Fide-o Search

Loading...

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Was Jesus Premil or Postmil or Amil?

One of the questions Dr. MacArthur asked in his speech Wednesday morning was, "Was Jesus an Amil?" He asked us to turn to Acts 1:1-7.

Dr. MacArthur "camped out" on verse three and drove home the point that for forty days Jesus taught the disciples about the kingdom. Dr. MacArthur noted then in verse six that the disciples asked, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" To which MacArthur said, "Jesus said 'No!'.

But I have read verses seven and eight and I still can not find where Jesus said, "No." I did read where Jesus said that His power will come upon them to be witnesses globally. I did read where Peter declared that Jesus was seated on the throne of David which means the kingdom has arrived. See Acts 2:29-36. Peter also said in Acts 3:22ff that Moses prophesied of the NC church and "all the prophets from Samuel and those who follow... have also foretold these days." In other words, "these days" are the days of the kingdom that the OT prophets were prophesying the fulfilling of the covenant made with Abraham. Peter explains it this way: "You are sons of the prophets, and the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities (Acts 3:25-26)."

So it is clear from a normal reading that Peter meant exactly what he said, the NC church is the fulfillment of the OT covenants. God has kept His promises faithfully and Christ is the sum and substance of those promises!

Concerning Dr. MacArthur's assertion that Amillers deny sovereign election, I am appalled. Not only am a five-point-plus Calvinist, I believe that the Body of Christ is the proof of sovereign election! And while Dispys are focusing on the physical typological nature of God's covenants, Amillers recognize that those types pointed to and were fulfilled in Christ. While Dispys focus on the land Abraham was to get, Amillers focus on the same thing as the Apostle Peter, namely, "In your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

The exaltation of Christ seated him as the promised King who shall restore God's Israel. Christ has been exalted and His kingdom was established and is expanding. Peter explained further in Acts 5:31, "Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Notice this is about Israel. The Dispys say, "No, it will be about Israel in the future." Well that is not what Peter said in the very next verse (Acts 5:32), "And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him." Peter claimed to be a witness of the restoration of Israel!

The same is confirmed in the entirety of Stephen's sermon in Acts 7.

And by the way, when Abraham got to the promised land, he himself recognized that it was not about the land but Christ according to Hebrews 11:9-10. In fact, the writer of Hebrews explained that Abraham "did not receive the promise" until they were united with the NC church (Hebrews 11:39-40). The "perfection" of Hebrews 11:40 is the NC church, united as the Body of Christ by His Spirit. Two verses later the writer explains that Jesus is "the author and finisher of our faith!

So was Jesus amil? Friends, Jesus IS the millennium!

8 Spoke Up:

Gene Cook, Jr. said...

So much for the "literal" reading of the text.

These dispies that commented on your other post drive me nuts. They don't acknowledge the literal words of Jesus "the Kingdom of God is in your midst". Which is a straight forward didactic teaching and instead the jump over to the most symbolic book of the bible and try to force a "literal" interpretation. What is wrong with this picture?

Maybe one of you dispies can tell me something that I am dying to know. That chain that the angel has in Rev. 20:1 what is it used for? Because verse 7 says that Satan is placed in prison. Maybe the jail is one of those old fashioned prisons like they have in Mexico where you have to lock the door with a bicycle chain?

Alan Kurschner said...

*I am not a pretrib-dispy*

After 40 days of Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom, it is informative that the disciples ask, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

i) This question reveals that they have learned from Jesus that some aspect of the kindgom has not been fulfilled yet.

ii) and they have learned that an ethnic Israel will play some part in it.

Jesus' answer to them affirms these two beliefs by noting that the "when" is given to the Father (as Jesus also teaches in Matthew 24).

So how do we then understand statements such as in Acts 2 from Peter that indicate that the kingdom is here?

It is not difficult if one sees an already/not-yet dimension to kingdom theology.

And while Dispys are focusing on the physical typological nature of God's covenants, Amillers recognize that those types pointed to and were fulfilled in Christ.

It is not either/or, but both/and.

Blessings,
Alan

Jason E. Robertson said...

What Dr. MacArthur wants us to all agree upon is that if one only had an Old Testament and one interpreted it literally, then one would have no option but premillennialism.

Several passages in Bible reveals that the OT prophets spoke of the rejection of the Messiah and the global nature of the NC church.

In short, my point is that I would disagree that the only literal interpretation is premil.

John the Baptist, the last OT prophet, said "The time IS FULFILLED and the kingdom of God IS at hand. Repent and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:15)

Or read Zacharias' prophecy in Luke 1:67ff and explain to me how that is premil???

Peter declares that the prophet of the OT testified of the sufferings of Christ and glories that would follow (1Peter 1:11).

Fred Butler said...

Hey Gene,
You don't hold to that "short chain" view of the devil who is only partially active in the world, do you?

Fred

Bobby Grow said...

Let me, as a progressive-dispy, echo and re-inforce Alan's comment. The kingdom has an both/and component to it--i.e. spiritual and physical. Ez.36:24ff--37. It starts with the New Covenant heart change, and culminates, relative to this context in Ez, with the remnant of Jews (Rom 9--11)in the LAND under the Davidic rule of Christ for a thousand yrs.

There is a "now and not yet" tension at work in the NT relative to the kingdom. Gene you're right the kingdom has come "now", yet it will be full realized at the establishment of the Messianic Age, i.e. "not yet".

Again, it's as Alan has pointed out, this is a both/and reality.

johnMark said...

Jason,

Thanks for these posts on this subject. I want to hear this message and I hope it becomes available. It's funny that the "your not literal" charge is thrown out. No one is purely "literal" in the way that word is used.

Mark
www.hereiblog.com

p.s. I wonder who all the Atlanta folks are hitting this blog. I barely know any local bloggers.

63 Fruit St. #3 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Phil Walker said...

Just wanted to compliment you on the ending to that post. I'd never really thought of putting it as strongly that way as you did, but it's wonderful... Jesus is the Millennium. Amen!