Sound reasonable?
August 28th, 2007
As you may or may not remember, I moonlight as a moderator of bibleforums.org under the psuedonym “the rookie.” I jumped in a year and a half ago to sharpen my dialogue on the end-times with those who don’t agree with me, mostly because I spend my days talking about the end-times with either a.) those who really, really agree with me or b.) those who have no idea what I am talking about. So, I spent many, many hours talking through interpretations of scripture like this one, from a very intelligent, sharp young pastor from Upstate NY:
Here’s my brief take on chapter 14 (I’m an amillennialist & partial preterist)…
Chapter 14 is, perhaps, one of the most difficult chapters in all of Scripture to interpret. Once again 2 major camps emerge. The first considers this a prophecy of the yet future second coming of Christ. The second considers this further description of 1st century events. Most probably fall somewhere in between, interpreting it with a blend of preterism and futurism.
The camp that sees this as the Second Coming argues that the language utilized could only speak of end-of-the-world events (’the Lord is coming,’ ‘all the nations,’ ‘the Lord will go out and fight,’ ‘His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,’ etc). The second camp, however, argues that this is common apocalyptic language and need not be interpreted in such a wooden literal manner. The ‘coming’ referred to need not be a ‘bodily’ coming. The Roman Empire could be spoken of as encompassing ‘all the nations.’ The presence of God on the Mount of Olives was symbolic for His exit from Jerusalem (Ezekiel 11:23). I, personally, am inclined toward agreement with the latter (preterist) camp.
If the preterist interpretation is correct, then chapter 14 is a prophecy of AD70. All the nations (the Roman Empire) came to fight against Jerusalem. The city was severely defeated (2) leaving half of the survivors exiled. God, who had protected Jerusalem during the Maccabean period, now removed His presence from the temple and city and resided, so to speak, on the Mount of Olives to watch His sovereign Judgment (like He had when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, Ezekiel 11:23).
Some, however, would remain part of Jerusalem, but, according to this interpretation, in a new way. No longer would they be part of a physical Jerusalem (no longer possible seeing as how it is utterly defeated), but they were now part of a spiritual Jerusalem (the city of God’s people, the church). They would have access to living water (not literal water, but the Holy Spirit, see John 7:37-39). They would be part of the eternal Kingdom of God, a Kingdom that would remain secure forever. Subsequently, many enemies of the new Jerusalem would attack, but none would prevail against it. In fact, many of the enemies (gentiles) will become citizens of the new Jerusalem. In this kingdom, even the most mundane objects will be holy to the Lord. This seems to be a beautiful prophetic image of the church.
So, what do you think? Sound reasonable? I spent a year and lots of long hours trying to talk these passages through. The medium serves to sharpen your own understanding but is fairly hopeless when it comes to convincing others of the validity of your view. Something about the weakness of wise and persuasive words…
I’d love to hear your thoughts, though, if you feel so inclined.
David
Entry Filed under: end times
33 Comments Add your own
1. Aaron | August 28th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Do you ever talk to Mike Bickle or Allen about this stuff, do you guys agree on everything?
2. Josh Hawkins | August 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Be careful bro or your face might get melted off by one of those crazy guitar or banjo solos!
In all seriousness though, I’ve noticed that Zech. 14 is one of the major dividing lines between all of the major millennial viewpoints. It’s definitely interesting looking at all of the spiritual viewpoints, because nobody seems to agree on any single spiritual interpretation…
3. Lauren | August 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
“Chapter 14 is, perhaps, one of the most difficult chapters in all of Scripture to interpret…The second camp, however, argues that this is common apocalyptic language and need not be interpreted in such a wooden literal manner.”
For amillennialists, Zechariah 14 is one of the most difficult chapters to interpret. If taken at its face value, it places a hole in amillennialism so large one must fall into it.
It’s also interesting to me that he uses Ezekiel 11:23 to support a preterist view of the passage. It comes directly after the promise of the Lord to restore and unite Israel. And, conversely, bring judgment on those who love wickedness. I may be reading the context incorrectly, but it does not seem as though the Lord is removing Himself to watch His sovereign judgment on the people.
