John Darby

[VictoryinJesus]

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence.

realize you are speaking to another member and not me. I’m sorry for the intrusion but you seem stuck on a repeat of ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ as proof, His kingdom is not near but instead far off. which baffles me. How can one be ‘in the world’ but not ‘of the world’? By what you say it is impossible to ‘in’ but ‘not of’....but instead ‘not of’ must be ‘not in’.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It is? Okay then, show me where Jesus, or any Disciple, says that the Kingdom has been taken away from Israel and will be offered back to it at a later generation. Also, please show the verses that tell us that this kingdom, because it has been withdrawn from Israel...to be offered at a later date, could not or cannot, therefore, be offered then or now, to the Gentiles, and that therefore the kingdom being offered to the Gentiles throughout the NT must be a different kingdom.
Thank you.

Show me where God lied in the Old Testament when He said these things will come to pass?

But as for Jesus?

Matthew 23:38-39
King James Version

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


Key word? UNTIL- it is not IF or unless.

Acts 1:6-7
King James Version

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.


See? Jesus said that the time of Israel being given the kingdom is in the Fathers hands! He didn't say never or it won't happen- He just instead refocused them for their mission.

And then if you read teh myriad SCriptures I gave you, you would see the kingdom to Israel is a promise from God. A promise He made knowing full well that Israel would work with Rome to crucify Jesus!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No, I have not forgotten, and that is not a problem for me. If you will remember, my claim is that the kingdom that Christ rules and reigns over, is through Christ himself, through his work and power. That is why he was able to say that the kingdom was 'in their midst'...he was standing among them, proclaiming freedom from sins and performing signs that spoke of that very thing and the kingdom truth of it. He was also able to say that the kingdom 'was not of this world' because he was not of this world, and he would soon be leaving it and send the Holy Spirit in his place to continue his good work of the kingdom and gospel...why he could also claim the kingdom was coming in a 'way they could not observe it'.

Think this through for a moment...if the kingdom was going to be a future, physical, theocratic...and by that I mean national...kingdom....how could he have made any of those claims? 'Among them or in their midst'? No...not for millennia. 'Not of this world'? No...it would be of this world, just millennia away. 'In a way they could not observe?' Well, when it came people would be able to observe it quite well...there would be a temple/palace, throne, king.....you see where I'm going.

Now, I do believe the kingdom has a physical component, but in an 'already/not yet' way. At the moment Christ's kingdom is seen manifest through the lives and works of his people here on earth. But after the consummation, when he has made all things new, he will indeed sit on his throne and rule us in a physical way. But it won't be a king ruling a tiny parcel of land and people being made to come bow before him whether they want to or not. In the new earth Christ will be king of the cosmos and every tongue and heart will rejoice.

You are not far from the truth here.

YOu forget the entire context of the proclamation of the kingdom! It was a proclamation to Israel ONLY that teh long awaited kingdom was here. why because the king had come! though it is moot, it was a real legitimate offer to Israel. Jesus knew He would be rejected (He is God) but teh offer was real. If Israel had accepted Jesus as Messiah, He still would have had to die for our sins, but upon HIs resurrection He would have established the millenial 1,000 year kingdom.

But there is a spiritual component to the kingdom, and that is what is manifest in teh church. we are partaking of the blessings of the vine as it says in romans 11. But the spiritual compnent has not nor will cancel the physical component given to Israel as demonstrated by trhe myriad verses I posted to you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I "correct you for having a kingdom"....(insert squinty face of confusion). Do you mean I disagree that the 1000 years spoken of in Rev 20 is a future literal physical 'kingdom'? Because sure, I cop to that, otherwise I'm not sure where else you could get that...there is clearly a kingdom somewhere, the big question is where and what. Would you agree?

It is only a question for those who rely on an allegorical reinterpretation of teh clear teachings of SCripture that the kingdom is firmly planed on earth. As the myriad verses I posted to you show!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ok....so, putting aside for the moment, WHEN the thousand years spoken of might occur, the judging event at the END of Rev 20 comes after this 'millennium', right? So, before 'I saw a new heaven and a new earth'. Which I believe we can safely call the 'beginning of eternity'.
Now, I could spend a good deal of time, but I quite frankly can't be bothered, showing how 'the last day' or the 'end of this age' all lead to the moment of said 'judgment'.
The reason I say 'straddle' is because we cannot really know how long this judgment will take. We know God is all powerful and could judge all within a blink of an eye. But there is nothing suggesting he will or won't. It could take a week, it could take a year. What we have, biblically, are texts pointing to the end of this age, to a 'day' that leads to Christ's return in judgment. And when the judgment is complete, he ushers in the new heavens and new earth.

