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.

 

[TMSO]

Since you keep bringing up critical thinking as though you engage in it yourself, lets see how your "critical thinking" has led you to view and state something backwards and even non-sensical.

You say revelation is progressive.
The OT is pre-NT history.
The NT then is progressed from the OT.
Therefore, (according to you) the old not progressed tells us what the NT (progressed) means.

On the other hand. Since the NT tells us that the OT is filled with types and shadows and prophecies of things not yet come to pass, when the NT refers to them it is the types and shadows and many of the prophecies revealed (ultimately all of them---in Christ--- except for the consummation at his return).

Critical thinking would say this. If the prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom are physical, then one would expect to find it presented as physical in the New Testament. Do we? Yes. Revelation 19. So if there is a progressive fulfillment of progressive revelation, should we change it? Considering that the physical fulfillment of a Messianic kingdom fulfills Danile 2, Jeremiah 33, etc. whereas a spiritual fulfillment does not, I would say we should not change it. The physical fulfillment of a messianic kingdom at the end of the times of the Gentiles fulfills Daniel 2. It fulfills the Abrahamic covenant, as the capital will be Jerusalem and Israel, while the kingdom will cover the whole world (read Daniel 2 again). Not a tiny kingdom. It fulfills the Davidic covenant of there being someone to sit upon the throne of David forever. (age-enduring?) It fulfills the messianic kingdom prophecies of the Old Testament, where we get a view of what the Kingdom will look like, and what it will be like.

The OT does not reveal what the NT is saying. The NT reveals what the OTis referring to. And what is that? Christ and him crucified to put it in a nutshell. If the OT is the lens to the NT then the NT is not progressive revelation.

The NT as a lens to the Old Testament is also not progressive revelation. Progressive revelation, by the words is progressive. You don't look back, you work your way forward, and more and more is revealed. Progressive revelation. The starting parts don't change. They remain the same. Each item revealed, reveals more and more, not something completely different. That is the problem with the hermeneutic used by amillennialism, and I would add covenant theology to it. Replacement theology is wrong. I have spoken to a covenant theology person/amillennialist who is dead set against the restoration of Israel. Absolutely not. Israel is gone, it is the church. And it is amillennialism. Israel not present at all. Premillennialism has Israel in view, so it is unacceptable. And he is adamant.

Jesus used the OT to show who he was and why they should have known who he was. He used the OT to indict unfaithful Israel. He used it to explain what a passage previously shrouded in mystery meant. He used the OT, the only Scripture of its day and was considered by the Jews as the word of God, to verify his word was the word of God.

So He didn't use the lens of the New Testament. (Leaving out the fact the New Testament didn't exist yet.)

I did not say the apostles used the NT as a lens for the OT. You argue nothing but straw man arguments. They WROTE the NT. It is our interpretive lens. Think critically instead of by consulting a straw man.

The NT is not an interpretive lens. That runs against progressive revelation. Progressive revelation... progresses. Hence progressive revelation. More is revealed. Occasionally things that weren't shown in the Old Testament are introduced starting another line of progressive revelation. For Paul, that is the church. The church was a mystery in the Old Testament, revealed to Paul and the disciples/apostles. And that was progressive. It started out at Pentecost with the Jews. Then the Gentiles were added. Then the Samaritans were added. Finally the disciples of John who had not received the Holy Spirit were added. Progressive revelation as to who would be a part of the church.

Why do you make a distinction between explaining the OT and interpreting the OT? "They went to the OT and explained it as given." Are you trying to make "the NT interprets the OT" mean the "NT reinterprets the OT"? It doesn't interpret it the way you do is all and that does not qualify as reinterpreting it. Surprise. Surprise.

The Old testament stands on its own, however, the relvelation of all scripture is incomplete. Why? Not everything revealed in the Old Testament was fulfilled in the Old Testament. Again, the revelation progresses, it does not evolve. It does not change. Nothing God says changes. Things God has done has changed, He has gone back and changed things specifically, with the only example I can think of right now is Hezekiah and God giving him so many more years of life, after saying Hezekiah would die. It wasn't a reinterpretation of what God had said, but God changed his mind at Hezekiah's prayer and gave Hezekiah an offer, and how to know God's final answer.

