The Underground Episode 43: Discussing Premillennialism with Reggie Kelly from Joel Richardson on Vimeo.

The post Thoughts on the Timing of the Lord’s Return (with Joel Richardson) – [VIDEO] appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

(1hr:15min)
 

Right Click to Download Four Beasts Rise from the Sea – Dan Ch 7 (35mb)

Daniel’s vision of the four beasts is the second vision in the book of Daniel (Chapter 7) and provides additional detail to the first vision in Chapter 2. They all point to a climax that will occur in “the last days.” Reggie Kelly and Phil Norcom lead us through the five visions of Daniel with emphasis on what they mean for Israel and the Church (The Mystery of Israel).

Video of this messages is also available. See Course below

The post Daniel Chapter 7 (audio) appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

(1hr:15min)
 

Right Click to Download The King’s Dream – Dan Ch 2 (37mb)

The vision of Nebuchadnezzar is the first vision in the book of Daniel (Daniel Chapter 2) and provides a foundation for the four visions that follow. They all point to a climax that will occur in “the last days.” Reggie Kelly and Phil Norcom lead us through the five visions of Daniel with emphasis on what they mean for Israel and the Church (The Mystery of Israel).

Video of this messages is also available. See Course below

The post Daniel Chapter 2 (audio) appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

The ten kings are clearly contemporaries with the final “little horn” who emerges among the ten horns of the last beast kingdom. [Note: This ‘little horn’ (Dan 7:8; 8:9) is the self exalting prince that takes away the regular sacrifice in Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 (Compare also Mt 24:15). He is also the “willful king” (Dan 11:36-37) whom Paul calls the ‘Man of Sin’ in 2Thes 2:3-4. A comparison of the language of Dan 11:36-37 with 2Thes 2:3-4 puts beyond question that Paul has in mind the same individual that commits the desolating sacrilege in the temple of God (‘holy place’) in Jerusalem that starts the great tribulation spoken of by Jeremiah in Jer 30:7, by Daniel in Dan 12:1, and referenced again by Jesus in Mt 24:21. Without question, this great and unequaled tribulation must be future, as it begins with a specific and well described signal event (Dan 11:31; 12:11; Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4) and ends in nothing short of Jesus’ personal return in glory (Mt 24:29-31) and the resurrection of the righteous (Dan 12:1-2, 13).]

Therefore, since the ten toes on the feet of the metallic image in Dan 2:41-42 so obviously correspond to the ten horns of the last beast mentioned in Dan 7:24 and Rev 17:12, it can hardly be denied that the kingdom of Dan 2:44 and Dan 7:27 is ‘set up’ only AFTER the destruction of the final beast, as any fair comparison of Dan 7:11, 26-27 with Rev 19:20; 20:4-6 will show. The apocalyptic symbolism of Daniel and Revelation does not obscure the order of events. On the contrary, the time and order of the principal events could hardly be more clear. Manifestly, the thousand years of Christ’s reign ‘on the earth’ (Rev 5:10) cannot begin until the ‘first resurrection,’ and the first resurrection is identified as ‘first’ in specific connection with those saints in particular that were beheaded by the last beast of the last persecution. (compare Rev 6:10-11; 20:4-6).

This is why the denial of a future millennial reign of Christ usually goes hand in hand with a denial of a personal Antichrist and a future tribulation of unequaled severity (Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21). The amillennial system of interpretation can ill afford to grant literal and future fulfillment to the prophecies concerning Antichrist and a future great tribulation, since this would force recognition of a special divine dealing and covenanted future for the nation of Israel.

It is hardly to be denied that Paul sees a particular individual (the ‘Man of Sin’) as present on the scene when Christ returns to destroy him (2Thes 2:3, 8). He had not yet come at the time of Paul’s writing, but Paul fully expects the Thessalonians to be able to recognize him by an appalling act of self-exaltation in the temple of God at Jerusalem (2Thes 2:4 with Mt 24:15; Dan 11:31, 12:11).

This ultimate scene of covenant defiance was clearly predicted by Daniel (Dan 11:31; 12:11). Although this kind of desecration has had parallels in Israel’s past (e.g., Antiochus IV, Pompey), it is to this prophecy in particular that Jesus directs  His disciples’ attention, instructing them to “read and understand” what Daniel had said concerning this pivotal sign (Mt 24:15).

That Paul’s ‘Man of Sin’ and John’s ‘beast’ is not a reference to some ubiquitous system or principle of evil, or succession of persons, but a particular ruler that dominates the world at the time of the end is made clear when we compare the use and application of Daniel’s prophecy in Jesus (Mt 24:15, 21 with Dan 11:31; 12:1-2, 11), Paul (2Thes 2:4 with Dan 11:36-37), and Revelation (Rev 13:5, 7; 19:20 with Dan 7:11, 21, 25; 12:7).

The surrounding context of the passages from Daniel that are specifically referenced in the NT show clearly that this “coming prince” (Dan 9:26) is a ruler that rises out of one of the four divisions of Alexander’s kingdom (Dan 8:9). Before his attack on Israel (Dan 11:31), he is depicted as engaged in political strategies and military conquests throughout the region (Dan 11:23-30). Even after Israel has been overwhelmed, he continues to attack other nations and is attacked in return (Dan 11:40-45). In view of such clear and specific language, it becomes absurd to deny that the Antichrist is a definite single individual.

Regardless of the particulars, this much is clear and irrefutable: The age cannot end until this well identified and recognizable ruler is present (2Thes 2:3-5), since he comes to his appointed end by nothing less than the Word of Christ at His personal appearance in glory (Isa 11:4; 2Thes 2:8; Rev 19:15, 20-21). After his destruction, the saints possess the kingdom of God on this present earth and reign with Christ for a thousand years (Dan 7:21-22, 26-27; Rev 20:4).

The post A Brief Case for the Futurity of the Thousand Years appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Clearly, the kingdom that is in view in Daniel’s prophecy does not prevail upon the earth until AFTER the destruction of the Antichrist. Only with the final removal of all false rule do the saints possess the kingdom “under the whole heaven.” This is shown by a comparison of Dan 7:11, with Dan 7:18, 21-22, 27. However, a closer look at the scripture will show that the kingdom that is “set up” upon earth “in the days of these kings” (compare Dan 2:44; 7:24 with Rev 17:12) is the same kingdom that was first awarded to the Son of Man upon His coronation when He ascended in clouds to take His seat at the Father’s right hand (Acts 2:34-36; Heb 12:2; Rev 3:21).

Dan 7:13 says, “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

The Son of Man’s coming ‘to’ the Ancient of Days to be ‘brought near’ before Him (the Ancient of Days), would seem to be speaking, not of Jesus’ return, but of His victorious ascent to the right hand of God in heaven. Yet, we see Jesus applying the same language of the cloud-coming Son of Man to His return after the tribulation (Mt 24:30; Rev 1:7; 14:14). From this we see that the same One who ascended with clouds to receive the kingdom, returns with clouds (Mt 24:30; Mk 14:62; 1Thes 4:17; Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7) to enforce the power of His heavenly victory upon the earth with the destruction of the Antichrist (Dan 7:13; 2Thes 2:8; Rev 19:20).

Interestingly, the Son of Man is brought near to the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:13, but in Dan 7:22 it is the Ancient of Days that ‘comes’ to consume and destroy the dominion of the persecuting beast (i.e., the ‘little horn’ of Dan 7:8, 11, 20-21). Notice that the judgement is said to be ‘set’ (Dan 7:9-10, 26) at the same time that the beast is destroyed and his dominion ‘taken way’ (Dan 7:11 with Dan 7:26). Equally significant, this is the beast that is destroyed at the end of a final 3 1/2 year period of unequaled persecution (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:1, 7, 11).

Since the period separating two distinct advents of the Messiah was not clearly discernible until after the revelation of the gospel, we can see  in hindsight that Daniel’s vision is inclusive of the whole sweep of God’s triumph through Christ, extending from the coronation of Jesus at the time of His glorious ascent, to His return in clouds after the tribulation to destroy the Antichrist, raise the righteous, and deliver the surviving remnant of Israel (Dan 12:1-2).

Part of the puzzle of Dan 7:9-10 is the remarkable similarity of language that is used in Daniel and again in Revelation to describe distinct judgments that are a thousand years apart. In Daniel, the judgment is ‘set’  and the ‘books are opened’ when the Ancient of Days comes to destroy the Antichrist (Dan 7:11, 21-22), whereas in Rev 20:12, the books are opened at the end of the thousand years.

Either we are to understand that the books are opened twice, or, more likely, Daniel is viewing the full sweep of divine judgment without distinguishing between the first and second resurrections, since the fate of those that will be raised at the second resurrection is already sealed at the time of the Lord’s return. It is a common feature of OT prophecy to blend into a single scene events that later revelation will show to be separated by a great span of time.

We find a key to this mystery by comparing the language of Dan 7 and Rev 20 with what we find in the twenty fourth chapter of Isaiah. In Dan 7:9, the thrones of the mighty are cast down in association with the destruction of the last beast (Dan 7:11, 21-22, 26-27). The language is fascinatingly similar to what we find in Isa 24:21: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.”

The time in view is clearly the post-tribulational day of the Lord, as the entire context of Isa 24 makes abundantly clear, but notice that the judgment that is visited at this time upon the wicked does not appear to be entirely final. Look closely at Isa 24:22, and you can see a cryptic allusion to the time that John’s later Revelation will show to be the thousand years between the first and second resurrections. “And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.”

In this light, the judgment scenes of Daniel and Revelation can be seen as comprehensive of the full sweep of divine judgment that bounds both ends of the millennium. The imagery is that of a courtroom where the judge sits to pronounce the decisive verdict. But from the standpoint of Christ’s finished work, the verdict has already been passed for the believer who has “passed ‘already’ from death to life” (Jn 5:24).

The believer is depicted as ‘now’ (past tense) ascended and sit down with Christ in heavenly places (Eph 1:3, 20-22; 2:6; Col 3:1). This is already. Not yet is the promise that the overcoming believer will be exalted to sit with Christ in His throne, even as He overcame to sit down with His Father on His throne (Rev 3:21). Of course, this high station of an already secured inheritance must be vindicated in time by the life that overcomes and is not overcome. That life is Christ’s life in the believer (Col 1:27). “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall you also appear with Him in glory” (Col 3:4).

The language of being ‘set down’ speaks of Christ’s finished work and victorious triumph over all enemies (Heb 1:3; 2:8; 10:12-13; 12:2; 1Cor 15:24-27). This implies that it was at the ascension that the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13 with Acts 1:9-11). By the sweet smell of His perfect obedience, He was ‘brought near’ to be enthroned at the Father’s right hand (Rev 3:21).

His triumphal ascension over all principality and power (Acts 2:34-36; Eph 1:20-21; Rev 12:5) has secured the heavenly victory by which His saints will quite literally “possess the kingdom under the whole heaven” when He returns with clouds (Mt 24:29-30; 26:64; Acts 1:9-11; 1Thes 4:17; Rev 1:7). Since “all judgment has been committed to the Son” (Mat 28:18; Jn 5:22; 1Cor 15:24), the judgement of the Ancient of Days is no less the judgment of the returning Son of Man.

Note also the remarkable statement in Dan 7:12. After the destruction of the beast in Dan 7:11, mention is made of “the rest of the beasts.” (Should we understand these to be the 10 kings that unite with the Antichrist in Dan 7:24; Rev 17:12? Or is the reference to the four beast kingdoms of Dan 7:3, 17?). In any event, at the time the beast is destroyed in Dan 7:11; Rev 19:20, the “rests of the beasts” have their dominion stripped away at the same time (Dan 7:11-12, 26), but here is what I want us to notice: “their lives are prolonged for a season and a time” (Dan 7:12).

Whatever we make of this, it is certain that there are nations that survive the return of Christ and the destruction of the beast. These are not translated with the church, but go into the millennium in natural bodies. That not all nations are always willingly compliant with the rule of heaven is shown in the reference that Messiah will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

The post Seated in Heavenly Places appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

I can’t find a verse in the NT that describes sacrifices during the millennium?

Indeed, we look in vain to find millennial sacrifices mentioned in the NT, but it is also not surprising. The NT is not interested to repeat all the great detail that the prophets describe of the age to come, precisely because it already stood written. It is only the erroneous assumption that the NT corrects the OT that would require us to see every detail repeated again before it can be believed.

We note that mention of the ”the age to come” in the NT is not usually attended with much elaboration. It is mostly used as a kind of ‘short hand’ to reference the time of the great transition from this age to the next. By itself, the term neither affirms nor denies millennial distinctions. The millennium is mentioned only once in what many would remind us is a ‘highly symbolical’ book.

On the contrary, the further revelation of a distinct millennial stage of fulfillment between the day of the Lord and the final perfection solves the riddle of OT prophecy. For those inclined to respect the literal details of prophecy, it helps to reconcile so much that would otherwise have been a hopeless puzzle.

Whereas many of the promises that were thought to belong strictly to the time after the great tribulation were now being experienced in unexpected advance of that day, the early church would not have seen this as an occasion to call in question any of those promises that remained to be fulfilled to Israel in a still coming day of the Lord, understood now to be the time of Jesus’ post-tribulational return. That the yet future ‘restoration of all things’ must necessarily include the plenary fulfillment of all that prophets have spoken was never in doubt (Mt 19:28; 23:39; Acts 1:6; 3:21; Ro 11:25-27; Rev 1:7).

So we say that what the prophets put on the other side of the day of the Lord still belongs there, a measure of present fulfillment notwithstanding. The NT does not correct or change anything that stands written in the OT. Rather, it reveals a mystery that discovers a hidden, albeit foretold age that must supervene between the present age and the age to come.

Whereas it is true that some of what the prophets connect to the day of the Lord has come already, it is also true that the tribulation is still future and certainly the day of the Lord is still future. What presumption then to so confidently deny to the natural branches the full covenantal vindication of all that the prophets describe of that coming day?

Therefore, to ascribe equal authority to both testaments means that we do not require repetition of every detail of prophecy. Progressive revelation expands and amplifies the vision of OT eschatology, but this does not call for correction or change of the plain meaning of words in their native context.

That said, however, the NT certainly is clear that Christ has fulfilled the many types and shadows of tabernacle and the alter. This brings the question; does fulfillment of a type necessarily mark its end? Jesus is the ‘teleos’ (goal) of the law, but does this mean that the law is without further significance, or that it is no longer in force, particularly where one is still ‘under’ its curse? Christ was the great anti-type to the blood sacrifices, but they continued to be offered until the destruction of the temple, as Jewish believers would continue to center their activities in the temple and continue to make annual pilgrimage (Acts 21:26; 24:17).

Notwithstanding, it is what the NT reveals of the final sufficiency of Christ’s blood, particularly in the apologetic presented in the book of Hebrews (see especially Heb 10:2) that raises serious questions concerning a resumption of sacrifices in the millennium. Indeed, no question is more difficult for those who would defend the literal view of OT prophecy. What are we to make of this? Are millennial sacrifices indeed irreconcilable with Christ’s once and for all sacrifice?

One thing is clear: Interpreted literally, the prophecies definitely predict sacrifices and a renewed temple service in the millennium (Isa 56:5-7; 60:7, 13; 66:20-23; Jer 33:15-22; Zech 14:16-21). The context is plainly post-tribulational / post- day of the Lord Israel, which is to say, millennial.

Regardless of our answer to this question, it cannot be denied that Ezekiel’s vision of a new temple is pictured in the setting of a topographically transformed and elevated temple mount in a newly liberated Jerusalem (Zech 14″9-11). This temple has never existed before in any literal sense, and it is clearly AFTER the day of the Lord described in Eze 39:8, 22-29.

So the larger implication of our approach to this question will not only bear on the question of a future millennium, but particularly how we should interpret its purpose and nature in light of what scripture reveals will distinguish and characterize that unique time. For example, will the millennium include such distinctly ‘Jewish’ features as a literal inheritance of the Land by an entirely saved Jewish nation? (Isa 4:3; 45:17, 25; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; 66:22; Jer 31:34; Eze 39:22, 28-29; Zeph 3:13 etc.).

Can we rightly conceive of a time on this earth when evangelism will not be necessary among the Jewish inhabitants of the Land? (Jer 31:34). Many competent interpreters have said no. Such an extravagant promise can only be fulfilled in heaven. But the greatest crisis for interpretation seems indeed to be the question of whether the future reestablishment of Israel as theocratic head of the nations will also feature another temple with a worship that includes sacrifices.

How should such this language be interpreted? All are agreed concerning what these texts mean in their native context and intention. The question is whether the NT states anything definitely that forces us to spiritualize or re-interpret this aspect of OT prophecy?

If reconciliation is not possible without spiritualizing temple and sacrifices, then certainly later NT revelation must take precedence, but I believe there is a better explanation and that failure to make needful distinctions between the dispensations have created the illusion of a false choice. I am reminded of the old ‘black and white fallacy’ in logic, which assumes that the alternatives thus far considered are the only ones that exist.

I can only give where I stand currently and tentatively on this question, but my answer would be incomplete if I did not give first place to the more easily demonstrated proofs that strongly incline me in the direction of the literal view. Firstly, we know from Heb 10:4 that no sacrifice, whether past or future, was ever efficacious to the actual taking away of sin. Therefore, we can be certain that if there is a future literal sacrifice, it can only be of a memorial nature, much the way that the more portable ordinance of the Lord’s Table functions now for a pilgrim church scattered throughout the nations.

A fully regenerate Israel will most certainly NOT confuse any temporal structure, or emblematic ordinance as a means of justification. How could they? They will have a new heart of divinely guaranteed continuance. Even the godly remnant of the OT, as in the case of David, showed their knowledge that the ordinances of the law counted for nothing unless the heart was first broken and contrite (Ps 40:6; 51:16).

But when this inward reality will first be secured by true repentance, ‘then’ may the worshiper offer sacrifices extravagantly, in jubilant assurance of divine acceptance (Ps 51:19). That is always the order. It is so now with the use of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and it will be so in the millennium, regardless of which ordinances God has deemed appropriate to that unique time and circumstance.

There is much that could be said on this subject that time does not permit, but the question of millennial sacrifices is admittedly very difficult for those who are committed to a consistently literal hermeneutic. This is why no other question is more exploited against a millennial future for Israel than this.

It is the seemingly impossible thought that sacrifices might be re-instituted in the millennium that is most often and most effectively invoked to dismiss a future literal millennium and to justify the ‘re-interpretation’ (spiritualization) of a large volume of Old Testament texts that speak of the post-tribulational restoration of Israel. The argument goes that the millennial headship of a Jewish Israel would imply a regression from the unity of Jew and gentile in the one new man (a ‘re-erection’ of the middle wall of partition).

This would furthermore imply a return to legal ordinances (another grossly misrepresented topic). The solution is typically to deny a millennium altogether, and if not to deny the millennium, certainly its specifically Jewish character. Of course this can only be done by the wholesale spiritualization of a considerable volume of OT prophecy.

Even if we allow full place for all the normal conventions of prophetic and apocalyptic literature, as the common use of figure, type, metaphor, poetic symbolism, and even so-called ‘cosmic language,’ still, there is an enormous amount of prophetic detail that is hard to fit with any spiritual counterpart in the NT, whether for this age or the eternal state of the new heavens and earth.

In order for the Scripture to be fulfilled in every jot and tittle, the details of prophecy demand an age between this age and the final perfection of the new heavens and earth. That further installment of the ‘age to come’ is the millennium. It begins only AFTER the destruction of the last beast of the last persecution (Dan 2:44; 7:11; Rev 6:10-11; 17:12; 19:20; 20:4-6; 2Thes 2:3-4, 8).

One can see at once the kind of problems that such re-interpretation and spiritualization of such a large body of specific prophetic detail would pose for the church’s apologetic towards Jews that are knowledgeable of the scriptures. So the question of the relationship and harmony of the two testaments is a problem that has great bearing on how we talk to Israel, certainly now, but most critically in the coming time of Jacob’s trouble.

We are often reminded that the only clear reference to a future millennium is found in a highly symbolic and pictorial book of beasts and dragons and cubed numbers in multiples of 12 and 7. Many also point out that the promise of the Land recedes in the NT into a heavenly country, with no specific reference to an “earthly” (sometimes called ‘carnal’ or ‘Jewish’) millennium.

Even Paul, in his argument for a necessary future covenant fulfillment for the natural branches makes no particular mention of the Land. Some see this as evidence that Paul has ‘re-interpreted’ the Land promise. Others note the connection of Paul’s language to clear OT references to the the day of the Lord (compare Isa 27:9; 59:13-21 with Isa 63:3-7; Jer 31:31-34; see esp. Eze 30:3 with Lk 21:24; Ro 11:25-27).

Against such clear evidence that Paul has in mind the post-tribulational day of the Lord in Ro 11:26, non-millennial interpreters tend to understand the Deliverer’s return to Zion as a reference to the Lord’s first advent. It is really quite the contrary. Furthermore, unless we accept the view of preterism (that all NT prophecy concerning Jerusalem is past), we find that the NT is not at all silent about the Land, as the entire drama that concludes the age is set in the context of a final Antichrist assault on Jerusalem (Mt 24:15-29; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2 etc.). This is in full accord with the eschatology of the covenant in the OT.

It is the tendency of the supercessionist view to transfer everything that the prophets depict as following the day of the Lord into the present age. Of course, this removes any need for a millennial interim between this age and the perfect state. This is done by a process they call ‘re-interpretation’, which they believe can be justified by certain instances where the NT will apply some future (post-day of the Lord) promise to the church of the present age.

Certainly this is partly true, since the church is indeed the ‘first-fruits’ of the eschatological promise. But the present spiritual fulfillment does not detract from its more literal and exhaustive fulfillment at the day of the Lord. One example would be Peter’s application of Joel’s prophecy of the day of the Lord to the present outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:20). We can be sure that Peter is NOT announcing the arrival of the day of the Lord, since he would have been aware that Jesus used the very same language of Joel’s prophecy to speak of His return after the tribulation (Joel 2:31; Mt 24:29).

Notwithstanding, Acts 2:16-20 has been a favorite text to defend the view that all the OT prophecies of the day of the Lord should be transferred entirely to the church of the present age. It is to assume that whenever an OT prophecy is applied to the present, it has been exhaustively fulfilled in every part. If the presence of the kingdom can anticipate a greater realization in the future, how can a present ‘first-fruits’ of the messianic redemption be thought to nullify the day of the Lord restoration of Israel? (Mt 23:39; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26). By what logic does a partial fulfillment on this side of the Lord’s return nullify a fuller future fulfillment on this earth after the last tribulation?

While it is true that the mystery reveals that the church of the present age appropriates some (not all) of the first fruits of that coming age, this does nothing to change or disappoint God’s determination to publicly vindicate His irrevocable covenant in the sight of all nations. As shown above, we believe that Paul’s reading of the covenant requires a time on this earth when there will not be found a single Jew on the earth that is not saved (see above).

This would not be nearly so astonishing if this referred only to resurrected Jews, but many scriptures combine to show that the salvation of the surviving Jewish remnant go into the millennium in natural bodies. Evidently, the surviving remnant of Israel is “born in one day” as they look upon Him whom they pierced (Isa 59:21; 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zech 3:9; 12:10; 14:7; Mt 23:39; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7) at the same the church is being translated at the last trump (Isa 27:13; Mt 24:31; 1Cor 15:52; 2Thes 2:1; Rev 10:7; 11:15).

In marked contrast to the rapture, the Jewish survivors of the last tribulation return to the Land by natural means of transport with the assistance of gentile survivors (see Isa 49:22; Isa 60:9; 66:20; Zech 8:23). With the Deliverer’s return to Zion, the surviving remnant is regenerated in an instant, first to mourn apart (Zech 12:11-12) and then to begin the last world wide return to the Land (compare Isa 11:15-16 with Isa 27:12-13).

Notice that this return is distinguished from all others in that not a single Jewish survivor is left behind (Eze 39:28).  If such promises can be conceived to happen in literal actuality, it means that this earth is yet to witness the unprecedented spectacle of an entirely saved Jewish population. Significantly, the public fulfillment of the covenant of Jer 31:34 also finishes the mystery of God (Rev 10:7).

Not only does the millennium begin with a fully regenerate Jewish population, this astonish burning bush of divine testimony is promised everlasting continuance. The promise of an all saved nation is extended to include the future children that will be born to Jewish parents (see Isa 54:13; 59:21; 66:22). No wonder interpreters tend to put this in heaven, as they are hard pressed to find fulfillment in the visible church. That something like this could be fulfilled on this earth, especially by Jews that have not yet been resurrected may seem incredible, but none of this is any more incredible than the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

It is this reading of the covenant that makes perfect sense of a future millennium. It is also the only reading that can make sense of the way that God has chosen that the age should end over the ‘controversy of Zion’ (Isa 34:8) and ‘the time of Jacob’s trouble’ (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21). Can it really be that God will hold all nations accountable to know and understand such an ancient promise? Indeed, it will be the test that will embroil all nations over the Jerusalem question (Zech 12:2-3). It is the question of an abiding and irrevocable covenant election that still stands with the natural branches (Ro 11:27, 29).

The theology of replacement tends to believe that before something of OT revelation can be applied to Israel in the future, they would first need to see it reiterated in the NT. They argue that progressive revelation requires us to abandon the narrow, “nationalistic” orientation of the limited and culture-bound foreview of the OT prophets.

They would have us see that all of this has all been “transcended” (changed?) by a kind of metamorphosis. You may notice that what some justify as ‘progressive revelation’ has much in common with the evolutionary view of scripture embraced by theological liberalism. That is a view that certainly has no problem at all with the unfulfilled details of prophecy.

Here is the decisive question that will ultimately determine our view of the end: The prophets place everything of Israel’s covenanted hope into the context of a future post-tribulational day of the Lord. Should the present fulfillment of some (some say all) of these promises mean that all the prophecies that picture an earthly fulfillment after the tribulation are no longer to be expected, particularly if this would mean a special place of preeminence of the ‘natural Jewish branches?

If these prophecies are to be fulfilled on earth in a future millennium, does this mean we should interpret their meaning in strict conformity to the original intention of the biblical writers, or does NT revelation constrain us to adapt them to some higher spiritual fulfillment? If so, what would this be, and would it be sufficient to account for the great volume of detail that the prophets use in their descriptions?

These are the questions that interpreters and teachers struggle to understand and explain. By perfect design, God has put before us a profound mystery that requires setting our heart to understand. Not only the church, but ultimate all nations will be forced to wrestle with its implications, so it is not a merely an academic exercise (Ro 11:25, but also Ro 11:33-36).

As Jesus was the stone of stumbling to first century Israel through the mystery of His twofold advent, it seems evident to me that the same mystery is still with us in its essence; now in the form of the question of an abiding election of a particular land and people. I believe God intends to use the last day’s crisis of Israel as a formidable test of the heart concerning its disposition towards God’s free and sovereign right to choose as He will choose.

To what degree then does NT revelation justify re-interpretation of that great volume of prophecy that the prophets put on the far side of the great tribulation? That is the question. I do not believe we should expect, as it was never the purpose of NT revelation to explicitly reiterate the basic contour of OT hope, simply because is has not changed. The revelation of the mystery of the gospel has indeed expanded our vision of the glory of God’s eternal purpose beyond anything the prophets could have conceived, but that glory has not occasioned a radical re-interpretation of Israel’s hope, as presupposed by a-millennialists and replacement theologies of different kinds.

What is new is the revelation of Messiah’s twofold coming, departure, and return to Israel. This discovers an unexpected interim that inserts itself between the unexpected death and resurrection of Messiah and the well known day of the Lord that can now be seen as the time of His return.

Through the gift of the Spirit and the revelation of the mystery of the gospel, many of the mighty powers and spiritual blessings of that coming age have come in unexpected advance of ‘that day.’ This is agreed by all schools. What is not agreed is how far this has changed or cancelled the prophecies and promises of the ‘not yet’ that the prophets put in the future with the still coming day of the Lord.

The principal point of difference is this: How far does the presence of the kingdom justify the cancellation or modification (“re-interpretation”) of the kingdom’s future on earth after the day of the Lord but before the eternal state? This is where the question of how post-tribulational / post-day of the Lord prophecies become the point of great controversy.

It is true that Paul says nothing explicit about Israel’s future relation to the Land in his treatment of Israel’s failure in Ro 9-11, but certainly this was not in question. Paul would have understood that the ‘necessary’ vindication of covenant promise in the restoration of the natural branches is indivisibly connected with inheritance of the Land. Such reiteration would have been completely redundant and unnecessary to anyone believing the literal words of the prophets.

It is the question of what it takes to fulfill the covenant. Does Paul insist on a future salvation of Israel that does not include return to the Land? How one reads the covenant and understands its language to be either figurative or literal will determine how we interpret the grafting in again of the natural branches. In fact, how we see the election of Israel in relation to the modern situation in the Land will determine how we understand the meaning of the last days and the test of hearts that the crisis of Israel is divinely designed to expose.

So, since Paul does not say anything specifically concerning the Land, does this mean that the inextricable relation of the Land to the ‘everlasting covenant’ (Gen 17:7-8; 1Chron 16:17-18; Ps 105:10-11; Isa 61:8-9; Jer 32:40-41; Eze 36:26-28) has now been transferred to heaven? The question of the Land is carried forward to the time of the unequaled tribulation precisely because it is intrinsic to the covenant and the last day’s assault on the covenant by the forces of the Antichrist.

It is the Antichrist’s war against the covenant that is the special subject of such clearly tribulational passages as Dan 11:28, 30-31, 39; Joel 3:2; Zech 14:1-4 etc.). Manifestly, the nations cross a line of no return when they lift themselves up to assault the covenant land and people. Why is this?

Significantly, the prophets show this particular act of covenant defiance to be the ultimate provocation that causes God’s fury to come up in His face (Eze 38:18; Joel 3:2). We should ask, why, in all the generations of divine forbearance of depravity and gospel rejection, is it only now that the nations finally and fatally transgress the bounds of divine tolerance? (Isa 24:5). It is because God has ordained that His  irrevocable covenant with Israel is to become the watershed issue of division and a stone of stumbling at the end of the age that will test and reveal the thoughts of many hearts (Lk 2:34-35).

Our perspective is NOT dispensationalism. Recognition of a special millennial calling and role for Israel does not militate against the unity of the body of Christ. Saved Israel and saved gentiles in the millennium will be no less members of the body of Christ on earth. However, as the man and woman are equals in Christ, but not in authority, it is no regression to understand that God’s will require all nations to honor His special election of Israel (Zech 14:16-19).

Of course, as always, the freedom and right of God to bestow special favor sets up a test of the heart (Gen 37:3-4, 11, also Ps 2:6, 8 with Ps 48:2; Isa 14:13). This was the test that was put before the woman of Canaan in (Mt 15:24-28). May we not expect that as it has pleased God to move the Jew to jealousy through the gentile, He has an intention to prove the hearts of the nations through a restored Israel at the end of the ‘times of the gentiles’? We are sure that He does, not only then, but even now, as we move towards an age ending collision over the question of covenant election.

Regardless then of how literally we are able to conceive of a restored temple and sacrifice, this question cannot be permitted to dominate all others. It does not change the far greater evidence that favors the view that a future millennium awaits the full and open vindication of the covenant in the salvation of ‘all Israel,’ as we believe Paul intends that term.

Therefore, the NT is not occupied with an agenda of ‘re-interpretation,’ but concerns itself with the revelation and application of a mystery that discovers an age between the advents that realizes some (not all) of Israel’s promises, replacing nothing of what remains to be established on earth with the natural branches at a still future day of the Lord. All of this is in perfect keeping with the well established pattern of NT fulfillment that scholars have called, the ‘already and the not yet’ of an ‘inaugurated eschatology.’

This is why I find it a thing to be wondered at that replacement theology can so well assure itself that an admittedly still future day of the Lord cannot include what the prophets so clearly promise to the ‘natural branches’ at that time. That’s what mystifies me.

Even if we allow for the utmost natural difficulty in understanding a ponderous mystery that is calculated to send us to prayer, still, to so assuredly conclude that the day of the Lord will NOT bring a millennium of covenant fulfillment for the natural branches seems to me a colossal presumption.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

The post Difficult Millennial Questions appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Hi Reggie,
I have a friend in a local church that embraces Dominion theology. I feel that it is a dangerous error. Can you have a look at this material and tell me what you think? How would you recommend I approach this?

I do not exaggerate when I say that I’ve never seen the prophetic portions of scripture handled more irresponsibly. This writer distorts and goes beyond the most extreme forms of non-millennial and anti-futurist viewpoints of preterism and / or amillennialism. At least those schools recognize a great tribulation and some form of Antichrist. Even if they interpret these as past, still, it is understood that any “dominion” that Christ secured by His victorious ascent was not of such a nature as to end the power and dominion of the beast kingdoms of this present evil age.

It is hard to see how anyone could suggest that the dominion of the beast kingdoms, the fourth in particular, could have ended with Christ’s heavenly coronation at the time of the ascension. It is clear that the dominion of the gentile kingdoms is not finally “taken away” (Dan 7:12, 26) until the destruction of the last beast (Dan 7:11; Rev 19:20) who brings the final persecution of the saints (Dan 7:21; Rev 6:11; Rev 13:7) at the end of the “times of the gentiles” (Lk 21:24; Ro 11:25).

Regardless of ones view of prophecy, all schools of eschatology agree that the early church faced a future Antichrist and tribulation of unequaled severity (Dan 12:1;  Mt 24:21; Rev 7:14). The kingdom had indeed come in power with Christ’s first advent, but the saints would not “possess” the kingdom in the way described in Dan 7:13-14, 26, until the destruction of the last persecuting beast (“little horn”) at Christ’s return (Dan 7:11 with Rev 19:20).

Since the beast is not destroyed until Christ’s return (Dn 7:11; 25-27; 12:7;  2Thes 2:8; Rev 19:20), we should understand that the kingdom described in  Dan 7:13-14 does not refer to Christ’s ascension, but to His return. Significantly, the “first resurrection” receives its very designation as “first” in manifest connection with resurrection of the tribulation martyrs of the final beast persecution (Rev 20:4).

According to Rev 17:12, there is a future development of the fourth kingdom in a final stage that is symbolized by ten horns, which is self-interpreted as “ten kings that shall arise” (Dan 7:24). According to Rev 17:12-13, these ten kings had not yet appeared at the time John wrote the Revelation.

“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.”

This beast is clearly the ‘little horn’ of Dan 7:8, 21, 24-25.  Therefore, if these ten are clearly future from the time of John’s writing, it becomes plain that their “dominion” could not have been “taken away” at the time of Christ’s triumphant ascension.

In Dan 2:44, we see that the kingdom envisioned by Daniel comes “in the days of these kings” (i.e., the ten kings of Dan 7:24; Rev 17:12).

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

How then can it be supposed that kingdom of Christ has taken this final form of world dominion at the time of the ascension? It is true that in Christ a present from of the kingdom has been revealed, i.e., “the mystery of the kingdom”. In this sense, the kingdom is here. We have been translated into the kingdom of His dear Son (Col 1:13). However, in Lk 21:20-21, 31, we see that “the kingdom of God” is still being represented as future (“near at hand”) in relation to the signs connected with the desolation of Jerusalem. In this sense, the kingdom of God remains a future hope (Rev 10:7; 11:15, 17-18).

It is therefore no denial of the present form of the kingdom to understand that there is a future form or stage of the kingdom that is not set up until ‘the days of the ten kings’. Rev 17:12 is decisive to show that the kingdom spoken of in Dan 2:44 could not have been established at the time of Christ’s first advent, simply because the ten kings that accompany the beast in the final persecution had not yet appeared at the time John’s writing of the Revelation. So whatever victory is signaled by Christ’s post-resurrection investment of “all authority,” it did not relieve the church of the expectation tribulation and a future beast that would “overcome” the saints (Dan 7:21; Rev 13:7).

Who will deny that the blasphemous ‘little horn’ of Dan 7:8, 11, 20-21, 25, is the self exalting king of Dn 11:36-37 that Paul identifies with a future ” man of sin” who will be destroyed at Christ’s return (2Thes 2:3-4, 8)? Now notice how Paul connects the destruction of this man to the time that Christ comes to gather the church to Himself (2Thes 2:1-4, 8; see also Mt 24: 31).  Paul is clear in showing that Christ cannot return until this “man” comes first (2Thes 2:3), and John is clear in showing that when this last beast appears, “he must continue a short space” (Rev 17:10).

A careful observance of the context will show that “kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven” is not “given to the people of the saints of the most High” (Dan 7:27) until AFTER the destruction of the beast (Dan 7:11, 26), who rises AFTER the ten kings (Dan 7: 24). This is the “little horn” of Dan 7:8 who prevails against the saints in Dan 7:21 (compare Rev 13:7). Let it not pass our notice that the kingdom is not given to the saints until after the final persecution of 3 1/2 years (Dan 7:25-27; 12:7; Rev 12:14; 13:5).

The writer of the article appears to arrive at his view that the dominion of the beast kingdoms is taken away at the point of Christ’s ascension on the basis of his reading of  Dan 7:13-14. Like many amillennialists, he assumes that the Christ receives the kingdom upon the event of His ascension attended by the clouds of glory (Acts 1:11). However, even if we grant that Christ receives the kingdom upon His triumphal ascent into glory, we must also say that He brings His kingdom with Him upon His return in clouds of glory (Mt 24:30; 1Thes 4:17; Rev 1:7).

A closer inspection of the context that surrounds Dan 7:13-14 will show that the dominion of the cloud coming Son of Man does not precede, but rather follows the destruction of the beast (Dan 7:11). In Rev 19:20, the same language is applied to the destruction of the beast at Christ’s return. So the dominion and kingdom that is in view in Dan 7:13-14, 27 can only refer to the millennial reign of Christ that follows the tribulation and the destruction of the beast, as the thousand year reign of Christ begins after the destruction of the final beast (Dan 7:11 with Rev 19:20) and the resurrection of martyrs of the last persecution (compare Rev 6:11; 20:4). [Note: If this resurrection is the same as the resurrection described in Dan 12:2, 13, then it is clear that it follows immediately after the great and unequaled tribulation of Dan 12:1 and Mt 24:21, 29).]

Since this writer takes the view of many that the dominion (“the greatness of kingdom under the whole heaven”; Dan 7:18, 27) passes over to the saints at Christ’s ascension, it becomes a matter of utmost concern how those taking this view want us to understand how this “dominion” of alleged present possession is to be understood and applied.

Some speak as though the kingdom secured by Christ is already so completely in the “possession” of the saints, as to imply that all that is waiting is for the saints to “take” or “possess” their possessions in a kind of spiritual warfare, whereby all earthly institutions are subject to be ‘re-claimed’ and transformed by the church.

In this view, anything that has not yielded to the sway of Christ’s dominionwaits only for the church to “possess” that ground or territory by spiritual conquest in the here and now. Such a presumptuous notion is not only opposed by scripture; it is opposed by reality and history. No such dominion passed to the saints at Christ’s first coming.

It is only after the destruction of this final beast (Dan 7:11 with Rev 19:20) that the saints receive dominion upon this earth (Dan 7:25, 26-27). Until then, the spirit of the individual believer is sealed and seated with Christ, but the earthly life of the church is still subject to the Devil’s hatred and persecution to the end (Rev 12:17). On what basis, then, do some say that the church of the present hour will be able to assert a greater “dominion” over the kingdoms of this world than the church of any former generation?

So what do we mean by the saints “possessing” the kingdom under the whole heaven (Dan 7:18, 27)? What do we mean by “dominion” in the sense it is used here in Daniel? Never, in all the centuries since Christ’s ascension, have the saints “possessed the kingdom” and exercised “dominion” in the sense that it is being taught by some today.

Since we are being assured that the tribulation is past, and Satan is already bound, does this mean that our generation will now accomplish what the saints of an earlier time could not? However we may understand Christ’s victory over Satan, one thing is certain. It did not exempt the church from tribulation (Jn 16:33; Acts 14:22; 1Thes 3:4).

Do we now make bold to declare that through a “better” understanding of Christ’s ascension over all principalities and powers, that we may now take back our government? What of the saints in other less advantaged countries, or countries that are increasingly hostile to the faith? Is this their time too? Will they also possess and exercise governmental dominion on this earth too, now that the devil has been so finally bound and defeated? Such presumption calls for a serious reality check as to how, and in what sense, has Satan’s dominion has been destroyed.

I noticed also that the author of the article understands “the end”, as it is used throughout Daniel, to refer to the days of the Roman occupation, which began in 63 B.C. This is simply astonishing. Anyone who will see, can see that the term is used to refer to a final Antichrist and tribulation that ends in nothing short of the resurrection, including Daniel’s personal resurrection (Dan 12:1-2, 13; see also Dan 11:35-36; 12: 4, 6-9).

But if the great tribulation is past, is Christ’s return also past? It surely must be, since His coming is “immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days” (Mt 24:29-31). Because the scripture is so clear that Christ comes after the tribulation, those who see the tribulation as now past say that Christ came in the sense of His spiritual presence in the judgment upon Jerusalem. They argue that Jesus depicted His coming in “cosmic language” or “apocalyptic imagery” familiar to the OT. Examples are sometimes cited to show that the “day of the Lord” imagery, so common to the OT, was intended only to convey an imminent cataclysm, not “the” end, but only “an” end, not “the” day of the Lord, but only “a” day of the Lord. Thus, it is believed that Jesus had reference only to the impending destruction of Jerusalem when He spoke of the “end”.

However, not only does the scripture place Christ’s return after the tribulation, it also places the resurrection at the end of the tribulation (see Dan 12:1-2). So what do we do with the resurrection in Dan 12:2? Consistency would demand that if Christ’s return after the tribulation is spiritual and not literal, then the resurrection of Dan 12:2 must also be spiritual, since it too comes at the end of the tribulation. In other words, if the tribulation of Dan 12:1 and Mt 24:21 is to be reckoned as past, then by the same rule, the resurrection of Dan 12:2 must also be past.

Notice how Paul connects Christ’s return to destroy the Antichrist in 2Thes 2:8 with the believer’s hope of being gathered to Christ at the day of the Lord (“our gathering together unto Him”; compare 2Thes 2:1-3, 8). Notice too how nearly Paul’s language matches the Lord’s reference to the post-tribulational “gathering together of His elect” (Mt 24:29, 31). You see then how these events cannot be separated without great violence to the context and the consistent use of terms that are too similar to dissociate.

If the tribulation is past, then in some sense Christ must have returned “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (Mt 24:29-31). If this is so, then it follows that the resurrection of Dan 12:2 is also past, since it too follows the unequaled tribulation of Dan 12:1 and Mt 24:21. If past, and the church is still here, to what then does such a ‘spiritual’ resurrection have reference?

In view of such ‘exegetical problems’ for those who subscribe to the view the tribulation is past, we must further ask, did this mystical return of Christ in the events of 70 A.D. also accomplish the destruction of Paul’s ‘man of sin’? This would be impossible to maintain, since Paul so clearly connects the believer’s hope of being gathered to Christ at His return (2Thes 2:1) with the destruction of the man of sin at the day of the Lord (2Thes 2:3, 8). Let us not make bold to separate what God has so manifestly joined together, while we boast of attention to context.

I would like to ask this writer what he thinks we are to do with the many scriptures that describe a future Antichrist as contemporary with a final, brief, and unequaled tribulation? In Daniel chapter 7, dominion passes to Christ in Dan 7:13-14 only after the destruction of the beast in Dan 7:11. Only a serious neglect of context can imagine that the dominion of the beast kingdoms has been ‘taken away’ at Christ’s first advent, while the ultimate head of that kingdom (the Antichrist) is not destroyed until His return.

Context will not permit the separation of Christ’s return from the post-tribulational day of the Lord that destroys the Antichrist, raises the dead, and gathers the church. Furthermore, the context of the day of the Lord in both testaments is always depicted, as centered around a final siege of Jerusalem.

It may have been the greatest temptation for many living long after the destruction of Jerusalem to interpret the prophecies in an allegorical way. How else could it be maintained that Christ could come soon, since the Olivet prophecy, Paul’s “little apocalypse”, and John’s Revelation had tied the events of Christ’s return so closely to the final desolation of Jerusalem (Mt 24:15-16, 21; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2)? But now, the blessed hope of the church and Israel can be soon enough fulfilled without such spiritualization of scripture. It has returned to its first century apocalyptic context.

Against all odds, veritable mountains have moved in recent history to make possible the literal fulfillment of an end that “shall not come” apart from a last day’s struggle over Jerusalem (Dan 11:31; 12:11; Mt 24:14-16; 2Thes 2:3-4). We have come full circle. The church of today lives again beneath the shadow of an imminent world crisis over Jerusalem, as the covenant city has once again become a cup of trembling to all the nations round about (Zech 12:2-3).

The age will end exactly as the ancient Hebrew prophets said it would, around an international dilemma over Jersualem, called by the prophet Isaiah, “the controversy of Zion” (Isa 34:8). This is why such doctrinal distortions of the kind this writer sets forth are perfectly calculated to blind and disarm the church to what is fast approaching. When interpretation misleads to this degree, it is no more an academic discussion; it is spiritual. It is pastoral abdication.

We fully grant that the NT shows a pattern of fulfillment that some have called “realized”, or still better, “inaugurated eschatology”. It is the recognition that by the revelation and mighty acts of the Spirit, the powers of the coming age have broken into history, in unexpected advance of the day of the Lord. There is the “already” of present fulfillment, but there is also the “not yet” that must await the yet future day of the Lord. In the NT, the phrase, ‘day of the Lord’ or ‘day of God’, is always associated with Christ’s return to gather His church (1Cor 5:5; 2Cor 1:14; 1Thes 5:2; 2Thes 2:1-3; 2Pet 3:10, 12; Rev 16:14-15).

No one doubts that the second epistle of Peter was written after 70 A.D. There, the day of the Lord, or “day of God” (2Pet 3:10, 12), is still seen as the future hope of the church (compare also 1Thes 5:2, 4; Rev 16:14-15). All throughout the OT prophets, the day of the Lord is always depicted as ending a period of unequaled tribulation. Daniel, following the lead of the earlier prophets, sees a final aggressor in connection with an unequaled great tribulation. The tribulation is always depicted as ending with his destruction and Israel’s deliverance and the resurrection of the righteous (Dan 7:11; 11:45; 12:1-2, 13 with Isa 25:8; 26:19-21).

If the passages in Dan 7 concerning the Antichrist (“little horn”, “beast”; “king of fierce countenance”, “vile person”, “willful king” etc) are all past, the question becomes, when were these things fulfilled? It sounds like this writer is saying that when Christ destroyed the works of the Devil (or sealed their destruction; 1Jn 3:8), the power and dominion of the beast kingdoms was finally stripped away and given to the saints. How then do we explain Dan 8:24 with Rev 13:2, where Satan has power to empower a final beast kingdom, which, on any interpretation, was certainly future to the Lord’s heavenly enthronement at His ascension?

I noticed that this writer’s case stands or falls on a single text of disputed meaning, i.e., Dan 7:12: “As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” However, the surrounding context makes clear that this removal of dominion awaits the destruction of the final “little horn” (Antichrist), who is the farthest extension of the last beast kingdom, and final stage of the kingdom of man, as represented in Daniel’s metallic image in Dan 2.

Therefore, unless one is already predisposed to dismiss a future millennium, it makes much better sense to see that the ten kingdoms are not finally destroyed at the end of the “times of the gentiles” (Lk 21:24), but continue into the millennial age. Their power is broken, but they survive as nations to come under the millennial rule of Christ. Some of these nations become penitently submitted to the rule of God out of Jerusalem, as shown by many OT prophecies (e.g., Isa 19:23-25; Mic 4:2; Zech 2:11; 8:23).

Regardless of how spiritually or literally its duration is interpreted, the scripture makes clear that the millennium does not begin until AFTER the resurrection of the tribulation martyrs (Rev 20:4), who are not raised until AFTER the destruction of the final beast (Rev 19:20), who brings the final persecution against the saints (Dan 7:21 with Rev 6:11; 13:5).

Therefore, to place the removal of the fourth kingdom’s dominion at Christ’s ascension is an overly realized eschatology, to say the least. It is self exposed by the view of the NT that Christ’s victory over death and the Devil has not removed the outward character and progress of a “present evil age” which continues to remain under the sway of the evil one (1Jn 5:19).

If this writer understands that the dominion of the earth (“under the whole heaven”) passed over to the saints with Christ’s ascension, then surely he must see the kind of limits this would put on his concept of dominion. Rather than exercising “dominion” over this world’s kingdoms, the church has always been a people who, for Christ’s sake, are “killed all the day long” (Ro 8:36). So which is it? Did the ascension mark the end of this world’s beast kingdoms, or was it the “end” of Jerusalem in 70 A.D?

If Nero was the beast, and the Roman siege of Jerusalem marked the time of Christ’s mystical return, then what kind of dominion was “taken away” from all the long line of tyrants that have equaled or exceeded the power and cruelty of the Caesars? This doesn’t appear to justify the interpretation that the dominion of the beasts has been taken away. From the time that John wrote his Revelation, a sixth beast was present, and another, the worst of all, was still to come (Rev 17:10).

If we suppose that the post-Constantine church seemed momentarily to bear rule over many of the kingdoms of the earth, we should also remember that the time of the church’s greatest temporal dominion was also the time of its greatest apostasy. This episode of history displayed nothing of the kind of dominion that God promises His persecuted people at the end of a final great tribulation. Sometimes what appears success is really judgment.

No, the “dominion” spoken of in Dan 7 comes to the saints only AFTER the destruction of the beast (compare the nearly identical language in Dan 7:11 with Rev 19:20). In John’s Revelation, the first resurrection follows the destruction of the beast (Rev 20:4). Paul quotes Daniel verbatim to show that the willful king of Dan 11:36-37 is the ‘man of sin’ that Christ destroys at His return (2Thes 2:3-4, 8). In Daniel, he’s the one who brings the tribulation that ends in the resurrection (Dan 7:25; 11:31-36; 12:1-2, 7 with Rev 11:2; 13:5). “This” is when the saints possess the kingdom, and not before. Only then, when “the beast is destroyed and his body given to the burning flame” (Dan 7:11), do the saints rule and reign with Christ for a thousand years (Dan 2:44; 7:13-14; Rev 20:4).

It is true that we have been translated into the kingdom of His dear Son, and “in Him” we are sit down in heavenly places, far above all principality and power. In Him, we have victory over fear and death, despite all kinds of tribulation. But as to the public enforcement of His rule, we must say that “now we see not yet all things put under Him” (Heb 2:8). There is still a “not yet” of future fulfillment that is not fully enforced until His return in glory. That is the blessed hope. It’s not here yet. Only then, at His appearing, will the spirit of Antichrist that has reached final embodiment in the ‘man of sin’, be finally destroyed. Only at the sounding of the last trumpet will the “mystery of God be finished” and “the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and His Christ” (Rev 10:7; 11:15, 17-18). “Which in His times shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1Tim 6:15).

Dominionism is a fair weather theology that is destined to wither with the blast of real poverty and persecution. It is philosophically bound to find apocalyptic futurism its worst theological nemesis. It requires an overly realized eschatology that emphasizes only the “already” of NT fulfillment, while it neglects or denies the “not yet” of the early church’s well documented expectation of Christ’s post-tribulational return to destroy the Antichrist.

One must remember that even on preterist terms, Christ’s victory over Satan did not relieve the early church of its expectation of a future great tribulation. How then can a kind of dominion be asserted now that could not be asserted then? Is it because that was only the concern of the early church? Can we now safely assure ourselves that nothing of such an apocalyptic disruption need concern us, as we proceed to reclaim the institutions of this world for Christ? The suffering king will reign with His suffering church, but that dominion is of a wholly different kind.

It is well known among historical scholars that the Christian gospel has its roots in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition that flourished in the period between the testaments, and was thoroughly futuristic in its expectation of an apocalyptic end to the present evil age. There was no reading of scripture that opposed the present spiritual truth of the Christian’s ascended position in Christ to the common expectation of suffering and opposition in this present evil age.

The new man in Christ has indeed been delivered from the present evil age (Gal 1:4), or more particularly the power of the powers. Even so, his life in this world continues to be exposed to tribulation, sometimes “great tribulation” (Rev 12:14, 17). This is the tension that remains with the church as a people ‘between the times’. We are sit down with Christ in a finished work, while the structures of this world remain in tact and, in the larger part, under the power of Satan. Restraint is at best momentary.

According to the NT revelation of the mystery of two distinct comings of Jesus, the promised salvation of Israel has been revealed in advance of its future fulfillment to Israel at the post-tribulational day of the Lord. An earnest of that coming day has indeed come, but it is only realized in the “presence of our enemies”. The regenerating revelation of the gospel gives power over the present evil age; it does not end it. Though once and for all defeated, and their rule broken “in Christ” and “in the Spirit,” still, the powers of this age are able to assert their pernicious influence in the world of nature. This will continue until their power is finally removed by the revelation of Christ from heaven. That is the ‘already and not yet’ pattern of NT fulfillment.

Finally, I think this kind of theology is only a symptom of something far more serious. If it goes unchecked, it will exact a heavy toll in days ahead. It shows a serious blindness to the ‘way of the cross’. Where it may not overtly deny, it certainly neglects the cruciform character of the gospel and the nature of the kingdom in its present form. I believe it fails to apprehend “the mystery of the faith”, as a pattern of suffering and death before resurrection and glory (Lk 24:26).

It makes for a great pep rally of religious emotional excitement at all the “boundless possibilities” for the “conquest of faith”, but it ill-prepares its adherents for the shock that will come when this wrong headed presumption concerning the nature of dominion is exposed, not only by apocalyptic events, but by what a friend of mine calls the ‘suddenlies’ of life, yes, even those unexpected intrusions that can turn any Christian’s life into its own “great tribulation”. So it’s very important to distinguish between what has, and what has not been promised to believers, not only in a comparatively free land at this time, but in all lands at all times.

“Here is the patience and the faith of the saints” (Rev 13:10; 14:12).

These are just some of my objections to something that should not be getting to first base (Acts 17:10-11). That it does get to first base is itself a revelation of an humanistic optimism that has been cultivated in this nation in particular, that with the proper teaching, incentive, and strength of resolve, “nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them” (Gen 6:11).

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

The post Dominionism appeared first on Mystery of Israel.