Dropping the D??

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

This may come as a SEVERE shock, but I am seriously contemplating dropping the D from my F stance. My concern is that I am still very firmly Futurist, but I don't know if I can successfully defend Dispensationalism any more considering my recent study on the timelessness and immutability of God. There is still lingering doubt, and a few pesky verses that I can't explain any other way except a form of dispensationalism, hence my reluctance to drop it.

So, pick yourselves up off the floor and give me a hand either way, won't you?

Thanks
Bill

[themuzicman]

This may come as a SEVERE shock, but I am seriously contemplating dropping the D from my F stance. My concern is that I am still very firmly Futurist, but I don't know if I can successfully defend Dispensationalism any more considering my recent study on the timelessness and immutability of God. There is still lingering doubt, and a few pesky verses that I can't explain any other way except a form of dispensationalism, hence my reluctance to drop it.

So, pick yourselves up off the floor and give me a hand either way, won't you?

Thanks
Bill
Leaning more towards timelessness and immutatiliby or away from it?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Leaning more towards timelessness and immutatiliby or away from it?
toward

[themuzicman]

toward
:doh:

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

:doh:
That seems to be a pattern with you...

[themuzicman]

That seems to be a pattern with you...
That happens when people develop pointy heads about things like this, and ignore the obvious.

Michael

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

toward

:woohoo: (just to spite muz's :doh:)

IMO, I very positive step. The D in DF is IMO the much weaker link than the F (and you know I am not a big fan of the F either).
















(Hint: My guess is that the "problem verses" that cause you to still cling to Dispensationalism can easily be resolved if you also abandon your futurism. :eek:)





(Hey, I gotta try)

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

That happens when people develop pointy heads about things like this, and ignore the obvious.

Michael

Sorry man. This thread ain't about OVT, so I'd like to reserve that discussion for another day. Cool?

[themuzicman]

Sorry man. This thread ain't about OVT, so I'd like to reserve that discussion for another day. Cool?
that's cool.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Bill I am a futurist too. And I have pretty much given up on the "D" - it seems too 'forced' as if history is all being nicely sliced up into neat little chunks that is perfect for selling books and timeline charts but doesn't seem to correspond with reality, which is a bit more messy and blurred.

Still a futurist though.

[themuzicman]

So, if you're not "D", does that make you guys covenantal, then?

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

So, if you're not "D", does that make you guys covenantal, then?

I dont have a clue muz. maybe 'historical'

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I dont have a clue muz. maybe 'historical'
I have a question.

I do not think that furutism as a whole is dependent on dispensationalism. However, the pre-trib secret rapture of the church does seem to depend on dispensationalism or a least a vast majority of the rationale I've seen for it rest on the dispensation of the "Church" being over.

So are either one of you (Sparko or Bill) still holding to a pre-trib sectret rapture?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

So, if you're not "D", does that make you guys covenantal, then?

:nsm: I am not that far yet..

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Bill I am a futurist too. And I have pretty much given up on the "D" - it seems too 'forced' as if history is all being nicely sliced up into neat little chunks that is perfect for selling books and timeline charts but doesn't seem to correspond with reality, which is a bit more messy and blurred.

Still a futurist though.

For me, its not even the "slicing up history" as much as the overlaying "grace through faith" theme of scripture. I'll be posting my problem verses here later tonight, God willing...

[Trout]

:nsm: I am not that far yet..

There's an excellent little thing from William Craig called, "God, Time and Eternity". It really helps to unpack the concept of time without an eschatalogical agenda., Bill.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I have a question.

I do not think that furutism as a whole is dependent on dispensationalism. However, the pre-trib secret rapture of the church does seem to depend on dispensationalism or a least a vast majority of the rationale I've seen for it rest on the dispensation of the "Church" being over.

So are either one of you (Sparko or Bill) still holding to a pre-trib sectret rapture?

I do, but like all major shifts, and I believe I am in the middle of one, I'll have to see how this affects my other theological areas.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

There's an excellent little thing from William Craig called, "God, Time and Eternity". It really helps to unpack the concept of time without an eschatalogical agenda., Bill.
I've been reading Craig lately, and there is much I agreewith him on, but He still believes in a sort of "real time" from God's perspective, contrary to my belief of a timeless God, in the manner of Augustine of Hippo.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

I have a question.

I do not think that furutism as a whole is dependent on dispensationalism. However, the pre-trib secret rapture of the church does seem to depend on dispensationalism or a least a vast majority of the rationale I've seen for it rest on the dispensation of the "Church" being over.

So are either one of you (Sparko or Bill) still holding to a pre-trib sectret rapture?

I don't see it that way. I see the rapture simply as God pulling his people out of harm's way before destroying the earth, just like he did with Noah, or with Lot. I think calling that 'the end of the church dispensation' is just a label made up so that the dispensationalists can label it neatly on their timeline.

[FlimFlamboyant]

This may come as a SEVERE shock, but I am seriously contemplating dropping the D from my F stance. My concern is that I am still very firmly Futurist, but I don't know if I can successfully defend Dispensationalism any more considering my recent study on the timelessness and immutability of God. There is still lingering doubt, and a few pesky verses that I can't explain any other way except a form of dispensationalism, hence my reluctance to drop it.
Gee... D is one of those things that's so subjective, I have no idea what you're even talking about. Are there some specifics to this .. uhm... "flavor" of D that you have come to find indefensible that you'd like to share? I consider myself "dispensational" in a sense, but probably nothing like what most people would assume after hearing that.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Gee... D is one of those things that's so subjective, I have no idea what you're even talking about. Are there some specifics to this .. uhm... "flavor" of D that you have come to find indefensible that you'd like to share? I consider myself "dispensational" in a sense, but probably nothing like what most people would assume after hearing that.
The whole concept that God deals with different groups at different times in different ways is too much for me to believe. Its dificult to explain, honestly. I have all of these arguments going in my head and I don't know where to begin ... All I know is that God has always saved by grace through faith, not different methods. What that means beyond that, I don't know.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

The whole concept that God deals with different groups at different times in different ways is too much for me to believe. Its dificult to explain, honestly. I have all of these arguments going in my head and I don't know where to begin ... All I know is that God has always saved by grace through faith, not different methods. What that means beyond that, I don't know.

Yeah I totally agree with that. Even in the OT, God was saving by Grace through Faith. The sacrifices were just a physical representation of Christs work on the cross. A metaphor to help them understand that someone else was paying for their sins so they could be forgiven through God's grace.

[FlimFlamboyant]

The whole concept that God deals with different groups at different times in different ways is too much for me to believe. Its dificult to explain, honestly. I have all of these arguments going in my head and I don't know where to begin ...
Well, I can think of a few things, such as the conditional blessings of the law covenant. There are also many trivial matters in which God has changed his dealings with man as well; such as the dietary requirements (Adam = veggies, Noah = anything but blood and things strangled, Israel = Same as Noah, but with many more restrictions on top of that, us = anything).

All I know is that God has always saved by grace through faith, not different methods.
Now that I agree with completely. Even while the Old Covenant was in effect, it is evident that it was a conditional covenant that affected Israel's physical blessings only; not their eternal salvation. There are those who would claim that they were saved by works, and we aren't, but not only do I disagree with that notion (just look at their father, Abraham), but I don't consider that belief to be a tenet of dispensationalism in general.

The fact that we're not under law but under grace today simply means that we aren't being actively and physically judged by God in this present time according to our adherance to the law of Moses. The fact that we're not under the law also opens the door for Gentiles to have access to God directly; without having to use Israel as a conduit, whether it be by blessing them, or becoming one of them.

Now I know that there are many in dispensational camps who stress the "two gospels" issue a great deal, but the bottom line is this. Abraham was saved by believing God. Israel was saved by believing God. We are saved by believing God. That's it. Abraham believed God when he told him "so shall thy seed be", and it was counted to him for righteous. We believe God when he tells us "Jesus Christ died for our sins", and that is counted to us for righteousness. The message hasn't always been the same, but the fact that we are saved by grace through faith in the Lord has never changed. The fact that the blood of Christ is what ultimately atones for the sins of mankind has also never changed.

[themuzicman]

Well, I can think of a few things, such as the conditional blessings of the law covenant. There are also many trivial matters in which God has changed his dealings with man as well; such as the dietary requirements (Adam = veggies, Noah = anything but blood and things strangled, Israel = Same as Noah, but with many more restrictions on top of that, us = anything).


1) Nowhere is Adam restricted to veggies.
2) Israel's dietary restrictions were a function of the separate nature of Israel to those around them
3) The Jerusalem said not to eat meat from strangled animals and blood. This was written to the Church.

Not sure how you see discontinuity, here.

Michael

[FlimFlamboyant]

1) Nowhere is Adam restricted to veggies.
Urgh... At the risk of opening a very pointless can of worms, I'll offer a couple of things here.

I agree that there is no explicit commandment that Adam could eat nothing other than "veggies". However, there's a strong implication:

(Gen 1:29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Secondly, it seems quite odd to me that God would have to tell Noah that it's ok to eat meat just as the green herb if that were already the norm:

(Gen 9:3) Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

2) Israel's dietary restrictions were a function of the separate nature of Israel to those around them
Absolutely correct. How does that change the fact that his commandments to Israel differed from that which he gave to Noah?

3) The Jerusalem said not to eat meat from strangled animals and blood. This was written to the Church.
The Jerusalem church, I'm assuming you're speaking of here. Yes, they did, but this was not offered on the basis that the Lord had commanded it, nor did they phrase it as a commandment, but a request. Why?:

(Act 15:20,21) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

To keep the peace.

Also consider this request in the same passage:

(Act 15:29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Was this a commandment of the Lord, or simply a request of the elders in Jerusalem on behalf of their people who might take offense?

(1Co 8:8) But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat [meat offered to idols], are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

For us, it doesn't matter. However, there are circumstances where this liberty we have (that Israel under the Old Covenant did not have) could cause another man to stumble, in which cases, we should refrain, not because we've been commanded to abstain from such things, but because of their weak conscience:

(1Co 8:9-11) But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So, if you're not "D", does that make you guys covenantal, then?One problem I have with a lot of Reformed people is that they assume those are the only two options. Either you accept dispensationalism or you accept covenant theology.


Apparently Reformed people aren't the only ones suffering from this condition.

[dizzle]

Well Bill that is step rapidly in a more theologically sane direction (that is hyperbole! please no one start a locker room thread :smile:). I have a whole lot more issue with the D than the F. As I said in the LR, the D is just horrible theology IMHO.

I have a book to recommend to you, I gotta dig up the title, remind me. It is about the issue of immutability

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well Bill that is step rapidly in a more theologically sane direction (that is hyperbole! please no one start a locker room thread :smile:). I have a whole lot more issue with the D than the F. As I said in the LR, the D is just horrible theology IMHO.Well, that depends on how highly one values consistency. If a person holds to a futuristic view of, say, Jeremiah 31, then they should, if they want to remain consistent, have a pretty dispensational eschatology.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Well, that depends on how highly one values consistency. If a person holds to a futuristic view of, say, Jeremiah 31, then they should, if they want to remain consistent, have a pretty dispensational eschatology.
I am looking into Progressive Dispensationalism, but there are issues I have with that too...

There are a set of questions that helped me see that I may not be a true Dispy any more:

from http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html

Is a dispensationalist one who sees a series of 'dispensations' in God's dealings with mankind?

To a certain degree, I would say yes. This is evidenced by the differences in the various covenants in the OT. But, as I said, and as the site agrees, it is not a difference in salvation models. It is consistently grace through faith

Is a dispensationalist one who sees a future tribulation,

Yes. But that makes me a premillennial futurist, not a dispy

followed by Christ's second coming to the earth to establish His Millennial Kingdom,

Again, this makes me a premill futurist

with Israel inheriting the land promised her, and being head of the nations?

Here is where I part ways. If this is required to be a Dispy, then count me out. I believe Israel will be reincorporated into the church, ad we all will rule together. The distinction between Jew and Gentile will have no place in the Kingdom, nor will a land inheritance. Jesus will own it all, and we will rule with Him over it all, not just a portion.

Is a dispensationalist one who interprets Scripture literally?

I find this one funnier and funnier as I redefine my views. No one really takes all of scripture literally, unless they believe a literal beast with 10 horns will be running around. :ahem:

[themuzicman]

You mean there WON'T BE a beast with 10 horns running around?

*Scraps another Merchandising plan... :rant:*

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

You mean there WON'T BE a beast with 10 horns running around?

*Scraps another Merchandising plan... :rant:*

Big bands might make a comeback, you never know.

[Sheepdog]

i think the problem for me with Dispensationalism (not just DispenSENSATIONALism, but the general theme as far as i've known it) is the belief that when the Temple is reinstituted, they will be doing sacrifices again. when i heard this from a dispie (and i'll admit it may not be representative, though it does seem to make dispensationalism coherent with Daniel and other prophesies), i was flabbergasted. why, pray tell, would we go back to animal sacrifices ever again? and it's not just that it's downright bizarre... theology shouldn't fall on the sword of being weird... it just seemed pointless to me. if sacrifices are done away with Christ for is, it seems they should be done away with in the Millenium as well. besides, it seemed to be that was the general thrust of the apostacy the book of Hebrews was addressing: the going back to the ways of the Law after coming to find* Christ.

* (this is ambiguous, and i am leaving it that way so as to not derail the thread with an OSAS dispute)

dispensationalism would have never been appealing to me when i started as a Christian, had i known of this.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

i think the problem for me with Dispensationalism (not just DispenSENSATIONALism, but the general theme as far as i've known it) is the belief that when the Temple is reinstituted, they will be doing sacrifices again.

Yeah, that's what I have difficulty with from no matter what view I look at. Even Preterism has to ascribe the Temple as the "Holy Place" that is desecrated after Jesus' sacrifice IIRC. The problem is consistent whether the temple was desecrated in 70 AD or 2070 AD. Faramir, Ted and I had a discussion on this but I don't think there was an agreement there.

when i heard this from a dispie (and i'll admit it may not be representative, though it does seem to make dispensationalism coherent with Daniel and other prophesies), i was flabbergasted. why, pray tell, would we go back to animal sacrifices ever again?

Ask the Jews in the Judaism forum that. Again, it is a simple matter of the irrelivant temple sacrifices after Jesus' final sacrifice, whether they were 40 years later or 2,040 years.

and it's not just that it's downright bizarre... theology shouldn't fall on the sword of being weird... it just seemed pointless to me. if sacrifices are done away with Christ for is, it seems they should be done away with in the Millenium as well. besides, it seemed to be that was the general thrust of the apostacy the book of Hebrews was addressing: the going back to the ways of the Law after coming to find* Christ.

I don't think that it is a return to the Law in the Millennium for the saved. The unsaved will have regulations to live by, as seen in Zechariah (the whole "come to Jerusalem and worship Christ or He will cause it to not rain" quote). Unbelievers will be ruled by a rod of iron, which I see as absent from Preterism, although I'd be willing to hear an interpretation from one of you guys on it.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

You mean there WON'T BE a beast with 10 horns running around?

*Scraps another Merchandising plan... :rant:*

I'd buy the action figures though!!



*:btc: plots a "Left Behind" action figure campaign to market on rapture ready...:grin:

[Sheepdog]

Yeah, that's what I have difficulty with from no matter what view I look at. Even Preterism has to ascribe the Temple as the "Holy Place" that is desecrated after Jesus' sacrifice IIRC. The problem is consistent whether the temple was desecrated in 70 AD or 2070 AD. Faramir, Ted and I had a discussion on this but I don't think there was an agreement there.

well, with Preterism, one could say the sacrifices continued out of apostacy. (though that isn't totally accurate, since i believe those Jews who didn't know the gospel would still have access to God through the Old Covenant.)

we reject the temple being rebuilt as a God sanctioned institution. i doubt it will be rebuilt period, but it's possible.

Ask the Jews in the Judaism forum that. Again, it is a simple matter of the irrelivant temple sacrifices after Jesus' final sacrifice, whether they were 40 years later or 2,040 years.

perhaps you can answer my quandry then. a dispie i spoke with led me to believe that the sacrifices will be reinstituted in the millenium (according to dispensationalism) as a God sanctioned system. not for atonement's sake, but for rememberance, or something like that. :huh:

I don't think that it is a return to the Law in the Millennium for the saved. The unsaved will have regulations to live by, as seen in Zechariah (the whole "come to Jerusalem and worship Christ or He will cause it to not rain" quote). Unbelievers will be ruled by a rod of iron, which I see as absent from Preterism, although I'd be willing to hear an interpretation from one of you guys on it.

i don't know what the stock preterist answer would be, if such exists. i look at this like i look at 1Cor. 15:20-28. Christ's kingdom is progressively encroaching into the world, claiming "territory" along the way. after all of Christ's enemies are put under his feet, the end will come and Christ will subject his kingship under the Father, "so that God may be all in all." Yes, Christ will rule the nations with a iron sceptor, but it's an ongoing process, rather than a one shot deal.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

well, with Preterism, one could say the sacrifices continued out of apostacy. (though that isn't totally accurate, since i believe those Jews who didn't know the gospel would still have access to God through the Old Covenant.)

we reject the temple being rebuilt as a God sanctioned institution. i doubt it will be rebuilt period, but it's possible.

They sure are in full planning mode. http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm


perhaps you can answer my quandry then. a dispie i spoke with led me to believe that the sacrifices will be reinstituted in the millenium (according to dispensationalism) as a God sanctioned system. not for atonement's sake, but for rememberance, or something like that. :huh:

That's one reason I am not associating myself with dispyism any more (at least the classical version). I think that any blood sacrifice smacks in the face of Jesus' final sacrifice. Now, we do have the sacrifice of praise and the sacrifice of our lives unto Christ, but that's a personal and internal thing, not a sanctioned event like the OT sacrifices and offerings were. So I can't really speak much on that. I'd suggest telling him to stop watching John Hagee :hehe:



i don't know what the stock preterist answer would be, if such exists. i look at this like i look at 1Cor. 15:20-28. Christ's kingdom is progressively encroaching into the world, claiming "territory" along the way. after all of Christ's enemies are put under his feet, the end will come and Christ will subject his kingship under the Father, "so that God may be all in all." Yes, Christ will rule the nations with a iron sceptor, but it's an ongoing process, rather than a one shot deal.

Interesting. Thanks for that. I'd like to hear from a few of the other prets here.


PRETERISTS...transform and merge to become...

[attachment=1]

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

with Israel inheriting the land promised her, and being head of the nations?

Here is where I part ways. If this is required to be a Dispy, then count me out. I believe Israel will be reincorporated into the church, ad we all will rule together. The distinction between Jew and Gentile will have no place in the Kingdom, nor will a land inheritance. Jesus will own it all, and we will rule with Him over it all, not just a portion.See that's a reall rubbing point. If you part ways here, you tend to drop a futurist reading of many major messianic prophecies like Jeremiah 31 and others. In my view this can't help but erode your futurism.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

See that's a reall rubbing point. If you part ways here, you tend to drop a futurist reading of many major messianic prophecies like Jeremiah 31 and others. In my view this can't help but erode your futurism.
I don't know. I am not that far into my study yet and how it will affect the rest of the stuff.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I don't think that it is a return to the Law in the Millennium for the saved. The unsaved will have regulations to live by, as seen in Zechariah (the whole "come to Jerusalem and worship Christ or He will cause it to not rain" quote). Unbelievers will be ruled by a rod of iron, which I see as absent from Preterism, although I'd be willing to hear an interpretation from one of you guys on it.
Here's a preterist answer.

In the last days

the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
3 Many peoples will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Scripture foretold that a time would come when the nations would turn to the God of Israel, and come to the mountain of the LORD, which would be lifted up and nations would stream to it to gladly learn His law.

In John 12:32 Jesus said "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (Incidentally I think putting this in the prophetic perspective of "all men" meaning all nations is a good cure to a an Arminian reading of this text).

Likewise the author of Hebrews says that for those of us who have come to Christ:
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.


So I think the answer is YES, in the millennium (construed either as the church age, or the state of being in Christ, either option is available to preterists), believes will turn to the law of God, whether they call it that or not (and in many cases even if they do not believe that this is what they are doing).

We are fulfilling the prophecy that when Mt Zion is lifted up on the earth,
many gentiles will say "come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of our God. And He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His path, and the Law will go forth from Zion."

[A Cup of No]

PRETERISTS...transform and merge to become...

[attachment=1]

ROFL

Why am I the foot, though? Oh well, every part of the body is important.

[Sheepdog]

That's one reason I am not associating myself with dispyism any more (at least the classical version). I think that any blood sacrifice smacks in the face of Jesus' final sacrifice. Now, we do have the sacrifice of praise and the sacrifice of our lives unto Christ, but that's a personal and internal thing, not a sanctioned event like the OT sacrifices and offerings were. So I can't really speak much on that. I'd suggest telling him to stop watching John Hagee :hehe:

:yes: ok so i wasn't going crazy then. good to know.

Interesting. Thanks for that. I'd like to hear from a few of the other prets here.


PRETERISTS...transform and merge to become...

[attachment=1]


:lmbo: i shall call myself, DD's right leg in eschatology

[Sheepdog]

(Incidentally I think putting this in the prophetic perspective of "all men" meaning all nations is a good cure to a an Arminian reading of this text).

Incidentally, scripture is a good care for a Calvinist reading of the text :tongue:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Shedog (as you indicated today that you respond to that name), you wasted a whole post saying that? Wow..... sounds like you're insecure about something. :fight:

[Sheepdog]

did someone say something? all i heard was a gust of wind

[dizzle]

well as long as you didn't smell it, all is well

[Sheepdog]

:hehe:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

well as long as you didn't smell it, all is wellToo bad we're talking about a shedog. They always sniff stuff. Can't help it.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Incidentally, scripture is a good care for a Calvinist reading of the text :tongue:
:hijacked:

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Here's a preterist answer.

In the last days

the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
3 Many peoples will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Scripture foretold that a time would come when the nations would turn to the God of Israel, and come to the mountain of the LORD, which would be lifted up and nations would stream to it to gladly learn His law.

In John 12:32 Jesus said "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (Incidentally I think putting this in the prophetic perspective of "all men" meaning all nations is a good cure to a an Arminian reading of this text).

Likewise the author of Hebrews says that for those of us who have come to Christ:
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.


So I think the answer is YES, in the millennium (construed either as the church age, or the state of being in Christ, either option is available to preterists), believes will turn to the law of God, whether they call it that or not (and in many cases even if they do not believe that this is what they are doing).

We are fulfilling the prophecy that when Mt Zion is lifted up on the earth,
many gentiles will say "come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of our God. And He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His path, and the Law will go forth from Zion."

I've never had that big of a problem with that part of the millennium from a Preterist standpoint, but I would like to see an equally satisfactory explanation of:


12 Now this will be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongue will rot in their mouth.

13 It will come about in that day that a great panic from the LORD will fall on them; and they will seize one another's hand, and the hand of one will be lifted against the hand of another.

14 Judah also will fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be gathered, gold and silver and garments in great abundance.

15 So also like this plague will be the plague on the horse, the mule, the camel, the donkey and all the cattle that will be in those camps.

16 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them.

18 If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

19 This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.


Thanks!

[John Reece]

[snip]

I've never had that big of a problem with that part of the millennium from a Preterist standpoint, but I would like to see an equally satisfactory explanation of:


12 Now this will be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongue will rot in their mouth.

13 It will come about in that day that a great panic from the LORD will fall on them; and they will seize one another's hand, and the hand of one will be lifted against the hand of another.

14 Judah also will fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be gathered, gold and silver and garments in great abundance.

15 So also like this plague will be the plague on the horse, the mule, the camel, the donkey and all the cattle that will be in those camps.

16 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them.

18 If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

19 This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.


Thanks!

N. T. Wright has offered the best explanation, in the context of a chapter titled “The Reasons for Jesus’ Crucifixion”, in a subsection titled “The Cross and the Scriptures”, in Jesus and the Victory of God, pages 597-598:
[…] The underlying narrative of the book of Daniel as a whole, with chapter 7 unarguably as one of its main focal points; of Zechariah, not least chapters 9-14; of the Psalms, with some in particular being of obvious importance; and of Isaiah 40-55 as a whole, with 52.13-53.12 unarguably its main focal point: together these offer grand-scale, deeply poetic, and richly symbolic statements of exile and restoration, of suffering and vindication, and of the way in which, according to prophetic promise, YHWH would become king of all the world. Together they speak of YHWH’s once-for-all defeat of evil, and his vindication of his people, his servant, his Messiah, after their and his terrible, but redemptive, suffering. Whether or not it is true that Daniel 7 and Isaiah 52-3 had already been combined in the Similitudes of Enoch, there is every reason to suppose that Jesus himself brought them together, stirring Zechariah 9-14 and certain Psalms into the mix as well, not as isolated or abstracted proof-texts but as what they manifestly were: climactic statements of the climactic moment in the long redemptive purposes of YHWH. Each of these passages was about the coming of the kingdom. Each of them was about the radical defeat of the powers of evil. Each of them, obviously, was about the vindication of Israel, and/or her representative. Each of them, despite popular impressions to the contrary, could be read in the first century as being about a messianic figure or figures. Since we have already argued that these constituted the major elements of Jesus’ kingdom-announcement, there is every reason to suppose that he would have felt free to draw on these texts, in his own way, as passages which in any case stood in the shadows behind the Maccabaean and other oral traditions that formed his immediate context.

[themuzicman]

:offtopic:

John Reese! Good to see you, brother!

[John Reece]

:offtopic:

John Reece! Good to see you, brother!

:smile:

Thanks, Michael.

[themuzicman]

:smile:

Thanks, Michael.
:doh: you'd think I could cut and paste.... Sorry 'bout that.. I guess the excitment got to me.

[John Reece]

:doh: you'd think I could cut and paste.... Sorry 'bout that.. I guess the excitment got to me.

No problem.

Your greeting was a blessing.

Thanks again.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

N. T. Wright has offered the best explanation, in the context of a chapter titled “The Reasons for Jesus’ Crucifixion”, in a subsection titled “The Cross and the Scriptures”, in Jesus and the Victory of God, pages 597-598:
[…] The underlying narrative of the book of Daniel as a whole, with chapter 7 unarguably as one of its main focal points; of Zechariah, not least chapters 9-14; of the Psalms, with some in particular being of obvious importance; and of Isaiah 40-55 as a whole, with 52.13-53.12 unarguably its main focal point: together these offer grand-scale, deeply poetic, and richly symbolic statements of exile and restoration, of suffering and vindication, and of the way in which, according to prophetic promise, YHWH would become king of all the world. Together they speak of YHWH’s once-for-all defeat of evil, and his vindication of his people, his servant, his Messiah, after their and his terrible, but redemptive, suffering. Whether or not it is true that Daniel 7 and Isaiah 52-3 had already been combined in the Similitudes of Enoch, there is every reason to suppose that Jesus himself brought them together, stirring Zechariah 9-14 and certain Psalms into the mix as well, not as isolated or abstracted proof-texts but as what they manifestly were: climactic statements of the climactic moment in the long redemptive purposes of YHWH. Each of these passages was about the coming of the kingdom. Each of them was about the radical defeat of the powers of evil. Each of them, obviously, was about the vindication of Israel, and/or her representative. Each of them, despite popular impressions to the contrary, could be read in the first century as being about a messianic figure or figures. Since we have already argued that these constituted the major elements of Jesus’ kingdom-announcement, there is every reason to suppose that he would have felt free to draw on these texts, in his own way, as passages which in any case stood in the shadows behind the Maccabaean and other oral traditions that formed his immediate context.

Hi John,

Glad to see you are well! I am actually more concerned about the vs. 16-19 and how they are seen from a Preterist POV. Wright's commentary stops at vs. 14.

Be blessed!

[John Reece]

Hi John,

Glad to see you are well! I am actually more concerned about the vs. 16-19 and how they are seen from a Preterist POV. Wright's commentary stops at vs. 14.

Be blessed!

Bill,

You have mistaken chapters for verses in Wright’s commentary, which includes the entirety of chapters 9-14.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Bill,

You have mistaken chapters for verses in Wright’s commentary, which includes the entirety of chapters 9-14.
:doh: You are right. Sorry. I'll go back and re-read it... Again, thanks for the information.