Aha! You do confuse interpret and reinterpret. Or else you consider anything other than your interpretation as reinterpretation. Where did I ever say that Paul reinterpreted the OT? Straw man.

Where did I say that you said that Paul reinterpreted the Old Testament? I believe I was speaking of lenses as you were. And that lens you have is used to reintepret the Old Testament, as you seem to be saying, in light of the New Testament. However, what should be happening is that one should be using progressive revelation. The Old Testament doesn't change, the meaning of the Old Testament doesn't change. The New Testament contains the fulfillment of what the Old Testament was saying. Progressive revelation. Is it Paul's fault that he had to remind everyone in Revelation 9-11?

You seem to be inventing arguments to have with yourself. I never said or implied that Paul was saying anything other than that. The entire reason I brought up Romans 4 is to counter your assertion that Israel and the church are separate. Critical thinking keeps track of what the debate is about and doesn't manufacture non-existent points of disagreement while ignoring the one point being debated.

Except Romans 4 is not a counter to the understanding that Israel and the church are separate. They are. The church began at Pentecost. Pauls even speaks to this progressive revelation in that he says it wasn't revealed until his time, and revealed to him and the disciples. (Peter first.) The progressive revelation of the church is its start with the Jews on the day of Pentecost, then the additions of the Gentiles, then the Samaritans, and then the disciples of John who had yet to receive the Holy Spirit. And thorughout all of this, there is Israel, existing separate from the church.

 

[TMSO]

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.

It deals with Israel and Jerusalem, and that isn't an interpretation. Gabriel told this to Daniel point blank.
"24 “Seventy [t]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to [v]make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and [w]prophecy and to anoint the most holy place."
What is the transgression that is finished the moment the seventy sets of seven end? Note, it is not simply sin, as transgression is a very serious term. And it is singular, so it is specific. "The... transgression". So... what is that transgression? If it is finished at the end of the seventy sets of seven, and they ended in 70AD, what is the transgression? Do you understand that if the transgression is not finished (as in gone, no longer existing, etc.), then these seventy sets of seven are not yet complete? For the next one, it speaks to the sealing up/ending of... daily sins, which are still around.

Non-sequitur.

How does the argument not follow? You don't have to argue the point, but if you are just going to say one word that is saying something is fallatious, you have to back it up. You have to explain how the conclusion, that the he of the 70th week is not Jesus, a Jew, does not follow from the people who destroyed the temple and the city not being Jews, and that the prince comes from those people, which means, he is Roman, or at least a Gentile of Roman descent. (Not being a Jew). SO, I'm not asking you to prove that I am right, but to show how what I said doesn't follow.

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

The context has nothing to do with what you intend is my point. I'm just asking you handle scripture respectfully. (As I need to remember to do as well.) I end here (I'm not trying to antagonise) because I started the next part and... it's going to be a bit long again. (including bible passages can greatly inflate responses...)

 

[TMSO]

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.

It is difficult to avoid prophecy in this discussion, which is more, the church is not Israel and the Israel is not the church. They are separate, and will remain separate all the way to the church is before God, and the nation of Israel is not. (Since they are kind of damned. (The secular nation of Israel.) Unless you want to make the argument that the church is damned. This is ground floor. The lowest we can go to the beginning. The secular nation of Israel is damned. They are non-believers who will never believe, when speaking as a group, which I am. Then there is the elect remnant of God who are, and will remain to be, within the nation of Israel until Jesus returns and redeems them. Again, speaking of a group. They are not the church. They are non-believers, who will believe, but not yet. (Again, as a group.)

Two groups in one. The nation of Israel (secular), and the true Israel of God, the elect remnant of Israel who are part of the nation of Israel until final redemption. However, there is a little more to it then that. The true Israel of God includes believing Jews who are in the church. Why? Abrahamic covenant. They are part of the nation of Israel by ethnicity. The are part of the true Israel of God by faith. The Gentiles are not.

