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 […]
[…] The disciples that asked this question of Jesus on the eve of the Ascension were either not present when He gave the prophecy from the Mount of Olives, or they had forgotten His words. Only days before, Jesus had taught the disciples that “the end” would be preceded by an unequaled tribulation signaled by the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel (Mt 24:15-16, 21). But first, the gospel must be preached to all nations before the end can come (Mt 24:14).
At the time the disciples asked the question of Acts 1:6, the mystery of Christ’s twofold coming to Israel had not been revealed (Acts 3:18-21; Ro 16:25-26; 1Pet 1:11-12). They didn’t know that the risen Jesus was about to ascend to the right hand of God and there remain until His return (Acts 3:21). Even on those occasions when the disciples had heard the Lord speak of ‘going away,’ it was never imagined that this would be by way of death and resurrection and subsequent ascension.
To understand the dilemma, we must remember that the great puzzle for first century Israel was how the messianic redemption could be accomplished BEFORE and apart from Israel’s national deliverance […]
[…] The world needs to see that those who speak the truth are able to dwell with their brethren in unity, because that’s where the Lord commanded the blessing. That’s how Jesus said the world would know, not through theoretical agreement on doctrine. Since God is a God of reality and not of theory, a God of incarnation embodiment, and demonstration, how can this be shown in a practical / real way to an on looking world? “Noah, being warned of things not seen as yet, moved with fear…” The rejected Joseph went ahead of his unbelieving brethren to save life, not only spiritual, but physical. At the conference, I hope to make the case that Jewish spiritual regeneration will depend on their physical survival to the end. Let us not separate what God has joined.
In the case of Noah and Joseph, provision was anticipated and made on the basis of clear prophetic faith. Not bare belief, but obedience to the voice of prophecy is the witness to Jew and gentile alike, whether this pertains to things physical or spiritual, as though there was ever the divide that religion has made. It is not mere beliefs, or an introverted occupation with personal salvation, but obedience that is the witness to this generation and to our families […]
The rapture debate has raised the question of whether the references to a trumpet that sounds after the tribulation (Mt 24:31; Rev 10:7; 11:15) should be identified with, or distinguished from Paul’s ‘last trump’ (1Cor 15:52; 1Thes 4:16)? Where we locate the day of the Lord will be decisive for […]
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 this to be Nero, or the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem, still, they understand that any “dominion” that Christ secured at the cross did not mean that the early church would not face a future falling away and Antichrist persecution. Even on amillennial terms, Satan’s “little season” is still future, as this is where many amillennialists locate a future Antichrist, just prior to what they see as a general resurrection, with no millennium to follow.
Even in the view of preterists and amillennialists, the early church is not so completely ‘done with the devil’, as to be exempt from what was certainly to them a future tribulation and Antichrist (2Thes 2:3-4). The “dominion” of the fourth beast was not so completely broken, as to exempt the early church from its expectation of a future tribulation of unequaled severity (Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21; Rev 7:14).
[…] In every context where the eschatological day of the Lord is in view, there is usually a near and a far fulfillment. This is seen most clearly by the simple fact that the messianic salvation, everywhere identified with a climactic post tribulational day of the Lord, simply did not happen. A view of the inerrancy of the inspired scripture, will, of course, demand that a gap be recognized between the past, near and partial fulfillment, and a future fulfillment that is complete and exhaustive.
Even if you happen to deny a distinct future for natural Israel, and even if you are prone to interpret scripture allegorically, one is still obliged to recognize that the promised messianic salvation did not come until much later with the advent of Jesus. Beyond the earnest and first fruits (the “already”) of Israel’s promised salvation, there remains the “not yet” of a yet future day of the Lord that will accomplish “the restoration of all things spoken by the prophets” (Acts 3:21; Ro 11:25-29).
[Note: The difference between pre-mill and a-mill eschatology is simply the question of how much of Israel’s promised salvation came in with the revelation of the gospel? All or part? […] […]
[…] To be “in Christ” is to be “in Israel”. To belong to Christ is to belong to Israel. To be born into Christ is to be grafted into the Israel of God, the Israel of the new creation. En-grafted gentiles are equal heirs of Israel’s covenants of promise, since the covenants and promises were not made with any other people. The seed of faith, the children of Abraham, the circumcision of the Spirit etc. are one regenerate people of God, whom Paul calls, “the election” (Ro 11:7). This is the “holy nation” to whom Jesus said the kingdom would be given (Mt 21:43; 1Pet 2:9). It is the Israel of the new creation, which must extend to the regeneration of an elect number of the natural branches at the coming day of the Lord in fulfillment of the demands of the covenant (Ro 11:26-27). “The election” must at length include a surviving third of Israel, when the nation will be born in a day (Isa 66:8; Zech 3:9; 13:8-9). […]
that ill-prepares the people of God for what is ahead for both Israel and the church. Preterism puts the tribulation in the past. Amillennialism conceives of a “little season” of Satan’s release at the end of this age, with little specificity, and certainly no definite relationship to Israel. Historicism, with its often failed ‘year day’ theory, spreads the tribulation out over history, with an intensive resurgence at the end, while Pre-tribulationism exempts the church from any presence or role in the tribulation, so that “Jacob’s trouble” is only “Jacob’s problem”, since the church is in heaven at the wedding feast while Israel suffers the Antichrist. Hence, ours is a comparatively rare perspective that sees both Israel and the church together in a literal tribulation of 3 ½ years of unequaled affliction, as the church is engaged in prophetic witness and intercessory travail for the final redemption of the covenant nation, amid a common experience of world wide flight and persecution.
When aware of a future great tribulation, the primary concern has been the purification of the church through persecution. This is true, and we believe the church will be greatly transformed, but the primary purpose of “the tribulation, the great one” is to accomplish the historic fulfillment of what the prophets call, the ‘everlasting covenant’ (Isa 59:21; Jer 32:40; Ro 11:27), which necessarily requires the full coming in of “all Israel”, whom Paul identifies as the “natural branches” of present enmity (Ro 11:21, 24, 28). In conjunction with Christ’s return, the restoration of Israel finishes the mystery of God (Rev 10:7) and begins the millennial reign of Christ. […]
[…] Pre tribulational Dispensationalism is a comparatively recent branch of a much larger tree. It is only one form of premillennialism, which has a much longer history. Most of the early church fathers can be quoted to show clearly that they were premillennial, literalistic, and futuristic in their reading of prophecy. The allegorical approach to prophecy, basic to all forms of replacement theology, came much later with Origen and Augustine and has since dominated both Catholicism and Protestantism, but not without many great lights all through church history that continued to hold the plain reading of the prophetic scriptures.
There is one note of ‘half truth’ in this writer’s wild claims. Historically, wherever the scripture has been interpreted literally, there has been a favorable disposition towards the Jew. I believe this owes to one thing in particular. Any plain reading of Scripture gives the strong impression that though God is sometimes especially angry with this people, a closer look will reveal that this special anger is related to a special love, so that regardless how one understands the precise nature of divine election, one gets the impression that whatever it is, the Jew is God’s special witness to it. The Jew represents God’s divine right to choose as He will choose, which is precisely what is being so deeply tested and exposed through the issue of the Jew historically, as will be especially apparent in the coming “controversy of Zion” (Isa 34:8; Zech 12:2-3). […]