Premillennial Answers to Amillennial Questions

By Pastor Bill Daniels

Introduction
 

I am a Premillennialist.  I recognize that that places me in a minority among believers, but I don’t mind.  The prophet Micaiah was a minority among King Ahab’s 400 “prophets of the Lord”, but Micaiah was on the side of right (too?).  With the courageous words of that faithful man of God I so wholeheartedly concur,

“As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak” (I Kings 22:14).

To label myself premillennial is to indicate my belief that the Lord Jesus Christ will return before and to His 1000-year earthly kingdom.  But more than this, the label signifies my certainty that the Bible should be read the way the Lord clearly meant it to be read – normally.  Even a normal, basically chronological reading of the book of Revelation will put Revelation 19 before chapter 20, and thus Christ’s visible, literal return (Rev. 19) before His earthly kingdom (Rev. 20).  As well, a normal interpretive approach to the Bible will read “a thousand years”, mentioned repeatedly in Rev. 20, as an actual one thousand year period.  I believe God’s Book of books is to be understood in this way – read as it’s given, rather than reading things into it, or worse, reading things out of it, by explaining away the obvious sense through a more allegorical interpretive method, as those of an Amillennial persuasion tend to get up to, to their own confusion. 

Now you’re obviously not looking at a major work here, certainly not something sufficiently sizeable to fully cover such a vast subject as the differences between the Amillennial and Premillennial positions.  This is a brief effort to begin to answer some of the questions the one view might ask of the other – to present the other side in a tide that strangely seems to be moving largely in the non-dispensational direction among Christians today.  No, I have not dealt with every question, though I have it in mind to add the consideration of a few more some day.  Just a simple effort to first express something of the Amillennial position as I understand it, then to present some questions they might ask with response, then to ask a few searching questions of my own, followed by some thoughts on Daniel 9 in response to the bewildering interpretive confusion proposed by Amillennialist Edward Young, and finally a brief interpretive scenario that attempts to pull together a picture of things to come.

Since this tiny tome was written in response to some who are Amillennial in persuasion and knew why, I am assuming some awareness in the reader of the issues and questions involved.  A reader largely unaware of the issues is apt to find himself a bit in the dark at some points.  I suppose I’m assuming that few would even pursue this title without already being intrigued and aware of the issues to some degree.  If I haven’t fully explained and you’re left confused at some points, I am sorry about that.  I’m a simple man doing the best I can with what clarity the Lord has given.

Indeed I love the Word of God, and I love the promises of the God of the Word – far too much to stand quietly by while my Amillennial brothers butcher biblical prophecy.  I long to be used of the Lord to stir some honest consideration of a more honest perspective, and perhaps only to expose some to the fact that a dispensational position has a ring of truth, and stands on far more than just a normal reading of Revelation 20.  If the Lord should use my humble efforts to encourage your heart in the truth I would rejoice with joy unspeakable!

“I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.”  


Amillennial Position

In this section I have merely listed, in summary fashion, some of the main aspects of the Amillennial perspective.  Thus when I speak of “they” (or “Amillists”), I’m referring to those who are Amillennial in their persuasion.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Amillennialists tend to interpret the Bible allegorically whenever the content or context appears to warrant it.  They have a strongly non-literal hermeneutic. 

They understand every Old Testament (O.T.) reference to coming redemption or restoration for Israel as essentially a prophecy of the church.  Therefore they don’t agree with the biblical view of the church being an unrevealed “mystery” in the O.T.

They tend to be covenant in their theology.  They see one unifying covenant of grace throughout the Bible.  This covenant of grace confuses the distinction between the principles of law and grace.

They understand grace as offering release from the Law only as a condition of salvation.  Thus they see believers as under the Law for their rule of life, and lean toward legalism in living the Christian life.

They understand the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant to be in the present era – that Christ is already seated on David’s throne (in heaven), possessing all authority in heaven and earth.  Thus they see the kingdom of God as a present reality in the hearts and lives of God’s people. 

They believe,

  • The time period of Christ’s kingdom is the duration of the present church age. 

  • The King is in heaven, not in Jerusalem. 

  • Christ’s kingdom is,       

                   o       Present, not future.

                   o       Heavenly, not earthly.

                   o       Spiritual, not political or material.

                   o       Inaugurated at Christ’s first coming, not at His second coming.

They do not believe that Christ ever meant to offer an earthly kingdom during His earthly ministry.  Christ offered only the rule of God in the hearts of men everywhere. 

They do not believe the O.T. says anything of the millennial reign.  Passages which do prophesy of such, they read allegorically as describing the condition of a saved heart, or the new heavens and new earth.

They believe the primary purpose of Christ’s present kingdom is to destroy Christ’s spiritual enemies, the last of which is death. 

Amillists do not see a need for a millennial reign of Christ on earth, since such an earthly reign would have no purpose.

They see the subjects of the kingdom in the church, not in the nation of Israel.

They see the people of God through all ages as one, being all the church of God. 

They do not believe there to be any more than one group of saints at any given time. 

They believe that when the nation of Israel rejected Christ, in a sense they ceased to be Israel.  The term “Israel” now refers to all believers in Christ.  The body died, but the spirit lives on in the church. 

They see the remnant of true believers in every age as “true Israel” among the nations, and spiritual heirs of the promises to Israel (Galatians 3:29; Romans 4:12; 9:6). 

They see one people of God in both the Old and New Testaments.

  •  O.T. “true Israel” was mostly among the Jews, with a few Gentiles.

  • New Testament (N.T.) “true Israel” is mostly among the Gentiles, with a few Jews.

 They do not believe that national Israel will ever be regathered in the land and turned to the Lord.  They would say that O.T. prophecies appearing to say this must be understood in the light of the N.T., and are spiritually fulfilled in the church. 

They believe the period of redemption comes to a close when the church is caught away from the world.

They would suggest that,

  • The reference to “souls” in Revelation 20:4 is limited to disembodied souls in heaven.  Thus they see that chapter as describing a heavenly scene rather than earthly.

  • The 1000 years of Revelation 20:2-7 is purely symbolic, describing the indefinite period of this present age.

  • The “first resurrection” of Revelation 20:5-6 refers to the “spiritual resurrection” of new birth – this followed by the current reigning of believers with Christ.
  • The “second” resurrection is the final, general, physical resurrection of all at the end of the age.

They believe there will be one general judgment following the general resurrection. 


Questions and Answers

We now turn to some questions folks of an Amillennial persuasion might ask of the Premillennial position – the questions in bold, italicized print, with answers following.  Questions have been bunched together into similar topics and labeled as such.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` 

On Hermeneutics 

Does the literalist see everything in the Word of God literally?  If at any point he should view anything in a non-literal fashion, doesn’t his interpretive system fall apart?

No, the literalist does not take every portion literally.  There are clearly figures, symbols, types, allegories, etc. in God’s revelation to man.  The golden rule of interpretation is this;

When the plain sense of Scripture makes good or common sense, then seek no other sense.  Take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, normal, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, related passages or basic biblical truths clearly indicate that the text is not to be interpreted literally. 

It cannot be denied that Bible words or portions sometimes have an obvious symbolic or allegorical meaning, however this cannot be made to negate the temporal sense of these portions.  For example, consider Paul’s use of an allegory in Galatians 4 (Greek allegoreo, vs. 24).  Though he used Sarah and Hagar to allegorically show the two opposing systems – faith in the promise of God and law keeping – we never lose sight of these two girls as actual historical figures.  Similarly, though 1000 years could perhaps carry some symbolic value, God never leads us to esteem it other than an actual 1000-year period.  Though a number be used symbolically, the underlying literal force is never lost. 

And could not the same test fairly be used of the allegorical interpreter?  If he interprets any portion literally, could it be said that his allegorical approach to interpretation falls apart?  The allegorical approach of the Amillist reads the prophecy of Christ’s second coming literally doesn’t it?  There’s a sense in which the out-and-out liberal is at least more consistent in that he follows his spiritualizing approach right through to explaining away even Christ’s second coming, among other things. 


Who’s to say how one is to approach the interpretation of Scripture?

We determine how God will fulfill prophecy in the future by how He has fulfilled prophecy in the past.  All prophecies of the suffering Saviour were fulfilled literally.  The Gospel of Matthew continually reports on the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Christ’s first coming.  Look for future prophecies to be fulfilled in the very same way.

We learn our interpretive approach by how the Bible interprets itself.  For example, when Jeremiah foretold a 70-year captivity, Daniel read and understood it normally (Daniel 9:2).  When Christ referred to O.T. figures (Jonah, Lot, Lot’s wife, Solomon, etc.) He referred to them as actual individuals.  Jesus Christ read the O.T. normally.

If the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, then why doesn’t it just say what it means? 


What about John the Baptist?  Jesus said that John was the fulfillment of the prophecy that Elijah himself would come as the herald of the King (Matthew 11:14; 17:12-13).  Yet Luke said that John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah”, indicating that John was not actually a resurrected Elijah.  Isn’t this a case where a seemingly clear statement was not meant to be read literally?

Luke, by his quotation, did indicate that John the Baptist was something of a fulfillment of Malachi’s (4:6) prophecy.  Jesus said in Matthew 11:14, “And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come.”   And then He added in vs. 15 that intriguing little statement implying that John’s identity is kept on a bit of a higher shelf, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”  The same scent of a conundrum is evident in that first phrase, “And if ye will receive it. . .”.  When John himself was asked whether he was Elijah he said, “I am not” (John 1:21).  And after John was already dead, Jesus said, “Elijah truly shall come, and restore all things” (Matthew 17:11), indicating a yet future element to Elijah’s prophesied coming.  And this right in the same context with assured fulfillment in John (Matthew 17:12-13).  Interesting!!

What Malachi actually said was that Elijah would be sent “before the coming of the great and dreadful (terrible) day of the Lord” (Mal. 4:5).  Did you notice that part missing in the gospels quote?  And consider the ministry of those two witnesses described in Revelation 11.  Have you ever noticed how the sketch of their coming work appears very similar to Elijah’s (shutting off rain & crisping enemies with fire)?  And the context there in Revelation is the great and dreadful day of the Lord, that fearful time period just before Christ’s 2nd coming to establish His millennial reign.  Perhaps the ultimate fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy can be found in Revelation 11.

To be sure, John the Baptist is a puzzling character.  But do we have support here for non-literal hermeneutics?  John is presented as an uncertainty (or contingency?).  Am I not correct in saying, though, that seeking to fathom the puzzle of John the Baptist is a far cry from explaining away the simple meaning of a portion of Scripture such as Revelation 20 or Daniel 7?  We cannot point to the evidence of offered crumbs to justify taking the whole bakery shop.

John the Baptist was a partial fulfillment of Elijah’s prophesied coming.  He was and he wasn’t Elijah.  The first offer to Israel of King and kingdom, with attendant herald, was genuine!  All was in place for the nation of Israel to receive her King at His first coming.  But the offer was rejected.  Therefore the Lord will yet fully fulfill all that He has spoken, sending His prophesied herald “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”.


On Christ’s Kingdom       

How could a visible, physical presence of Christ in an earthly kingdom mean more than His spiritual presence experienced by all at once in a heavenly kingdom?  Why walk by sight when you can walk by faith?

What more do we need but that God has promised it?  Here is where true faith is founded – upon the promises of God – even when His promises do not fit with our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).  

And where does God say that a spiritual presence is more significant than a physical presence?  God will vindicate His Son on David’s throne – and that where David was, on earth, in Jerusalem.  If Christ’s prophesied sufferings were literally fulfilled, so will be His glory. 


But really, wouldn’t a literal, earthly kingdom be less spiritual, than a heavenly?

Christ Himself will be reigning in righteousness.  This makes the context of His kingdom spiritual indeed.  

It has been suggested that the Amillist approach hails from the Alexandrian school of thought, which was touched by the idealism of Plato.  This school of thinking tends to look down on the temporal, and considers the material to be unspiritual.  Plato didn’t glean his material-disparaging views from the Bible. 


Acts 2:30 indicates that Christ is on David’s throne in heaven.  Why would Christ leave that highest throne, again humbling Himself to take an earthly throne? 

Let’s be fair with that Acts 2 passage.  Peter is speaking of God’s sure promise to David that “He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”   What Peter is proving here is that Christ would be raised from the dead, not that He is currently reigning in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.  Christ will indeed reign on David’s throne, in Jerusalem, where David’s throne was (compare Psalms 132:11-17).  There are no indications of time in Acts 2:30, or in it’s context.  Nothing in the passage insists that Christ is now on David’s throne. 

And, again, by what reasoning is an earthly throne to be despised and forbidden as more humbling than the heavenly?  If God has purposes for an earthly reign, and assures us that this will come to pass, woe be it to the one who attempts to stand in His way!  Peter felt the lash of Christ’s rebuke in Matthew 16 when he sought to forbid Christ the humiliation of suffering and death at the hands of the Jewish leaders.  Prophecy was given there (vs. 21) concerning what was to come to pass (prophecy, by the way, which was rightly understood normally, and was fulfilled literally), and Peter said, “Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee.”  Wherein does your suggestion and reasoning differ from Peter’s blunder?


But doesn’t the N.T. clearly show that Christ is sitting on the throne of God?

No, it doesn’t.  Look again more carefully.  Christ is seated at the exalted position on the right hand of the throne of God.  This is never described as David’s throne, and should not be confused as such. 


What about Isaiah 9:6-7?  Christ’s reign “upon the throne of David” shown there, seems to be established at the time of the coming of the child.  It even says in Isaiah 9:7, “from then on.”

Though the descriptive phrase “from then on” or “from henceforth” (KJV) does speak of the progression of Christ’s reign on David’s throne, must we conclude from this passage that this reign began at that time when the Son was first given?  

Isaiah later prophesied of the nature of Christ’s earthly ministry in chap. 61.  When Christ Himself testified of His ministry, in Luke 4:16-21, reading from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue of Nazareth, He stopped His reading in mid-sentence and closed the book, proclaiming “this day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears”.   The clear implication was that the rest of the sentence in Isaiah 61:2 (“…and the day of vengeance of our God”) was not fulfilled in Christ’s day.  That portion will be fulfilled at Christ’s 2nd coming (compare Revelation 19).  How strange that a description of Christ’s 1st coming and 2nd coming would be separated merely by the word “and” there in Isaiah 61:2!  This is an example of the hermeneutical principle of “foreshortening” – future events described side by side, with a gap of time in between in their actual fulfillment.  Another example of such can be found in Isaiah 52 & 53, where the suffering and glory of God’s “righteous servant” are both described together.  This current church age tucked in between Joel 2:29 & 30 would be another example.  The gap of millennia between Daniel 11:35, ending a description of the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (the type), and 11:36, beginning a description of the coming days of Antichrist (the anti-type), would be another example.  The prophets wrestled over this same concept of the timing of suffering and glory in Christ (I Peter 1:10-11), not understanding both to be accomplished in the same person, through the resurrection, with a two thousand year gap in between so far. 

Just because the Lord presents events side by side in His Book does not necessitate that they must follow in immediate succession.  The Son was given and indeed would have become Israel’s King at that time if she had received Him.  The appearance of immediate succession in many prophecies such as Isaiah 9:6-7 expresses the validity of Christ’s first kingdom offer to Israel.  But now the unseen gap, until Israel is brought to repentance and acceptance of her King. 


It would indeed appear to be true that the Jewish people understood the O.T. to speak of an actual, earthly kingdom of Messiah, reigning in Jerusalem on the throne of David.  But surely when Jesus came, His presentation of the kingdom was something very different from the thoughts of His O.T. schooled hearers.  Clearly, from the beginning of His ministry, He never offered an earthly kingdom for the nation of Israel.

Was there a change then from the O.T. kingdom concept to that presented in the N.T.? Or was there a misunderstanding of the O.T. descriptions in the Jewish thinking?  A fogginess to which Christ brought clarification like the rising sun burning off the morning mist?  If this be true, then where are Christ’s clarifying explanations to the Jewish people?  He knew how they would understand His announcement that the kingdom of heaven was at hand.  Why didn’t He explain?  And further, why was His ministry initially confined to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”?  Was it not because the O.T. promise of king and kingdom were given to the nation of Israel?  The disciples were sent out preaching the kingdom of heaven at hand (Matthew 10:7 is the last time we ever hear this message).  Were they instructed as to the meaning of these words if their view was in fact different than that of Christ’s?  If they understood wrongly, surely their commissioning would have been the ideal time to set them straight.  Not even in Acts 1:6-7 did the Lord disillusion their “mistaken” earthly, literal kingdom concept.  Obviously because their view of the kingdom was correct.  Clarification was needed only in the timing, which was the only issue to which Christ spoke in Acts 1 (vs. 7).  Never once did Christ correct the Jews in their expectation of an earthly kingdom. 

And further, is the O.T. less inspired than the N.T.?  Less authoritative?  If the O.T. describes in clear terms concepts which the N.T. seems at first blush to contradict, are we wise to spiritualize away the essence of the O.T. descriptions?  When Christ called men “fools and slow of heart” for not believing all that the prophets had said concerning Him, He was speaking of the O.T.  When He said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all should be fulfilled, He was speaking of the O.T.  Methinks we should be a touch more terrified to wash out the essence of O.T. prophecy, while at the same time proclaiming our adherence to it! 


Christ called it “the kingdom of heaven”.  Doesn’t this describe the focal point of the realm – heaven? 

Could it not also describe the source as of heavenly origin?  The realm has already been made clear in the O.T. Consider Daniel 2 where we see God’s kingdom as a rock cut without hands, coming down and striking the kingdoms of the earth, crushing them and then rising to fill the whole earth.  A very earthly scene indeed, yet a heavenly origin.  Also Daniel 7 shows the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of days, where an earthly dominion is given to Him.  In John 6, Christ repeatedly refers to Himself as the Bread of Life having come down from heaven – the King of kings in their very midst, with offer of the promised kingdom!  And of course, Revelation 19 tells of the coming day when heaven will open and Christ will descend to Armageddon, followed by the founding of His earthly kingdom described in Rev. 20.

By the way, have you noticed how the sudden nature of Christ’s coming, with the immediate crushing of all the gathered armies of the earth and the setting up of His kingdom, described there in Revelation 19 & 20, is pictured so nicely as well by the coming of that Daniel 2 rock?  The falling rock “cut without hands”, shown there at the end of Daniel 2, comes quickly and destroys suddenly.  This describes no gradually progressive undoing of this world system throughout its course, like the wasp implanting her eggs within the unsuspecting caterpillar, bringing its eventual demise.  What is pictured here is an instantaneous, unexpected collapse at Christ’s return to this earth (more like a boot-stomped caterpillar), followed immediately by His kingdom.


Oh but didn’t Christ say, “My kingdom is not of this world” in John 18:36?

Yes, He certainly did, in the privacy of Pilate’s presence (note the context).  Christ was not correcting the misaligned earthly kingdom view of His disciples.  And He did not say, “My kingdom is not in or on this world”.  He said, “My kingdom is not out of (Greek ek) this world”.  Again, it would not be a kingdom sourced from this earth, but descending from heaven, as that stone cut without hands of Daniel 2 – as the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven of Daniel 7 – as the Bread of Life come down from heaven of John 6 – as Christ descending from heaven in Revelation 19 to establish the literal kingdom of Rev. 20.  Christ had already referred to the same thought when announcing the kingdom of heaven at hand.  And unlike earthly kingdoms, Christ’s kingdom will be entered through spiritual qualification (repentance and faith), not by physical force.


But didn’t Christ clearly say, “Behold, the kingdom of God is within you” in Luke 17:21?

Are you sure you’re wanting that to mean what I think you’re wanting it to mean?  Were you aware that Christ spoke those words to the Pharisees? (note the context)  Would Christ have included them among the saved, into whose hearts Christ’s kingdom extended?  The gospel records clearly indicate otherwise. 

The word translated “within” (KJV) can and does mean “among” in Luke 17:21.  The kingdom of God was among them, in the person of the promised King Himself.  It had not come as they had expected to observe it.  He rode a donkey rather than a white charger.  He came with God’s accreditation rather than theirs.  He was born of a carpenter rather than of a king.  He was born in a stable rather than in a palace. 


If Christ offered Israel an earthly kingdom, which was put in abeyance because of Israel’s rejection, then what of God’s sovereignty?  Were God’s plans contingent upon man’s (the Jewish nation’s) response?  Was Christ’s substitutionary death made dependent upon the timely refusal of the Jews?  Is Christ infallible or isn’t He?

Was there no assurance of a Jewish nation until Abraham decided to obey God?  Was there no assurance of Christ’s birth until Mary gave her consent?  Was there no certainty of Christ’s atoning death until Pilate made the decision to give the order? 

If the Lamb of God was slain from eternity past (Matthew 25:34; I Peter 1:19-21), then why did God put Adam and Eve under test in the garden?  He knew beforehand of the certainty of their failure.  He had already planned redemption, which assumed the fall.  In His sovereign purposes, the Lord genuinely offers what He foreknows will not be received (even as the genuine offer of salvation to the non-elect), in order that He might turn it to the greater triumph.  This is exactly what He accomplished at Calvary!  Israel’s rejection of her king became the cause of fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham that in him would all families of the earth be blessed (through the atonement of the cross).  The Lord had already anticipated Israel’s rejection, and had pre-planned the ensuing triumph.  His surpassing wisdom in this regard is all that Paul is shouting GLORY about at the end of Romans 11!

Consider the parallel thought that God promised Israel deliverance from Egypt and entrance into the Promised Land.  Yet all the while, He was aware of their coming rebellion at Kadesh Barnea – a rebellion which postponed their actual entrance into the land until the older generation died.  The timing of their promised entrance was contingent upon their response, but not the entrance – not the literal fulfillment of the promise.  Even so, the timing of Christ’s kingdom was contingent upon their response, but not the literal fulfillment. 

And further, didn’t God give the appearance of a change of stated plans at Nineveh and with King Saul (“It repenteth Me that I have set up Saul to be king”) and in Genesis 6 (“it repented the Lord that He had made man”)?  This does not demonstrate fallibility in God.  But rather, in His sovereignty, God allows for the contingency of human responsibility.  He sees the beginning from the end, anticipating human decisions, perfectly working His purposes, yet incorporating human choices into His sovereign plan.  Christ was just as infallible in offering the kingdom to Israel as was God in setting the land of Canaan before Israel to go in and possess it.


On Israel & the Church 

Doesn’t the N.T. clearly reveal that the remnant, the true people of God, or “true Israel”, have always been the church of God through all ages?  Didn’t Paul say to the Galatian church, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed”? (Galatians 3:29)  Wasn’t this what Paul was referring to when he said, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”?  (Romans 9:6) 

It is true that the remnant or true believers of all ages, whether Jew or Gentile, are indeed of the seed of Abraham in some sense, and heirs of righteousness through faith, as Galatians 3 points out.  The phrases in Galatians 3:29 are parallel in the Greek.  Literally, “And if you are of Christ, then you are of Abraham’s seed” (“which is Christ” – vs.16), making us heirs to the righteousness of God by faith, even as Abraham received.  We are not of Abraham’s seed as Israelites, but as associated with Christ, Abraham’s seed.    

Yes, the church drinks from the same crystal clear river of blessing flowing from the Abrahamic covenant, partaking of “the root and fatness of the olive tree” into which the church has been grafted (Romans 11:17).  But this does not make us Israelites, nor does it blur the distinction between Israel and the church.  Paul is quite clear in Romans 11 that the branch of the Jewish nation has been “broken off” for the time being, in order that the church might be grafted in – separate branches – distinction maintained and confirmed.  The O.T. points to the Gentiles streaming in to the number of God’s people.  But this is not the same as saying that Israel equals the church. 

When the N.T. shows that the church is made up of believing Jews and Gentiles, why should this lead us to conclude that the entities from which these two remnants came are now extinct?  As I Corinthians 10:32 assumes, there are now essentially three divisions of the human race rather than only two; Jews, Gentiles, and the church of God.

Abraham becomes the father of all believers, circumcised or uncircumcised, he having received the promise of the righteousness of God by faith before he was circumcised (Romans 4:9-12).  The blessings flowing out of Ab’s covenant extend to all nations (“and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” – Genesis 12:3).  The promised blessings affecting Israel, the natural descendants of Jacob, are confined to that elect nation. 

The Romans 9 passage is not contrasting the church and Israel at all.  Only Israel is discussed there.  Paul is very specific, “my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites” (Romans 9:3-4).  Neither the church nor Gentiles are even in view there.  If we would be honest with the text, it’s quite clear that Paul is rather contrasting believing Jews and unbelieving Jews in Romans 9.  He is distinguishing among Israelites, those worthy of the name because of their faith, and those who are related to Abraham and Jacob only as a natural posterity. 

The Bible never assigns the term “Israel” to the church, but only to the natural, circumcised descendents of Jacob.  If the unbiblical term “true” or “spiritual Israel” be kept, it could only refer to the Jewish remnant or believers out of the Jewish nation.


What, then, does Paul mean by “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16?  Is this not a reference to the church? 

No, Paul is not referring to the church by that term.  Don’t make the common mistake of divorcing the phrase from its context.  In the book of Galatians Paul is dealing with legalistic Judaizers, who, having come out of the law system, had expressed allegiance to Christ in some way.  Yet these Jews or proselytes, not having made a complete break from the law, and not trusting fully in God’s grace through faith in Christ, were attempting to combine the systems of law keeping and grace through faith.  They were seeking to lead the Galatian believers to the syncretistic practice of certain aspects of the law for the keeping of their salvation – like the superstitious “Christian” who keeps an amulet or two, just in case they do hold some inherent power.  

Paul exposed the motives of the Judaizers in Galatians 6:12-13.  They were leading their followers to law keeping in order to avoid the scorn and persecution of their old comrades in the law system (vs. 12 – compare 4:29 & 5:11).  They were glorying in their way and in their influence upon their disciples, rather than in the Lord and His way (vs. 13).  Paul’s wish was that these troublers might be “cut off” (5:12).  They were no true believers in Christ and no true deniers of the law.  They were “the concision”, as Paul called them in Philippians 3:2.  In contrast to the curse wished upon these, Paul wished the blessing of peace and mercy upon all who walk according to truth, and “upon the Israel of God” (vs. 16).  This can only be a reference to Jews who have indeed made the break from the law and embraced Christ by faith alone.  “Jews inwardly” (as well as outwardly), as Paul called them in Romans 2:29.


Have a look to Hebrews 2:9-17.  In vs. 11 we read that all who are sanctified are one.  The O.T. quotations in vs. 12-13, concerning His “brethren” and “children”, refer to Israel.  Surely the church must be included in those who are brothers of Christ and children of God.  Can we not conclude from this that the “brethren” of the O.T. refers to the unity of all the saved of all ages? 

Again, I fear that you’re missing the thrust of this portion too.  Hebrews 2 is not a discussion of the unity of Israel and the church.  It is a discussion of the oneness of the Sanctifier and the sanctified.  And the focus of attention there is not upon the sanctified, but upon Christ, who “also Himself likewise took part of the same” flesh and blood as His brethren and suffered as they.  And “in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren”, that He might serve as that perfect High Priest.  This is the theme of the book of Hebrews – showing Christ as the fulfillment of all O.T. typology.

And why take some expression of ageless unity among the redeemed to the extreme of indicating promises to national Israel nullified or spiritually transferred to the church?  You’re attempting to fabricate a Piltdown man from a few bone fragments.


In Ephesians 2 we read that the Gentiles, who were once far from the commonwealth of Israel, have now been placed together with Israel, as “one new man”, “the household of God” (vs. 12-19).  Doesn’t this show the one programme of God, uniting Gentile believers with true Israel? 

The focus of Ephesians 2 is the uniting of believing Jews and Gentiles in the church, yes.  Made into “one new man”, showing that the church is a “new” concept, not a made-over old one (Israel). 

Are you implying that this passage is saying that believing Gentiles are now members of the commonwealth of “true” Israel?  I hope not.  A careful reading would show that Paul never said that.  Rather than believing Gentiles being absorbed into Israel, God has drawn from both Jew and Gentile to form a new thing, the church, the household of God, of which all believers are “fellowcitizens”.  

Are you implying the dissolution of national Israel, the natural descendents of Jacob?  Again, I hope not.  For that would render the promises of God of no effect!     


Shall national Israel be regathered and restored?

Yes, even as Paul explains in Romans 11;

“Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in (N.B. their blindness is only “until”).  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” (vs. 25-27) 

And further, note Paul’s words in II Corinthians 3;

“But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.” (vs. 15-16) 

There is a “when” in store for the nation of Israel, prophesied in Zechariah 12:9ff; Ezekiel 11:13-21; 36:21-31; Jeremiah 31:31-34.


On Law & Grace (Dispensations)

I cannot abide the Premillist’s sharp distinction between law and grace.  Surely grace offers release from the Law only as a condition of salvation.  Are not believers still under the Law as their rule of life?

Have you ever eaten pork sausage?  How far do we apply the O.T. regulations to the Christian life?  (dietary laws, feasts, clothing, etc.)  In fact, in the same vein, how far do we apply the Sermon on the Mount to the Christian life?  And if we insist upon the Lord’s prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) for today, do we also insist upon the prayer commanded by the Lord in Matthew 24:20?  Is it not clear that there are differing eras, with the Lord dealing with man in differing ways?  To be honest, don’t the Amillists also recognize this in practice?  This does not destroy the value of certain passages in the Bible.  It is the better part of wisdom, however, to recognize that certain portions have greater application to certain time periods (dispensations). 

The whole discussion of Acts 15 is over whether the keeping of the Law is required of believers.  The conclusion there was, no!  Only a few guidelines to lead the Gentile believers to less offensiveness among their Jewish neighbours were suggested. 

Do we not have a clear distinction made between the principles of law and grace in II Corinthians 3?  There we see that the Law brings death, the letter kills, and accomplishes only condemnation.  Whereas grace brings life, is of the Spirit, and accomplishes righteousness.  As one writer suggested, perhaps the Lord was highlighting the distinction between these two opposing principles in that when the Law was given 3000 were killed (Exodus 32:28), yet when the Spirit was given 3000 were saved (Acts 2:41)!

“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:4).

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Romans 10:4). 

Notice the contradistinction between the age of law and the age of grace in Galatians 3:23-25; 

“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”

The essence of the law system is incorporated into that of grace.  But the law system came to an end (John 1:17; Romans 6:14; 7:2-6; Galatians 5:18).  The rule of life for this age – the church age – is summed up in those two great central commands upon which the essence of the law and prophets hang – to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself. 

Paul makes the same point in Galatians 5:13-14.  We have been called unto liberty.  In Christ we are free, or as vs. 18 puts it, we “are not under the law.”  Now, the guiding principle of life in Christ, on a horizontal level, is to “by love serve one another”, which excludes the using of our liberty as “an occasion to the flesh”, or as Peter phrased it, “not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness” (I Peter 2:16). 

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”  (Galatians 5:14)

And just a few observations concerning the Sermon on the Mount; 

  • Christ’s teaching on the way of salvation is missing within this sermon.
  • Christ’s teaching on the Holy Spirit is likewise missing.
  • What do we do with Matthew 6:12, “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”?
  • Is Matthew 5:22 applicable to today in its primary sense?

It’s just not all as simple of interpretation as the non-dispensationalist would like to believe.  The Sermon on the Mount was taught by the Messiah when He was still presenting Himself as Israel’s promised King, with the thrust of His message still, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand”.  Thus, some of the detail of the Sermon may be found more applicable to the kingdom age rather than to the present church age. 


Don’t dispensationalists end up teaching salvation by works in some ages, or at least salvation by various ways?  Are not their dispensations different ways of salvation? 

No, of course not.  Salvation is and always has been by grace, through faith in the Word of God.  What are referred to as dispensations are merely differing ways of God’s dealing with man, whereby God is progressively demonstrating to mankind the practical outworking of his own depravity – man’s failure in every age or economy.


On the Book of Revelation 

Haven’t the Jewish genealogical records been destroyed?  Revelation 7 refers to Jewish men by their tribal designation.  Yet it would certainly seem to be impossible to ever reckon the Jewish people by their tribal lineage if we were to understand Rev. 7 to refer to the future.

It would certainly seem that way from a human perspective, wouldn’t it?  Just the sort of setting the Lord enjoys, that He might display Himself as the God of the impossible.  Will you simply believe His Word?

Let me suggest to you that history is strewn with the marred reputations of scientists and scholars who laughed at this or that Bible reference to various places or people, when there was no archeological evidence that such ever existed.  Until some lonely archeologist dug up the evidence, and the doubting scholars quietly crawled back into the woodwork. 

Through faith in God’s Word, look for the fulfillment of just what He has said.


Isn’t the book of Revelation a rather obscure book?  How much weight can we place upon its testimony, really?  Could we hope to approach this book with any kind of literal hermeneutic?

The book of Revelation proclaims itself to be just that – a revelation or disclosure, does it not?  It doesn’t present itself as an obscurity.  This book is not “The Obscurity of St. John the Divine” – it’s the book of Revelation.  As well, the book repeatedly proclaims itself a record of coming events (1:1, 19; 4:1; 22:6).  Should we not then look for the future within its pages?  There is surely a healthy measure of symbolism within the book.  But much of this is explained in the immediate or wider context.  A normal, literal reading must be the normal approach wherever possible; otherwise the only limitation will be the imagination of the interpreter!


Only Revelation 20 refers to a 1000-year reign.  Must this be understood literally?  Why couldn’t it refer simply to a long period of time during which God will complete His earthly work? 

What does it say?  Doesn’t it simply say 1000 years?  In all honesty, what fair biblical support could direct us to explain away the simple meaning? 

Daniel says, in chapter 9 (vs. 2) of his book, that he read in Jeremiah’s writings of the Babylonian captivity lasting for 70 years.  It’s clear that Daniel interpreted that number quite normally.  He immediately began to pray, knowing by faith in a simple understanding of the Word of God that the captivity would soon be over.  History has certainly proved Daniel’s interpretive method correct. 

Please consider a few comparisons between what Daniel was reading in Jeremiah, and Revelation 20.  The numbers 70 and 1000 both refer to a period of years.  In the same way that Rev. 20 is the only place we find reference to the 1000-year period, only Jeremiah mentioned the length of the Babylonian captivity.  Daniel needed no further confirmation from another biblical source.  Both Jeremiah and Revelation are similarly literature of a prophetical nature.  Only three times does Jeremiah mention this 70-year period in his book (25:11-12; 29:10), yet where else in the entire Bible do we find such a phenomenon as we have in Rev. 20?  A number occurring six times in so many verses!!  I think I know how Daniel would read Rev. 20.  Therefore Daniels must read it the same way.

When we find ourselves explaining away the clear, normal reading, when we’re taught by God to accept the simple statement at face value, the hermeneutical warning lights should be flashing indeed! 


Couldn’t Revelation 20 be referring to a heavenly scene rather than an earthly?  We see mention in vs. 4 of “souls” involved, rather than men.  Surely this points to a heavenly context. 

Do we have any indication in the passage that there has been a shift from earth to heaven?  The end of the previous chapter of Revelation brought us to earth with the record of Christ’s return.  And consider that the “souls” mentioned in Acts 2:41 were added to the church (a very earthly scene).  The “souls” mentioned in Acts 3:23 were in danger of heading in a very different direction (yet still on earth).  We’re told that Jacob brought 75 “souls” down to Egypt with him (Acts 7:14).  We can point to that location on the map.  When Adam was created, he was made “a living soul” (I Corinthians 15:45).  These, only a few N.T. verses demonstrating that “souls” do not dwell only in heavenly climes. 

I’m afraid that this is not the only word in this passage with which you have a conflict.  We read at the end of vs. 4 of those souls, that “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”  The Greek word translated “lived” is the aorist of dzao.  Can you show me any place in the N.T. where this word refers to life after death, except in physical resurrection? 


Couldn’t the “first resurrection” of Revelation 20:5-6 refer to the spiritual resurrection of new birth?

Is new birth ever called “resurrection” anywhere in the N.T.?  The Greek word translated “resurrection” here is anastasis.  Can we find anywhere in the N.T. where this word is applied to a man’s soul, rather than his body? 

The “first resurrection” referred to in Revelation 20:5-6 is the physical resurrection of all the redeemed, prior to Christ’s millennial reign.  “Blessed” indeed are all who have part in this resurrection, for upon them the “second death” will have no power.  The second resurrection is that of all the unsaved, raised to the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of Christ’s millennial reign, prior to the new heavens and earth of Revelation 21-22. 

The parallel between I Corinthians 15:21-26 and Revelation 20 is quite interesting.  Speaking of resurrection, Paul says;

“Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.  Then cometh the end, when He shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” (I Cor. 15:23-24) 

First came Christ’s resurrection, and then those who are His at His return (the “first resurrection” of the blessed redeemed of Revelation 20).  Notice that there will be “His coming”, and “then” comes “the end”.  Could this imply that these are not the same event?  Indeed, Revelation 20 adds the clarifying detail that there will in fact be a period of 1000 years between these two events.  And further, both I Corinthians 15:25-26 and Revelation 20 make the point that after Christ’s reign, “the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”  Or as John phrased it in Rev. 20:14, “And death and hell were cast into
the lake of fire.”  It would seem that this 20th chapter of John’s hermeneutically defaced book of Revelation, though made so difficult by some, finds support in Paul’s writings as well.


Doesn’t the assurance of Christ’s eternal reign preclude a mere one thousand year reign?  Either it’s only a thousand years or its eternal.  Which is it? 

Turn back to that I Corinthians 15 passage.  There we read;

“For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet.  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death . . . And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (vs. 25-26, 28)

Within the period of Christ’s millennial reign every enemy of God will be subdued – the last to fall being death itself.  After His earthly reign, Christ will hand the kingdom over to His Father, having finished His work.  The mediatorial phase of His reign being completed, Christ then co-reigns within the mystery of the Godhead throughout eternity.  


Some Questions of My Own 

My purpose in this section is to return the favour and direct some questions back to the Amillennial side – some which seem rather unanswerable from the lamentable Amillist way of looking at things.  Obviously my hope is to stir up a bit of keen inquiry in the minds of others as well.  Please don’t allow my questions to wash over you without some thoughtful consideration.  Please be honest enough to search out solutions, one way or another.  I have simply listed my queries without a whole lot of careful thought toward appropriate order. 

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Why do the redeemed ones of Revelation 5 sing in vs. 10, “and we shall reign on the earth” if there shall be no future (“shall”) earthly reign? 

If Christ is vanquishing every foe during this current age from His first coming until the end, why does Revelation 19 say of His return, “in righteousness He doth judge and make war” (Rev. 19:11)?  War against what, if all is being vanquished now? 

And wherein will Christ rule with a rod of iron?  (yet future in Revelation 19:15).  When does the necessity of this take place?

If the 1000 years of Revelation 20 is to be understood as the present era, when the devil is restrained (Rev. 20:1-3) as the gospel is preached to all nations, then why does Peter describe Satan as a “roaring lion”, presently walking about “seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8)?  And II Corinthians 4:1-4 states that Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers.  And Revelation 12:9 indicates that the “old serpent” is currently deceiving the whole world.  It would appear to be a strangely loose captivity.  Can we have Satan bound and loose at the same time?

Why is the message of the kingdom of heaven at hand only found in the early chapters of Matthew?  It’s never heard after Matthew 10.  Could there be a relation between this strange change of message and Israel’s opposition of Christ, becoming so obvious and heated from Matthew 11 onwards?

And why was the message of the kingdom of heaven at hand only ever preached to the nation of Israel (compare Matthew 10:5-7)?  Perhaps because the promises of King and kingdom were only given to the natural descendents of Jacob?  As Micah had said, “For out of thee (Bethlehem) shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel” (Matthew 3:6).

Must the announcement that the kingdom of heaven is at hand mean that that kingdom is already present or set up or most certainly will immediately be set up? (compare I Peter 4:7 & Romans 13:12)  Could it not mean that the inauguration of that kingdom was impending, even as the judgment announced by Jonah in the streets of Nineveh?  In both cases what was impending was forestalled due to the response of the people.

If concrete concepts of an earthly realm were never primary in God’s O.T. promises of an Israelite kingdom, why is it that both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants emphasize the realm (earthly) aspects?  As early as Genesis 12:7 the land is in focus and promised (compare II Samuel 7:10 [“a place”] and the very non-abstract terms of Amos 9:14-15).  And don’t miss the promise of the land to Abraham’s seed forever (Genesis 13:15)!

In the light of the abundance of O.T. prophecies recorded as literally fulfilled in Matthew’s gospel in and around the life of Christ, who sits as judge to determine which prophecies are to be fulfilled literally and which are not?

When Daniel is describing the coming of God’s kingdom and dominion in Daniel 7:27, why does he add the descriptive detail that it shall be a kingdom “under the whole heaven”?  This is the very same term used in Genesis 7:19 to describe that worldwide flood of Noah’s day, when the waters covered all the mountains “under the whole heaven”.  Obviously a very earthly scene. 

The 7th chapter of Daniel also describes the coming of God’s kingdom crushing the oppressive reign of the “little horn” (vs. 21-22).  Who “was” this figure, and what “was” the nature of his doomed reign if the full extent of Christ’s kingdom was set up in His first coming?

If the Lord promises in Amos 9:11 that He will build David’s fallen tabernacle “as in the days of old”, should we expect this to be a heavenly realm, when “of old” it was on earth, in Jerusalem?

Doesn’t Paul indicate, in II Timothy 2:12, that reigning with Christ is a future event when he says, “If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him”? (compare I Corinthians 4:8).

Clearly the kingdom Christ announced was to be a moral and spiritual kingdom with spiritual requirements, such as repentance.  Must this be the same thing as saying that the whole of the kingdom concept was/is spiritualized into the rule of God in the hearts of men, without the actual, literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant? 

Isn’t it evident that grace is now administered in a new way from passages such as John 1:17 & II Corinthians 3:7-8?

Paul spoke of Christ’s judgment of the living and the dead “at His appearing and His kingdom” (II Timothy 4:1).  Are we not led to expect both His appearing and His kingdom at the same time, as Revelation 19 & 20 confirm?

Consider the impossibility of identifying this present age with the promised kingdom of righteousness and peace.

  • Why is this age so characterized by unrighteousness, unrest, and war, if the prophets spoke of a kingdom age of peace and righteousness?
  • Where is the promised renovated earth?
  • What of the harmonious animal life we’re to expect?
  • Since when is Satan bound, no longer tempting man?
  • Why is Gentile world power still standing strong, when Daniel 2 clearly prophesied that it will all come crashing down when God’s kingdom is set up?  Even the Roman Empire did not end until long after Christ’s day.
  • Must all of these promises be spiritualized away?
     

Thoughts on Daniel 9

Questions and comments concerning a correct interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, in view of the obscurity brought by Amillennialist, Edward J. Young.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Concerning Edward Young’s suggestion that since Daniel 9:24 does not actually say “years”, the question of whether these are 490 years is somewhat open –

  • Are we quite convinced of the Trinity?
  • Of course, the Bible does not actually say “Trinity”.  Yet do we not deduce the reality of God’s triune nature from the broader context of His Word?
  • Is it not true that years are clearly the immediate context in Daniel 9 (vs.2)?

             o       70-year captivity in Babylon for 490 years of neglected land Sabbaths (II Chronicles
                  36:20-21)

             o       Daniel 10:2-3 uses the same word (“sevens”), but qualifies in the Hebrew by adding 
                 “of days”, specifying actual weeks, and implying that chap. 9 spoke of something 
                   other than sevens of days.

             o       Young probably does not have the weight of scholarly consensus behind him with 
                  this suggestion.  Is he an earnest, honest seeker of the truth, or is he desperate to 
                  prop up his amillennial tent against the contrary wind of the Spirit?

Concerning Edward Young’s interpretation of the phrase in Daniel 9:25, “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem”, suggesting that this refers to Cyrus’s decree in 538 B.C., rather than thatgiven to Nehemiah in 445 B.C. –

  • Why is the city of Jerusalem pictured in ruins in Nehemiah 2:12-15?  The walls were broken down, the gates burned (vs. 13), and Nehemiah’s donkey couldn’t even get through the rubble in thestreets (vs. 14). His assessment was, “Jerusalem lieth waste” (vs. 17).
  • And note the effort to populate the city in Nehemiah 11.  Was anybody even living on the city site prior to this?
  • Can we be dogmatic about Cyrus’s decree?
  • It seems as though the city was not built until Nehemiah’s day.

If, as Edward Young suggests, the first 69 sevens (483 years) end at Christ’s entrance into His earthly ministry at His baptism, which also immediately began the last set of seven years, the middleof that last seven marking Christ’s death –

  • What happened to the remaining 3 ½ years?
  • What could be the significance of this remaining period of time?
  • Why does it just flow out and dry up in the sand, like the Okavango into the Kalahari?
  • What event does the end of this last seven indicate?
  • If the Lord proclaims His determination to accomplish His 6 great purposes of Daniel 9:24 upon the people of Israel and Jerusalem in 70 sevens, or 490 years, is it not rather strange and inconsistent for Him to then turn around and do it in 69½ sevens, or 486½ years?

Concerning Daniel 9:26 –

  • Why is the sack of Jerusalem attributed to “the people” and not “the prince”?  In the lengthy and accurate prophecy (now history) of movements within the Grecian empire, recorded in Daniel 11, the exploits are always attributed to the ruler, not to the people.
  • Is it grammatically impossible, or just not theologically preferable, to understand “the prince that shall come” as actually future from “the people”?
  • Doesn’t Daniel 7 also describe a great, blasphemous, persecuting ruler rising out of the same people?  Has this one come?  Or is he yet to come, as Revelation 13 & II Thessalonians 2 indicate?

If the covenant confirmed “with many for one seven”, in Daniel 9:27, is Christ confirming the Abrahamic covenant for seven years at the outset of His earthly ministry –

  • Then why is there no definite article in the Hebrew with “covenant” (a covenant, not the covenant)?  Is this a particular covenant, such as the Abrahamic, or just one between the prince and the many?
  • Why doesn’t it say “re-confirm”?
  • What would be the significance or purpose of re-confirming the Abrahamic covenant for seven years?
  • And why only seven years?  What does this period represent?
  • And again, why seven years, if all the fireworks were over in 3 ½?
  • And why only with “many”?
  • In the gospel records, wherein can we trace Christ fulfilling any such concept of confirming the Abrahamic covenant (or any covenant) for a seven-year period at the outset of His ministry?
  • I’m confused!!!

If the phrase in Daniel 9:27, “and in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”, refers to Christ ending the efficacy of the blood and non-blood temple sacrifices with His death and resurrection –

  • Why isn’t something to the effect of “efficacy” included in the text there?
  • Is it not true that the temple worship continued for decades after Christ’s death?  Christ did not “cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease”.  The Roman soldiers did, when they destroyed the temple in 70 A.D.
  • The pronoun (“he”) is the doer in this phrase.  Was Christ the doer at Calvary, or was He done to?  Wasn’t He the passive, silent Lamb of God, allowing, rather than initiating?

If Christ fulfilled all of God’s O.T. kingdom promises in His first coming –

  • From Daniel 7, who “were” those ten kings reigning, and who “was” the particularly blasphemous and persecuting other king, who dethroned three of the first ten in his initial rise to power – and all of this brought down by the coming of Christ to His kingdom?  Where does history highlight these men who are so prominently the focus in Daniel 7?
  • Why are these ten kings, and the other notable one (“the Beast”) still future when John wrote Revelation some sixty years after Christ death? (Revelation 17:12ff)

What is the significance of the mention of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 8:9-14, 23-25 & 11:21-35?  Why is he also described as “a little horn” (8:9)?

The nearest antecedent to the conspicuous, singular pronouns of Daniel 9:27 is “the prince that shall come” of vs. 26, whether prominent or not.  Wouldn’t the normal grammatical rule be to seek the nearest antecedent?


Another Idea 

Please allow me to suggest another interpretive scenario, which attempts to integrate the whole, without explaining away significant portions. 

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

God gave His own Son, the promised Messiah, to the nation of Israel for a 3½-year period of ministry.  His own nation rejected and killed Him.  He, in essence, was trodden under foot by His own people (Hebrews 10:29).  Therefore, by God’s decree, the nation of Israel will have a man to rule over them.  A rule that will in fact extend worldwide (Revelation 13).  Another, whom God calls “the beast”, for he will be full of pride like no other (remember Daniel 4).  Please don’t ignore the unmistakable connectors between Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 – ten horns, same creatures (lions, bears, leopards, dragon?), and the characteristic supreme blasphemy.  This one will be “the prince that shall come”, with whom the nation of Israel, through their representatives (the “many”), shall willingly enter into covenant for seven years (Daniel 9:27).  He will be a prince of their own choosing.  Where they rejected God’s chosen One, this one they will gladly embrace.  He will allow Israel to reclaim Jerusalem and rebuild their temple and reestablish the sacrifices.  We know this must be true, because he could not stop the sacrifices (Daniel 9:27) unless they first had been started again, and he could not “as God” sit “in the temple (Greek naos – the holy place of the temple) of God, showing himself that he is God” (II Thessalonians 2:4), unless there is first a rebuilt temple.  Perhaps the allowance for this will be a part of the covenant he confirms with Israel.  He comes in peaceably and with great promise, even as did Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 11:21).  But, as the type, so the anti-type – like Antiochus, he shall show himself to be “a vile person” (Daniel 11:21), for after 3½ years the true colours of this “beast” will come out.  He will turn on the nation of Israel, breaking his covenant with them, stopping all temple sacrifices (Daniel 9:27), suppressing all of Israel’s divinely appointed feast times and laws (Daniel 7:25) even as Antiochus did, establishing his own ways and laws as Jeroboam of old, proclaiming himself as God (II Thessalonians 2:4 & Daniel 11:36-37), defiling the newly established temple and holy place – not as Antiochus offering a pig on the altar and then setting up an idol of Zeus in the holy place, but with the abomination of his own vile, blasphemous presence, making God’s sacred place his own seat (II Thessalonians 2:4), and treading the nation of Israel under foot for the remaining 3½ years (Revelation 13:5, compare as well Daniel 12:11), answering to the 3½ years during which Israel had opportunity to embrace their true Prince but rejected Him.  This is why the Lord, when describing the horror of those coming days in Matthew 24, said in vs.15, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand;)” – when you see the beast take his blasphemous throne in the very “holy place”, then RUN!!! (vs. 16-20) – “for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” (vs. 21).  As Daniel 7, Revelation 13, and II Thessalonians 2 also confirm, this man and his wicked cohorts shall be the greatest persecutor of God’s people this world has ever seen!  Revelation 12 explains why, and confirms his time limit of 3½ years.

Christ shall return to this beast’s destruction (II Thess. 2:8 & Revelation 19:19-20).  Even as the Lord used the cruel nation of Babylon to severely chastise His people, and then turned and broke that chastening rod of the wicked Babylonians, so He will use the rod of “the beast” in those later days before Christ’s return, to severely chasten His people who rejected and murdered His own beloved Son.  Then He will turn (return) and crush His rod of punishment.