To understand where I come from, and thus understand my point, the Jews have history with God that the Gentiles do not. Some/a lot? of covenant theologians want to usurp that history for the church (replacement theology). They say the blessings God had for Israel belong to the church, while Israel can keep the curses. However, God has history with Israel, and it is a history He does not have with the church. The church began at Pentecost. Consider Jesus speaking with Israel:

"13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, [h]Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are [j]the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon [k]Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are [l]Peter, and upon this [m]rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth [n]shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth [o]shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He [p]warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was [q]the Christ."

Future tense. He WILL build His church. What is the rock that Jesus says He WILL build His church on? Peter's faith, or more particularly, the statement Peter made in faith. “You are [j]the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is the first time in all of scripture that we see the content of faith of the New Testament. This was not the content of faith of the Old Testament. Progressive revelation. The Old Testament saints did not know. Their faith was set on God, and by that faith they were justified by grace. (that content of faith.) They were not "saved" as we understand it, but were held by God until the day Jesus hung out with them in Paradise (along with the theif), and then took them to heaven. (Did they all come out of the grave for a few days, or was it just some?)

What about those keys of the kingdom of heaven that were given to Peter? (Specifically to Peter?) Consider the building of the church. Who spoke to the Jews and had Jews entering the church? Peter. Who went to Cornelius and the Gentiles and saw their entry into the church? Peter. Who went to the Samaritans and brought the gospel? Philip and some other apostles. HOWEVER, who did they wait for to give them entrance to the church by the Holy Spirit? Peter. It was by Peter that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit, showing entry into the church by the Holy Spirit. How about the power to loose and bind? That was solely for the apostles. The strongest example of this power was when Paul sentenced Ananias and Sapphira to death, and heaven carried out the sentence. That power was reserved solely for the apostles, and part of the formation and building up of the church. The church did not exist in the Old Testament, but was a mystery. It was revealed (progressive revelation) to the disciples and to Paul, with the main revelation being that the church would be made up of Jews and Gentiles. There is no hint of this anywhere in the Old Testament.

What about the tree in Romans? I have come to believe, though just starting, that this refers to the New Covenant. It is a revamping of the flawed Mosaic covenant. There are no Gentiles in this tree. But then... God went and took some branches from an uncultivated wild tree and grafted them in. Those are the Gentiles. Grafted in by the kindness of God. Then there are the Jews who are removed (from covenant?) by the severity of God, though Paul comes right out and says that if they come to belief, God will reattach them without a second thought. You will notice that no such provision is made for the Gentiles. This just speaks to the context of the tree. Israel is special to God and always has been, as His chosen nation. More special then that are His chosen remnant within His chosen nation. Those who are truly His, that is, those who are the true Israel of God. Not the fake Israel made up of those Jews who rejected God and rejected the Messiah.

I hope you see my handling of Paul's definition of Israel. (There are those of Israel who are not of Israel...) The church is not the true Israel of God. The church is... the church, the body of Christ. My distinction goes deep because there are those who are God's elect in Israel who will not be saved until Jesus second coming. Since they are not believers, they are not part of the church, yet, as God's chosen elect in Israel, they are part of the true Israel of God. Those who hearts are/will be circumcised by the Holy Spirit when they come to believe in Christ by faith. Their salvation is the same as those in the church. However, like Paul, their experience will differ, as Jesus will come to them as He did to Paul, and they will be saved. (Zechariah). We know the identity of the One who was pierced from John.

As such, Israel (the true Israel of God) has business with God that God does not have with the Gentiles/church. That business will be accomplished before the consummation of this age. (temporal age) The church of both Jews and Gentiles have an inheritance in Christ. That is fulfilled at the same time, but continues into the next age. At that point we see a change.

Rev 21
"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will [a]dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

I want to say the obvious joke about the first part, but it might not come across right. However, I see this as saying that now Jews and Gentiles are one. They are now all simply men, no more distinction. No more plot ends that need to be tied. Everything wrapped up nicely in a bow.

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 progressive. It starts with Abraham, and the we add Israel, and then Jesus comes and is rejected by Israel, and we ADD the church. The Gentiles are introduced into the story of redemption by the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and God continues dealing with His wayward people the Jews. When God has completed His dealings with the Gentiles, He once again turns back to the Jews, and He complese His dealings with the Jews, His people, and the story of redemption reaches its conclusion in the millennial kingdom, and afterwards, the rest of the story concludes with the defeat of the main villian and his cronies. And then we have one thing that a lot of stories mention, but don't expound upon... the happily ever after. Where Indigo's wounds break open and he bleeds out, Wesley becomes more than mostly dead, and Buttercup's horse throws a shoe. (The funniest ending of a story I ever read... The Princess Bride.)

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.

There is no focus removed from Christ. This whole thing is understanding the landscape of redemption. There is the nation of Israel, which is not the true Israel of God, but simply the nation God chose (elected as a group to be a nation) from whom Christ would come, the elect remnant of God in Israel, which is the true Israel of God, and the church, made up of both Jews and Gentiles. The road taken to redemption differs because God has business with Israel and the Jews that He does not have with the Gentiles. The tying up of all the loose ends of the Old Testament. There will be no loose plot ends. However, all roads to redemption (the elect remnant of Israel, believing Gentiles) all pass through Christ. There is only one plan of redemption. However, again, not everyone takes the same road to redemption. For Saul, he was on the way to Damascus. Peter was fishing. Zaccheus was up in a tree. The thief was busy being crucified. Even though there is Israel and the church, that does not mean there are two plans of redemption. It just means the roads taken by each group to that single redemption differs. Israel's road is a lot longer.

 

[Arial]

The NT as a lens to the Old Testament is also not progressive revelation. Progressive revelation, by the words is progressive.

Which came first? The OT or the NT. The OC or the NC? The NT is not looking back---it is uncovering (revealing) what could not be fully grasped or was a mystery in the old.

 

[Arial]

Critical thinking would say this. If the prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom are physical, then one would expect to find it presented as physical in the New Testament. Do we? Yes. Revelation 19. So if there is a progressive fulfillment of progressive revelation, should we change it? Considering that the physical fulfillment of a Messianic kingdom fulfills Danile 2, Jeremiah 33, etc. whereas a spiritual fulfillment does not, I would say we should not change it.

Who said anything about a spiritual fulfillment? Whether it is physical or spiritual is not the issue. They are fulfilled in Christ. The OT doesn't show that the NT does. The OT points to it. And those who originally received the prophecy had no way of knowing that it contained things not only immediate to their future but also things they were unable at that time and place to perceive. Just as they did not know that the animal sacrifices and the temple and the priests were pointing towards Christ. Only after he came as one of us, lived in perfect obedience to the law, died the death of a sinner, rose from the grave and ascended back to the Father could the old be recognized for what it was---a shadow of things to come. Israel as a nation still cannot see it and non-believing Jews still cannot see it. And your view is trying to put new wine into old wineskins.

 

[JesusFan]

Which came first? The OT or the NT. The OC or the NC? The NT is not looking back---it is uncovering (revealing) what could not be fully grasped or was a mystery in the old.

The NT has fuller revelation from the Holy Spirit

 

[TMSO]

Which came first? The OT or the NT. The OC or the NC? The NT is not looking back---it is uncovering (revealing) what could not be fully grasped or was a mystery in the old.

Since the OT came first, the NT is looking back. Why? Progressive revelation. Always looking back. From the first revelation, through each stage, always looking back. Progressive revelation is a chain. If you don't look back, you will have broken links. Broken links speak against God. I don't believe in broken links. Take the church for instance. Paul said that it was a complete mystery, not at all revealed in the Old Testament. What does that mean? That means there was no church in the Old Testament. (Progressive revlelation.) It was revealed in the time of Paul and the disciples. That's NEW progressive revelation, the start of a chain. The first link is Pentecost. The next link, which Paul speaks to, is the Gentiles becoming a part of the church. The next, the Samaritans. Everything grows from there, link by link. This is not the same chain of progressive revelation as we have with Israel. Completely separate, with the chain of revelation for Israel going all the way back to Abraham. The church only goes back to Pentecost, with the reception of the Holy Spirit. To show just how non-existent the church is in the Old Testament, Joel only has the Holy Spirit going to Israel, not the Gentiles. Paul was well versed in the Old Testamnt, so he was not at all ignorant of what he spoke when he said the church was not at all present in the Old Testament.