“No longer would they be part of a physical Jerusalem (no longer possible seeing as how it is utterly defeated), but they were now part of a spiritual Jerusalem (the city of God’s people, the church).”
The city where God has forever placed His name is no longer an actual city. It has to be spiritualized as the church. Doesn’t this ignore scores of other Scriptures that talk about the glory of a physical Jerusalem? Also, can’t a spiritualized Jerusalem also easily lead to a spiritualized Israel? Do you know if amillennialism is anti-Semitic (whether intentional or otherwise)?
I would also wonder how they explain 14:12…when in 70 AD did people’s flesh rot in an instant?
4. Amanda B | August 29th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Two quick things I would want to ask about this interpretation (I haven’t been on bibleforums in ages…):
1) Did the entire half of Jerusalem that was exiled in A.D. 70 actually, honestly come into the Kingdom? Or were they just scattered, some Christian, and some not?
2) Weren’t there nations in the known world in the 1st century that were outside of the Roman Empire? Thus, it wouldn’t be “all the nations…”
5. Scott | August 29th, 2007 at 6:01 am
People fall into one of two categories on end-of- the-age scriptures: those who “take at face value” and those who “spiritualize”.
If your first tendency is to spiritualize most any scripture, you will see it one way. If you take things pretty literally, you’ll see the scripture entirely differently. The latter is generally the IHOP way. I have found that it makes for a more cohesive understanding of the end-times: everything fits into place remarkably well. And my how it energizes your heart (John 7, as you said David, and Titus 2).
Two more thoughts:
1. Regarding forums, they absolutely do sharpen your dialogue. They also can be a danger to our hearts, as they can can get us off our focus - to love God completely.
2. Regarding “spiritualizing” scriptures, you know, there is some validity to that. Take this verse: Gal 6:16 “peace on them, and mercy, upon the Israel of God.” In context, this reference to the Israel of God seems to refer to the Galations. So in God’s view there is a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel, both fully valid.
6. David | August 29th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Lauren:
“I may be reading the context incorrectly, but it does not seem as though the Lord is removing Himself to watch His sovereign judgment on the people.”
You are reading the context correctly.
“Doesn’t this ignore scores of other Scriptures that talk about the glory of a physical Jerusalem?”
Yep.
“Also, can’t a spiritualized Jerusalem also easily lead to a spiritualized Israel?”
Yep.
“Do you know if amillennialism is anti-Semitic (whether intentional or otherwise)?”
Unintentionally, yes. “Spiritual Israel”, or the church becomes the mode of interpreting every OT passage speaking about the promises and prophesies (the positive ones) relating to Israel. The negative passages indicating judgment are considered “Natural Israel’s” problem.
By using historical accounts as the highest authority, the events are then inserted into the OT (and NT) texts so that the interpretation works. The only explanation I’ve heard related to melting faces is the “plague” called Hell and the Lake of Fire. Insert sarcastic comment here.
David
7. David | August 29th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Amanda -
I don’t think that the “half” number is an accurate one, personally, but an eisegetical conclusion drawn from the text. I could be wrong, however…
The history is also bad. The Jews were not ultimately scattered until 135 AD after the Bar Kochba revolt, which was far more catastrophic than 70 AD. The preterist fixates on 70 AD and misses that point consistently, which makes even their view of history suspect, IMO.
As for number 2, don’t even get me started…
David
8. David | August 29th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Scott - David Pawson would disagree with your interpretation of Galatians 6:16, even though yours is the normative view. But his take is pretty interesting regarding the way that EVERYONE misses it on that verse.
The secret? if I remember it right, he insists that the word “even” is the wrong word choice in some translations, it is “and” (kai) as Paul has been talking about 2 groups of people – circumcised and uncircumcised; the phrase is referencing the circumcised who have believed as distinct from the uncircumcised who have believed, in other words - not “spiritual” vs. “natural” Israel.
David
9. Scott | August 29th, 2007 at 7:22 am
David, I’m not sure I understand what you mean, on the subject of the Israel of God. It sounds like Pawson is saying the same thing that I mean, which is this: that the uncircumcised who believe are (grafted in) to BECOME Israel, not in the natural, but in the spiritual.