Now, if you really want to get nit-picky over that, sure, go ahead, but i'm quite comfortable where I am and not going to go beyond what and where scripture clearly draws the lines.

Don't wish to get nit picky. but our differences on timing of the great white throne judgment come from how we understand SCripture. YOu look more allegorically and I look more literally.

See I put the 1,000 year kingdom as part of this age, other dispys don't, for me that is a tempest in a teapot. But when one looks at all the verses I showed you and posted to you, it clearly shows that the events in teh restored (not new) earth cannot be in eternity!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Except, my point is...you can't say that the OT says the kingdom will go to Israel, then come to the NT and have Jesus tell Israel that the kingdom is being taken from them because they are wicked and undeserving. Are you also saying that Jesus is lying? Is God lying? What is the problem?
The tension, as I said, is that the bible is progressive revelation. Which means that things are revealed in the NT in a way to shed light on the OT in ways they might not have considered. Like the fact that there Messiah was not going to come in guns blazing and take out the Romans. He came not to deal with human enemies, but with the spiritual one; sin. The clues to that were there in the OT, but no one GOT it, not even the famed Nicodemus!
My point is this: when we are told that all promises are fulfilled in Jesus...when all that WAS promised to Abraham was, in fact, promised to Christ, and to those 'in him'...we learn that we must look back at all these 'shall come to passes' in the light of Christ....not in the light of 'Israel'. Are those promises coming to pass in Jesus Christ? Will everyone who places their faith IN HIM be able to now, or in the future, be able to look back at all those promises (whether Jew or Gentile) and say 'yes and amen!'? Because THAT is what the NT teaches us. If we only look back at the OT and read it exactly like the Israelites did, then we end up in the same sort of error they did at Christ's first coming....focusing on the wrong things entirely.

No but if you kept that verse in its proper context and in light of all the passages that are declaratory and not conditional you would not come to you rconclusion. It was always about that generation. And guess what the kingdom was taken from them after the events of Matt. 12! And this long diaspora was long prophesied as was shown in all teh verses I posted to you! And their return to the land to prepare them as a nation to receive Jesus as Messiah was also prophesied as I showed you in the verses I posted.

Yes there is progressive revelation. So why don't you change Adam and Eve like some od? Or the flood as some do? or Babel as some do? or the Exodus as some do all under the guise of progressive revelation.

I believe in progressive revelation and have taught it for years! But progressive revelation does not wipe out declared promises made in the old! god still remembers His covenant every time it rains because of the rainbow! Progressive revelation is simply revealing things that prior were either alluded to, implied or only given partial revealing. Paul called them mysteries now revealed and none of them have to do with God revoking His promises to the nation of Israel under the EVERLASTING COVENANTS He made with them.

2 Cor 3:
13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

See verse 15? NOT if or UNLESS but WHEN!

Even the new testament speaks of the restoration of Israel. RE-storing.

Rom. 11

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:

10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

What will they be RE-stored to? The spiritual and physical blessings god prophesied are theirs, would be taken away, and then returned at the end of the 70th week of Daniel!

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

How long will this blindness in part last?????? UNTIL the fulness of the gentiles are brought in!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I find this...interesting. You see...Paul does speak often of mysteries, but often of the mystery that has now been revealed since the coming of Christ. Especially in regards to the union of Jew and Gentile under the new covenant in Christ's blood. To me, that does not suggest we have leave to look back to the OT time where those peoples are separate and expect to therefore look forward to a time where we become separate again. That is not the 'mystery' Paul is explaining...that is the opposite of it.

The reason you sayi these things is because your foundational thinking on this is all wrong.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

As I was yours...however...perhaps at this junction we should allow that rather than being 'twisted' we are just plain misunderstanding one another.

I would like to think that, but I think we both understand each other fine. I know that you see I am just accepting all teh SCriptures as written and keeping verses in light of all the Scriptures.

people who believe that a believer can lose their salvation quote Hebrews 6 and 10 and ignore the rest of SCripture that says we can't! They cannot see that because the SCriptures are dogmatically clear in OSAS that they are isunderstanding exactly what is being said in Hebrews. I believed in those falsehoods for years until I learned better!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You may well disagree with my views on the 1000 years, but they in no way lead me to believe that Satan has any sort of role in eternity.
And I'm not sure what verse your referring to, but any verse that appears within Rev 20 itself or speaks about the judgment or the death of death would, I argue, be relevant to the topic at hand. To suggest otherwise would be to argue for the dismissal of pertinent information based only on whether one liked what they had to say on the topic or not.