 

[TMSO]

Who said anything about a spiritual fulfillment? Whether it is physical or spiritual is not the issue. They are fulfilled in Christ. The OT doesn't show that the NT does. The OT points to it. And those who originally received the prophecy had no way of knowing that it contained things not only immediate to their future but also things they were unable at that time and place to perceive. Just as they did not know that the animal sacrifices and the temple and the priests were pointing towards Christ. Only after he came as one of us, lived in perfect obedience to the law, died the death of a sinner, rose from the grave and ascended back to the Father could the old be recognized for what it was---a shadow of things to come. Israel as a nation still cannot see it and non-believing Jews still cannot see it. And your view is trying to put new wine into old wineskins.

At least you completely agree that the content of faith was totally different in the Old Testament. That is a good start on the road to dispensationalism. (Yes, I am being sarcastic, but in a good hearted way. I don't espouse dispensationalism or covenant theologies. I'm somewhat an outlier.) Also, I assure you, the prophets were not at all ignorant. Daniel knew the exile was coming to an end. Why? The prophecy was clear. What wasn't clear was what came next. Prophecy wasn't clear on what came next. God enlightened Daniel by telling him.

Israel as a nation will not see it. The true Israel of God, God's remnant elect in the nation of Israel will. Even Paul believed that, and was more than happy to say so. The prophecies of the kingdom of the Old Testament didn't disappear. God didn't say that He might do those things. He presented it as, this will happen. Clear signs. Not one of those prophecies has been invalidated, no matter what people say. God did not lie. God did not speak presumptively in His own name. Progressive revelation. Follow the chain.

 

[JesusFan]

At least you completely agree that the content of faith was totally different in the Old Testament. That is a good start on the road to dispensationalism. (Yes, I am being sarcastic, but in a good hearted way. I don't espouse dispensationalism or covenant theologies. I'm somewhat an outlier.) Also, I assure you, the prophets were not at all ignorant. Daniel knew the exile was coming to an end. Why? The prophecy was clear. What wasn't clear was what came next. Prophecy wasn't clear on what came next. God enlightened Daniel by telling him.

Israel as a nation will not see it. The true Israel of God, God's remnant elect in the nation of Israel will. Even Paul believed that, and was more than happy to say so. The prophecies of the kingdom of the Old Testament didn't disappear. God didn't say that He might do those things. He presented it as, this will happen. Clear signs. Not one of those prophecies has been invalidated, no matter what people say. God did not lie. God did not speak presumptively in His own name. Progressive revelation. Follow the chain.

I hold to Covenant theology, but am hard pressed to see where bible teaches to us Satan is now bound as spoken of in Revelation, and that Jesus role is right now not as the King, but is as our great High priest?

 

[TMSO]

I hold to Covenant theology, but am hard pressed to see where bible teaches to us Satan is now bound as spoken of in Revelation, and that Jesus role is right now not as the King, but is as our great High priest?

He is seated at the right hand of the King (Father). He is the mediator of the New Covenant and is ever interceding for His people. The image being considered is not so much King in eternity over all, but King over Israel as promised in the Davidic covenant.Jeremiah 33 says that God will never change/violate/break said covenant. That would reflect, well, poorly on the idea that God is faithful (if He did change/violate/break it).

 

[JesusFan]

He is seated at the right hand of the King (Father). He is the mediator of the New Covenant and is ever interceding for His people. The image being considered is not so much King in eternity over all, but King over Israel as promised in the Davidic covenant.Jeremiah 33 says that God will never change/violate/break said covenant. That would reflect, well, poorly on the idea that God is faithful (if He did change/violate/break it).

So you would see Jesus as mainly in High priest role for now?