(Tying this back to the original discussion about how to understand Zech 14, I prefer to understand scriptures pretty literally, but am reluctantly willing to allow for SOME “spiritualizing”… which only serves to confuse things I guess.)
10. David | August 29th, 2007 at 7:48 am
No - Pawson is saying that the Israel of God is actually….Israel. In other words, he does not think that Paul is referring to the church (or “spiritualizing”) with that phrase, but the circumcised.
David
11. refe | August 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
It is totally legitimate to translate ‘kai’ as ‘and’ or ‘even.’ Galatians 6:16 is one of those fun little passages that prove that you can’t solve all life’s problems through exegesis, though that would be nice.
As for ’spiritual israel,’ Dave, how would you explain the Church’s relationship to Israel in Romans 11?
12. David | August 29th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
This is fun - I love this!
I agree, Refe, it is totally legitimate; Pawson’s stance is that the choice should contextually be “and” but that translators choose “even” based more on theological bias.
In terms of Romans 11, I see these “players”:
1. Israel.
2. The elect.
3. Gentiles.
4. A lump, root, and branches.
5. A wild olive tree that gets grafted into the cultivated olive tree.
6. Natural branches that get cut off from the cultivated olive tree.
7. Wild olive trees that could get cut off from the cultivated olive tree.
8. Natural branches that could get re-grafted into the cultivated olive tree that they were cut off from.
9. More about Israel and the Gentiles.
10. Israel again, with much about “them”, “they”, and “these”
11. The fathers.
Nothing, however, about Spiritual Israel on that whole list.
David
13. Brandon | August 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Yeah, Romans 11:26 is a good argument against my amill position.
It’s funny, before I got on here I was reading some George E. Ladd who is a historic premill. I found this statement by him to be curious at first,
“For reasons outlined above, a millennial doctrine cannot be based on Old Testament prophecies but should be based on the New Testament alone.”
His reason were,
“A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that it cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end are to be fulfilled, for (a) the first coming of Christ was accomplished in terms not foreseen by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and (b) there are unavoidable indications that the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Christian church.”
These statements sound amill-ish, but Ladd goes on to suggest that the New Testament doesn’t jive with amillennialism. The point I wanted to suggest is that if Ladd is correct than we can’t know how Zech 14 will be fulfilled with certainty. This opens up the interpretation of that passage quite a bit.
I was encouraged to read a historic premill admit the validity of what is often negatively termed “spiritualizing,” scripture. I think any reading of how the new testament authors used old testament quotes shows that a literal interpretation is not how they went about things.
I myself am glad to see IHOP, my old stomping grounds, start to broaden it’s address of other millennial views. It should prove edifying.
14. dave raes | August 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
sorry david, way off topic, but….oh well, let’s say it is the year 2020, and Jesus returns. Now, this is the proposed year that NASA will have established a permanent lunar base. Suppose one of the astronauts on there is a born again believer. They might not get raptured, unless they see Jesus and are transformed in the blink of an eye. So then, suppose its 2040, same scenario might occur on mars. They definately won’t see him. Weird huh? Maybe that’s how some non-believers will get into the millenial reign of Christ.
15. Scott | August 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Galatians 6:16… I love the verse and have notes in all the margins around it. Here’s my take: From the context of the book, and especially the immediate passages, I think it’s pretty clear that Paul is referring to the uncircumcised believers as “The Israel of God”.
My opinion may have been influenced by this quote by Alec Motyer that I came across about a year ago. It’s from an interview in The Presbyterian Layman, May 2000. I absolutely love the last sentence.
Motyer - “The whole Bible is bound together around the single theme ‘I will be your God and you will be my people.’ The same way of salvation is found right throughout the Bible. We trust the promises of God and are saved. I would lay most stress on the singleness and unity of the people of God running right through the Bible. We are the people of God. [Early believers] should never have allowed the people of Antioch to get away with nicknaming them Christians. Our proper name is Israel.”
Here’s the link to the article: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?688
(And no, this is not meant to infer replacement theology, certainly not by Motyer, nor me!)
16. Matthew | August 31st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I always find it interesting when people suggest that God is abandoning Jerusalem and the like. God made a covenant with David; either God has reneged on it or the wickedness of man has forced him to abandon the covenant. Either way, the young man you quote is unwittingly implying that the nature of God is different than what we all know it to be.