Other than being tormented for all eternity in the lake of fire- nor do I believe he has any role.

The rest of this statement needs context for me to understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No, not "by my declarations". Which makes it sound like I'm speaking as God's mouthpiece. I have arrived here through process of elimination. Believe it or not, I started out very much like where you are now, except I was bothered by what I 'couldnt' see of Dispensational teaching within scripture. Don't get me wrong, I wanted to believe it...so I set out to prove it correct to myself...I started researching all the different eschatological beliefs. And yes, I initially scoffed at Amillennial as one of the ones least likely to be valid. Which ended up biting me on my butt. Because systematically I was left with nowhere to go but there. Passage after passage pointed me to a single return of Christ which bought judgment, resurrection, renewal of all things and eternity.
Again, you are most free to disagree, but I prefer that you not say that I am 'declaring' that my view must be so. I think I can make a good argument for it. I think I can make a biblical case for it. But eschatology is not a hill I will die on. It's a hill I'm very much interested in and enjoy debating on...but I'm always most careful to keep apprised of other views and what is happening in the world. Jesus told us to stay awake, and I think part of that is staying awake to any potential error we might make in our own interpretation as well as others.

Well not knowing what you could not see in dispensational teaching, I am unable to comment on that.

You are right. I love escatology! I have taught it for nearly three decades! But no one will lose their salvation if they are looking symbolically and not literally (sorry , I couldn't help putting a little dig here ). Over the years I have seen wrong understandings produce very bizaare skewed bviews of SCripture. Do I think I am 100% right? Yup! does that make me 100% right? Nope! I love to engage on this a subject God laid on my heart so long ago. I defend ferociously but am always willing to change ( as I have in many areas over the years) if a better argument can be made from the Scriptures.

Our biggest disagreement is how we approach the Scriptures. I from a dispensational and you from a covenantal way! I accepted covenantal eschatology for years, for it was the first I was exposed to. But the biggest issue is that there are so many covennatl views of eschatology with so many differing allegorical opinions- who is right? I am not talking about minor issues (for even dispys have disagreemetns over some things) but big issues declaring what they say a passage actually means allegorically. Which is why I ask covenantal folk, why should I accept your allegorical views (and it is mostly of OT promises and the nature of Israel future) more than others allegorical views? what makes you right and the others wrong?

 

[Naomi25]

What I said certainly are not contortions of my mind. They are from the direct revelation of Scripture in God's Word. Only those who heed men's doctrines instead refuse to grasp those things as written in God's Word.

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence.
KJV

Those of men's doctrines who try to say His kingdom is already established on earth today are the deceived who will be part of the coming Antichrist's false kingdom in our near future. Some of them (Full Preterists) even believe that today is all there will be, that Jesus isn't returning literally, so they believe it's up to them to try and establish His kingdom for Him today. That will NEVER happen, simply because this present world is not the time when Lord Jesus will restore the kingdom of Israel, which is His rightful Kingdom, sitting upon David's throne!

But O yeah, I forgot. The men you listen to don't regard Christ's inheritance of David's throne, because they falsely teach that Jesus is sitting on it now, in Heaven, when He is not. Jesus at present is sitting at the right hand of The Father's throne. David's throne is an EARTHLY throne and will involve the LITERAL restoration of the old kingdom of Israel, with His Apostles sitting upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, as written.

So you can make excuses that this is not God's Word, and believe men's doctrinal delusions all you want instead, it's they that are creating the actual contortions in your own mind.

The very great reason I am not interested in engaging in discussion with you is that you tend to make sweeping statements of both assumption and of arrogance.
You start from a place of absolute superiority in your understanding and doctrine, labeling and therefore dismissing the notion that the other may have a doctrine equally worthy of consideration. Note I do not say 'correct'. There can be, ultimately, only one truth, but you seem incapable of realizing that if one differs in opinion to you, then that opinion cannot be formed in and by scripture and by careful, faithful consideration of scripture...and thereby it is worthy of consideration. That does not make it a 'doctrine of man' in the sense that it is a false heresy being pushed in an ignorant or evil way. It makes it something that should warrant in depth, faithful discussion by those who love God's word and want to burrow deeply into it to discover it's true intent. This simply cannot happen and will not happen when someone...like you, begins and continues any conversation by dismissing any view but your own as something completely outside of scripture. That is completely being false in the characterization of who I am, where I have gleaned my doctrines from and what I seek from it....my ultimate goals. All of which, you cannot really know, and yet you have decided to label anyway. Thus, there is no point conversing with you, as you have already categorized me and my views...incorrectly, I believe. But there is simply no point me attempting to discuss my views in depth when you have so categorically decided where and how I gather my beliefs and values.

 

[Naomi25]

Show me where God lied in the Old Testament when He said these things will come to pass?

First...I believe I addressed the tension between the OT/NT promises later on in my previous post, so I'm not sure I need to go over that again. Secondly, why on earth would any NT fulfillment in Christ of these promises mean that God lied? Do you see any of the OT promises that the Messiah will free his people from their enemies as lies, when Jesus actually came to free people from the enemy of Satan and sin? Of course not.

But as for Jesus?

Matthew 23:38-39
King James Version

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


Key word? UNTIL- it is not IF or unless.

We already know, from Romans 9-11 that when the times of the Gentiles comes to a close, we can expect God to draw great numbers of Jews to Christ...grafting them back onto the olive tree...the root that is Christ.
The problem for you is that this in no way precludes the notion that the kingdom was still present back then, being offered to the Gentiles who were grafted onto that olive tree in belief. Present then, and present now. Every person who becomes a believer and is grafted onto the tree becomes a partaker in the kingdom.
And, when the Jewish people are drawn back and en-mass declare Christ to be their Messiah, they too will be partakers in this kingdom.
Again....this does not mean the kingdom was offered...withdrawn...and will only be offered again to Jews at a future time.

Acts 1:6-7
King James Version

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.


See? Jesus said that the time of Israel being given the kingdom is in the Fathers hands! He didn't say never or it won't happen- He just instead refocused them for their mission.

He also didn't say it will only happen in a future time for Israel only.
We see multiple references to the kingdom throughout the epistles. The kingdom was not a reality that dissipated when the Jews rejected Christ. As Christ's own parables showed, it was then offered to the Gentiles (and any believing Jew). Look at what John said in Revelation:

Revelation 1:9 - I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Not only does he claim to be a partner of his fellow Christians in tribulation, but also in the kingdom.
The Acts passage is once more showing us that the kingdom comes not in a way we expect. First, in this age, it comes through the preaching and spreading of the gospel:

Matthew 24:14 - And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

And then it comes as an earthly reality, when the 'end comes' and the new earth is set up with Christ as glorious king.

And then if you read teh myriad SCriptures I gave you, you would see the kingdom to Israel is a promise from God. A promise He made knowing full well that Israel would work with Rome to crucify Jesus!

Again, we run into that fundamental interpretative wall. You cannot see past these 'literal' promises made in the OT. But the NT repeatedly tells us that the OT was types and shadows for bigger and better things...even those promises.
Let's start with a small example: we know that the promise made to Abraham, to his 'offspring' was, according to Paul, actually made to Jesus Christ, and through him, all who are found in him. That's pure scripture, not my interpretive bent.

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ....And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. -Galatians 3:16,29

According to Paul, any believer in Christ is an heir to the promises made to Abraham. Which I know is a touchy subject to many Dispensationalist. But let's press on: why is it that most Gentile believers aren't trying to place a claim on the 'holy land'? If that parcel of land was the full extent of God's promise to Abraham, and Paul just told us that is, essentially, our inheritance, why aren't we pushing for it?
It's because we understand it's not actually about the land of Israel. Christ's first coming was not about defeating earthly enemies and freeing a parcel of land. It was about world conquest...in a spiritual way. It was to 'set the captives free'. When a person is released from the bonds of sin and that ultimate second death, we become 'heirs with Christ' in an inheritance much bigger than just the land of Israel:

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. -Ephesians 1:11–14

This "inheritance" is something we receive in the "not yet" part of the kingdom, when his 'kingdom comes' in the new earth. And its not a small parcel of land. Its the cosmos. It's a perfect world, perfected bodies, no sin, no death, no tears.

All the promises in the OT were shadows of what the real thing will be. They were using earthly types to portray what will be an extraordinary reality in eternity. Very, very real, very literal and true. But much bigger than you can expect.

 

[Naomi25]

You are not far from the truth here.

YOu forget the entire context of the proclamation of the kingdom! It was a proclamation to Israel ONLY that teh long awaited kingdom was here. why because the king had come! though it is moot, it was a real legitimate offer to Israel. Jesus knew He would be rejected (He is God) but teh offer was real. If Israel had accepted Jesus as Messiah, He still would have had to die for our sins, but upon HIs resurrection He would have established the millenial 1,000 year kingdom.

Yes it was a proclamation to Israel, but once more, you do not factor in the parables Jesus told TO the Jews of how the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to another people. That would be the Gentiles. And the rest of the NT gives us plenty of proof that it was. You cannot ignore how often the kingdom is spoken of in the rest of the NT. If the kingdom was simply taken away from the Jews, and not seen again until some future time until they recognized Jesus as their Messiah, how do you explain Jesus' parables and all these references?

But there is a spiritual component to the kingdom, and that is what is manifest in teh church. we are partaking of the blessings of the vine as it says in romans 11. But the spiritual compnent has not nor will cancel the physical component given to Israel as demonstrated by trhe myriad verses I posted to you.

So...essentially you are arguing that the spiritual and physical aspects of the kingdom are completely separated...?
Here's the problem with that....for you. First; they are still part of the same kingdom, which means there is still a biblical case for it to BE the kingdom...which, if you will remember, is an argument FOR it being the millennial kingdom. Because we have a kingdom now with Christ reigning over it.
Secondly, the idea that the physical nature of the kingdom HAS to be before the perfect, eternal 'new earth' is purely assumption. The promises we have in Christ...and so by that I mean that we are given in the NT light of his coming...all point to the inheritance we have saved up for us in eternity, when we shed sin and death for what he has won for us. There is nothing in the NT that backs up the OT 'types and shadows' notion that the physical aspect of the kingdom must come wedged into a time period between this age and the next age.

 

[Naomi25]

It is only a question for those who rely on an allegorical reinterpretation of teh clear teachings of SCripture that the kingdom is firmly planed on earth. As the myriad verses I posted to you show!

Hmmm...yes..."clear". I suppose that does depend on where you're sitting. From my position your getting your view from an erroneous focus on OT promises when the NT 'clearly' calls us to read it otherwise, and from Revelation, a notoriously apocalyptic book so choc-a-block full of imagery it puts Daniel an Ezekiel to shame.
Like I keep saying...we're just on different wave lengths.

 

[Naomi25]

Don't wish to get nit picky. but our differences on timing of the great white throne judgment come from how we understand SCripture. YOu look more allegorically and I look more literally.

See I put the 1,000 year kingdom as part of this age, other dispys don't, for me that is a tempest in a teapot. But when one looks at all the verses I showed you and posted to you, it clearly shows that the events in teh restored (not new) earth cannot be in eternity!

Well, I thoroughly agree they cannot be in eternity. But...I can't see that they can be in 'this age' either. When we look at several texts, we see that many events of Christ's coming signal an end to things that cannot be pushed past it and into a Millennial period:


Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear...
So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. -Matthew 13:40-43,49–50

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”....
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. -Matthew 24:3,29-31

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” -John 6:40

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. -John 6:54

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” -John 11:23–24

The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. -John 12:48

But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. -1 Corinthians 15:23–26

There are many other verses, but the gist of this is that when Christ returns we see the judgment of the wicked and just happening on this 'last day'. The wicked go into everlasting fire, the just go into eternal life. We've already agree that the millennium cannot be 'eternal life'.
We also see that the Rapture is the event...the 'gathering together of the elect' that signals an end to death. Matt 24 specifically puts this event at the end of the tribulation and when 'all nations see the Son of Man and mourn'.
I could add in 2 Peter 3 where we are told that at Christ's return the heavens and earth are burned up. Basically, there is nothing, in ANY of these scriptures, that allow us to speculate that after Christ's return ANYONE will escape judgment (good or bad) and then be ushered into their eternal afterwards. And there is nothing to suggest that death survives afterward either. And I believe sin and death are supposed to survive into your version of the millennium, are they not?

 

[Naomi25]

No but if you kept that verse in its proper context and in light of all the passages that are declaratory and not conditional you would not come to you rconclusion. It was always about that generation. And guess what the kingdom was taken from them after the events of Matt. 12! And this long diaspora was long prophesied as was shown in all teh verses I posted to you! And their return to the land to prepare them as a nation to receive Jesus as Messiah was also prophesied as I showed you in the verses I posted.

It wasn't about a generation. It was about unbelief. It was about disobedience and an outright rejection of Messiah.
Can you honestly look at the verses below and say to yourself that the NT teaches that when the next generation of Israel came along the kingdom was offered to them as a national whole again? Or does it tell us that the kingdom was offered to a different people...a people producing fruit? Paul tells us what this means.....that IN Christ there IS no more Jew or Gentile, there is just one body in Jesus, and it is to them whom the kingdom is offered.

Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. -Matthew 21:37–43


Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ...
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. -Galatians 3:16,27–29

I recognize you want to push on the 'the promise was unconditional' button, but once again, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the promise. Paul tells us that the promises made to Abraham and his 'offspring' were, in actuality, made to Christ and everyone who is found IN him. We also see in the NT that "all promises find their yes and amen in Christ Jesus".
This is where the unconditional grace comes into play. Those of us found in Christ Jesus did nothing to receive that grace. To receive the gift and inheritance we have in store for us. And that includes a great number of elect Israelite's in the OT, whom Paul tells us were saved via faith, and that are also saved now through faith. Thus Paul tells us that God's promises to the Jews has not failed...there is a 'remnant' who have received this unconditional inheritance through Christ. And we know from Romans 11 that a great multitude more of national Jews will come into that inheritance when they come to Christ towards the end.
But if you cannot see that the NT points all things, even all the OT promises at and through Christ, you are missing the entire focus and lodestone of scripture. You are turning what needs to be a Christ-centric book into an Israel-centric book. And that's just wrong. Because it was Israels purpose to point to Christ.

Yes there is progressive revelation. So why don't you change Adam and Eve like some od? Or the flood as some do? or Babel as some do? or the Exodus as some do all under the guise of progressive revelation.

Not following you at all here. How does progressive revelation change historical events? Progressive revelation can shed light on WHY historical events took place or perhaps the importance of those historical events, but it should not change the fact that they took place or the manner in which they took place.

I believe in progressive revelation and have taught it for years! But progressive revelation does not wipe out declared promises made in the old! god still remembers His covenant every time it rains because of the rainbow! Progressive revelation is simply revealing things that prior were either alluded to, implied or only given partial revealing. Paul called them mysteries now revealed and none of them have to do with God revoking His promises to the nation of Israel under the EVERLASTING COVENANTS He made with them.

2 Cor 3:
13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

See verse 15? NOT if or UNLESS but WHEN!

But...how is this anything other than the wonder of Jewish people coming to Christ....which we know happens all the time? It is implied throughout the NT that Jews are part of the new covenant body of Christ AND that this influx of Jews will increase at the end of days. In point of fact, if we read the passage before the one you quoted, we see that Paul is in fact arguing that the old covenant system is thoroughly done away with. That in light of the 'new glory' of Christ and what he had bought, to both Jews and Gentiles, the things of the OT 'have no glory at all'. In essence, the promises IN and THROUGH Jesus Christ supersede that of the OT. The fact that Jews largely are 'veiled' at this time fits rather nicely with Paul's references in Romans 11 that they are 'partially blinded' for a time so that the Gentiles might be saved.

Even the new testament speaks of the restoration of Israel. RE-storing.

Rom. 11

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:

10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

What will they be RE-stored to? The spiritual and physical blessings god prophesied are theirs, would be taken away, and then returned at the end of the 70th week of Daniel!

I have never denied the 'restoring' of Israel. But as Romans 11 clearly points out, that restoring is not to a separate religious or even theocratic entity. They become believers in Messiah, Christ Jesus and are therefore grafted back into the olive tree, of whom Jesus is the nourishing 'holy' root. That tree is where believing 'gentiles' are already being 'nourished' at this time.
This means, as Galatians 3 states, all believers become one body of faith under Christ. There is no room in Romans 11 to find separate plans, separate peoples. Paul spends a good deal of time in the NT breaking down the walls of division between Jew and Gentile and stressing that we all become one under Christ in the new covenant.
That means that, like us, their inheritance comes through Christ, through his heir-ship (if there is such a word) of Abraham's promise. And that inheritance is one of eternal and all encompassing worth, not just of a small parcel of land.
Now, its entirely possible that in eternity those 'beloved on account of the forefathers' will be given specific places to govern...I'm not discounting that possibility, but I think its clear from NT teaching that every single person...Jew or Gentile, has but one way to the Father...Jesus. And once 'in him' we are one body. And that in him, all promises are found and finalized.

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

How long will this blindness in part last?????? UNTIL the fulness of the gentiles are brought in!

Again, I have no issue with this. I concur that Romans 11 teaches a last days influx of national Jewish believers. But the passage is equally clear that this is not, in any way, a gathering in to be a separate peoples under God or Jesus, but instead a unified body in Christ.

 

[Naomi25]

The reason you sayi these things is because your foundational thinking on this is all wrong.

Right back at 'ya.

 

[Naomi25]

I would like to think that, but I think we both understand each other fine. I know that you see I am just accepting all teh SCriptures as written and keeping verses in light of all the Scriptures.

So, wait. I know that you are interpreting scripture in a sound, virtuous manner, while at the same time arguing for a completely different interpretation.
That either makes me stupid, duplicitous or just very, very confused.
I'll take the 4th option which is...I think we are both doing our best to represent how we see scripture, but wholly disagree with how the other sees it and their basic interpretative grid.
Which doesn't make either of us the problematic things above, but does make for difficult conversations.

people who believe that a believer can lose their salvation quote Hebrews 6 and 10 and ignore the rest of SCripture that says we can't! They cannot see that because the SCriptures are dogmatically clear in OSAS that they are isunderstanding exactly what is being said in Hebrews. I believed in those falsehoods for years until I learned better!

While I agree with you on the OSAS issue, I'm not exactly sure how it has any bearing on our conversation at large.
I think its a given that we are understanding scripture on a fundamentally different level. And, it's a fairly considerable issue. When I see the the NT as guiding us to read the OT through 'Christ-centric' lenses and you insist on bringing the OT firmly into the NT and making it land there regardless, I'm not sure we can find much common ground there. I think ultimately, and maybe even soon, we must give up...there is only so many times we can go around this merry-go-round before we must confess we'll never see eye to eye and not likely convince each other that our hermeneutical basis is incorrect.

 

[Naomi25]

Other than being tormented for all eternity in the lake of fire- nor do I believe he has any role.

The rest of this statement needs context for me to understand what you are trying to say.

Which is rather ironic, because the 'rest of this statement' was me reacting to the fact I wasn't sure what you were saying and attempting to cast a wide net in order to give a basic idea of what I thought about the topic in general.
So, how's about we shrug, ignore it, and move on.

 

[Naomi25]

Well not knowing what you could not see in dispensational teaching, I am unable to comment on that.

You are right. I love escatology! I have taught it for nearly three decades! But no one will lose their salvation if they are looking symbolically and not literally (sorry , I couldn't help putting a little dig here ). Over the years I have seen wrong understandings produce very bizaare skewed bviews of SCripture. Do I think I am 100% right? Yup! does that make me 100% right? Nope! I love to engage on this a subject God laid on my heart so long ago. I defend ferociously but am always willing to change ( as I have in many areas over the years) if a better argument can be made from the Scriptures.

Our biggest disagreement is how we approach the Scriptures. I from a dispensational and you from a covenantal way! I accepted covenantal eschatology for years, for it was the first I was exposed to. But the biggest issue is that there are so many covennatl views of eschatology with so many differing allegorical opinions- who is right? I am not talking about minor issues (for even dispys have disagreemetns over some things) but big issues declaring what they say a passage actually means allegorically. Which is why I ask covenantal folk, why should I accept your allegorical views (and it is mostly of OT promises and the nature of Israel future) more than others allegorical views? what makes you right and the others wrong?

As you say, there are many different opinions, even within specific eschatological beliefs. And sure, I would definitely say that there are those who 'spiritualize' way too much. But I'd also say that there are those who attempt to 'literalize' way too much. To the point of absurdity or impracticality.
I'd say that the best thing to do is pull our interpretive grid from scripture itself. It's usually pretty clear when its using imagery...or re-using it. The good thing about 'types and shadows' is that God uses things again, uses images or illustrations, either from visions or very real events to make his point. When he uses imagery, he most often explains it for us, at least once...and when that image is used again we can look back to where it has been explained. And when a type or shadow in a real event is being repurposed to point to something more powerful...for example...the first Adam and the second Adam, we are told about it and scripture explains the ideas behind it. The NT is full of these 'types and shadows' explanations. And while I know you completely disagree with me, it's these that have led me to where I am.