitur.

"16 “Now no one after lighting a lamp covers it over with a container, or puts it under a bed; but he puts it on a lampstand, so that those who come in may see the light. 17 For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light. 18 So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he [e]thinks he has shall be taken away from him.”"

A text without context is a pretext.

The context does not change the meaning I intended. So, take care how you listen.

You do realize this is not a I'm right, you're wrong thing right? It's a discussion. It's a consideration thing. I believe that the foundation of prophecy you are building off of is crooked. THe building, a leaning tower of Pisa. This is a reconsideration of the foundation. You tweak an understanding of prophecy, and then that tweaks one's understanding of eschatology. This is the sort of discussion that should be going on.

It ceases to be a discussion and is a right fight instead, when one does not consider the other's view presented as a counter to the one you present and just starts misrepresenting them and insulting them. You have never shown me where I "tweak" an understanding of prophecy etc. In fact, I have never given my understanding of any particular prophecy as that is not even the topic of discussion. You brought that into the "discussion" and I told you I am not going to pick apart our different interpretation of specific prophecies. We did that long ago in a different thread---maybe even a different forum.

Amil in general interprets the entire Bible, prophecy included, the purpose of Israel included as one continuous, progressive historical account of redemption. With Christ always the focus. He is the hero protagonist of the story---always. By him, through him and FOR him. National Israel was always Christ's servant. So, tell me, how is that tweaking prophecy? How does that do anything but keep the understanding of eschatology consistent with the whole?

It is placing a focus on national and ethnic Israel that distorts it. Why? Because it takes the focus of Christ. He is merely in the background for a while---even during this so-called millennial reign in Jerusalem, as even then it is exalting national/ethnic Israel.

 

[Arial]

Daniel was praying about something specifically. He had just finishing reading the scrolls of the prophets, which included Jeremiah. He was reading specifically about the 70 year exile while was coming to an end. He prayed for forgiveness for all Israel/Jews.

He was praying for the covenant to be restored according to Jerimiah's prophecy.

The focus of his prayers had to do with Israel's history with God. Daniel believed that the end of the 70 years of exile would bring the Messianic Kingdom.

Of course it had to do with Israel's history. But nowhere is Daniel's prayer is a Messianic kingdom mentioned. And not anywhere else in Scripture either. Not as interpreted by dispensationalism or those adhering to a literal thousand-year reign of Christ. And not explicitly. It is a human term inserted into Scripture and then treated as though it were Scripture.

Amillennialists, preterists, etc. Each have their own interpretation that does not follow a literal hermeneutic.

Incorrect. It does where that is applicable according to genre.

The Reformed hermeneutic:


The Reformed hermeneutic interprets Scripture using the grammatical–historical method, sensitive to literary genre, governed by the analogy of Scripture, and centered on Christ, such that Old Testament promises are understood through their New Testament fulfillment, often in typological and escalated ways.

Prophecy often uses symbolic, elevated, and typological language. It blends near and far fulfillment. Uses imagery rooted in earlier revelation.

For example, the 7 and 62 sets of seven have a defined start, and a defined end. The defined end says that many things will happen AFTER the 62nd set of seven. That is, the Messiah is cut off, and the people of the prince who is to come destroys the temple and city. And then, there is a specific beginning for one more set of seven that doesn't have a name.

I am not going to follow the carrot that is trying to lead me into a dissection of specific prophecy.

So you agree that the Abrahamic covenant, Davidic Covenant and the covenant with the Levites stand as stated in Jeremiah 33? Do note that these covenants have full definitions in the Old Testament, and those definitions were stated by God Himself.

I agree they are fulfilled in Christ. Not in a literal thousand-year reign in Jerusalem.