CHUCK NORRIS WARNING: I read this story and found the insecurity of these monks worth chuckling over, but it was the poll that really set it apart and made me think of you.
Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20523643/
Poll that I would never expect on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20535495/
17. Brandon | September 1st, 2007 at 3:35 am
Is it really fair to say that amill’s are unintentionally anti-semitic?
18. David | September 1st, 2007 at 7:59 am
From my dialogues and from the sentiment of the European / British church, I would say by-and-large, yes. Some in Europe and Britain overtly so, not unintentionally so. Ideas have consequences, and there is at times a subtle anger and frustration related to the idea that Israel has a unique destiny and role apart from the Gentile church.
The manner in which some seek to “level the playing field” has unintentional consequences that Paul speaks about in Romans 11 related to passive resistance to God’s plan in this regard. So my affirmation of the fairness of the statement actually has an even more intense foundation when I communicate that there is scriptural backing for such a claim - I realize the “ouch” factor of such statements.
As I said, most Amillennials I have dialogued with extensively would be horrified to be labeled as such., and contend to be for the Jews - but in the same manner that they are for the Asians, in that sense. I have had one amillennial express horror that I would contend theologically for the “Christ-rejectors” who have no future destiny or role.
Romans 11 clearly says differently, but rather than pausing and stating the difficulties of the passage, I encounter much by way of grammatical gymnastics that seek to avoid such ethnic distinction - which may not be subtly anti-semitic but could be subtly anti-God, which was Paul’s point about being cut off.
David
19. Brandon | September 1st, 2007 at 10:58 am
You’ll have to forgive me but I still see it as a big jump for referring to amills in general.
But I myself have not had much dialogue with any amills, especially those from the Europe, so I have not encountered the “subtle anger and frustration related to the idea that Israel has a unique destiny and role apart from the Gentile church. ”
I do know vaguely that amillennialism was used in nazi Germany, at least some of the concepts were.
I am not concerned with “ouch” factors, just the bible. But I am young and I have just recently studied the millennial question, deciding that amillennialism makes the most sense biblically. So, I haven’t had time to see the full implications of ascribing to this position. That being said I reserve the right to talk to you again about whether or not I am an antisemitic.
In the next month or so you may be getting an email full of more question or a childish rant about how you hurt my theological feelings.
20. refe | September 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
The Nazis thought that Hitler would have a millennial reign.
21. Washington | September 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 am
Wow… 20 comments later and my head hurts…
A specific distinction between the circumcised and uncircumcised at the end of Galations 6 is pefectly within the character of Paul given the great pains he goes through the early chapters of Romans with such phrases as ‘to the Jew first and to the Greek’. Remember Galations was dealing with separation between Old Covenant practices and New Covenant ‘Christ in you, live my faith please…’, a characteristic struggle I belive was between Jewish believers and Gentile believers at the time.
Brandon mate… go to hear you still carrying the amil banner!
Zechariah 14:3 states “And Jehovah shall go out and fight against those nations, like the day He fought in the day of battle.”
Zech. 14:2 is the verse which describes half the city going into exile etc just to put it in context. So the most obvious point is that the Lord did not go to war against the Romans in AD70 or during the AD135. The next verses describing the Lord standing on the Mountain do not describe God removing His presence to allow judgement to completely shatter the children of Israel… it describes the deliverance of Israel through the mountain, which again didn’t happen in AD70 or AD135.
Amils being anti-Semetic… I’m not touching that, Brandon and I have had our conversation about making generalized statements (nice cop-out)… but seriously, I don’t care what you believe about the End of the Age, if you’re anti-semetic you’ve got bigger problems than your interpretation of eschatology.
God Bless,
Washo
22. Washington | September 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 am
Addenum:
“…dealing with separation between Old Covenant practices and New Covenant ‘Christ in you, live *BY* faith please…’
23. Washington | September 3rd, 2007 at 5:45 am
Addenum #2:
I’m a dyed in the wool apostolic pre-mill btw… just in case it wasn’t clear
24. Brandon | September 3rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Good to see you again too Washington!
I actually today referred a friend of my to our previous conversation as an example of two Christians having differing opinions and it being ok. Concerning the secondary issue of the millennium that is.
Just a question for everyone here, how old is the apostolic pre-mill view? I don’t remember this name being ascribed to it when I lived in KC. However, they had just started the apostolic preaching track.
The reason I ask is because one of the obvious objections to dispensationalism is that it didn’t come about until around 1820. This argument of time isn’t a very good one because it doesn’t address the theological points raised by dispensationalists.
But I am still very curious about how old apostolic premill is.
25. Matt H | September 4th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Apostolic Premill is basically just Classic Premill like Ladd’s and Pawson’s with the additions of a victorious Church, the greatest revival the world has ever seen, and the bridal paradigm, thus escaping the pitfalls of post-trib defeatism. It emphasizes the book of Acts and a yet future outpouring of the Spirit per Joel 2:28. Additional key passages would be John 17:20-26, Ephesians 4:11-16, 5:25-32 and Revelation 22:17.
26. Brandon | September 4th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Oh, I understand the additions and I understand that those additions help apostolic premill escape the defeatism common among historic premill. But apostolic premill is a new variation. And with that I ask how old is it? My guess is five years, but this is based on the idea that it developed out of KC and just recently was given the name apostolic premill. Can anyone help me with this question?
And maybe my understanding is wrong, but I really don’t think there is such a thing as classic premill.
Also, does anyone find it odd that people like Ladd missed the victorious Church, the greatest revival the world has ever seen and the bridal paradigm when he was forming his historic premillennialism? I mean, Matt H, you point to those verses so easily, how did Ladd overlook them?
27. Matt H | September 5th, 2007 at 9:15 am
As far as the name goes, yeah, I think about four or five years. Mike has been teaching the theology behind the name since the eighties though.
Such a thing as “Classic” PM? Yes and no. Yes because it’s pretty clear that the early Church believed Jesus would return before the millennium. No because their eschatology, “Chiliasm”, wasn’t nearly as developed as modern Classic PM.
No, I don’t find it odd. Ladd isn’t Charismatic, so it’s only natural that he wouldn’t see those things. He doesn’t have a grid for them.
28. Brandon | September 5th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Has Mike been teaching as it exist today since the eighties or has he been developing it since the eighties?
Yeah, I’m aware of the history of theology concerning premill, amill, and dispensationalism. (Not postmill though.) That’s why I don’t think you can say something like classic premill.
Do you have to be charismatic to interpret the bible correctly? Was that really Ladd’s problem?
29. David | September 5th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
My questions, Brandon, wouldn’t necessarily follow your line of thinking. While I appreciate where your questions are coming from, theologians tend to write their position papers for each other, rather than simply present a biblical viewpoint for the layman.
In other words, Ladd had a difficult task of presenting a carefully constructed biblical examination of a millennial viewpoint that could stand up to the scrutiny of his collegues, contemporaries, and peers in a time in which the church was extremely skeptical and dismissive of his viewpoints. He needed bullet-proof points that could withstand that skepticism - and as such he really paved the way for later study into the depths of premillennialism.
If his writing at that time didn’t (as his critics contend) stay on “safe” theological ground there may have been no future in the rational sense for “historic” or post-trib premillennialism. So I appreciate the ground he took - I just don’t think he was in a position to be comprehensive or super-detailed in his scriptural examinations; which explains in my opinion his exegesis of Rev. 7.
My question for you, however, would be this - what say you about the actual scruptures themselves? It seems easy to me for one to stay at a similar safe intellectual distance from something without really discussing substantively the scriptures in question. Why this approach?
David
30. Brandon | September 6th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Did you get my last comment? I suspect it didn’t go through.
31. David | September 6th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
No - sorry.
32. Brandon | September 6th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I figured it didn’t, Hey David, I want to email you my response but I can’t find your email on this site.
If you don’t want want to post your email online for all to see just email me brandosmyth@yahoo.com so that I can email you.
33. Washington | September 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Dave’s got a good point… I was going to say that my breakdown of Zechariah 14 was going unnoticed as far as an amill rebuttal is concerned…
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed