[Ely]

I often hear amillennialists make a claim such this:

Old Testament prophecies speak of natons like Tyre, Philistia and Edom which are now extinct. This means that the fulfillment of these prophecies cannot be yet future from now.

Any responses?

[Admin]

Well, one thing to figure out is whether the prophecies in question are indeed Millenial in nature. Which ones are they referring to.

Also, when dealing with Amillennialists get ready for Scripture to be interpreted in very non literal manners.

[Roger Samsel]

Here's how I would respond.

The fact is, most of the nations of prophecy ARE still in existence such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, Lebanon, Persia (Iran), Arabia, Babylon (Iraq). Others may not exist according to their former names, but the people are certainly not extinct. They still exist. Edom and Moab are in the area of modern day Jordan and Saudi Arabia etc. Even a little thing like Philistia is the exact same area we know today as the Gaza strip.

Given the fact that the maps are redrawn about every other year, it seems rather presumptuous to assert that God cannot fulfill His word simply because the map doesn't look exactly like it did 3000 years ago. The truth is, today's map looks more like a map of 3000 years ago than a map of 100 years ago! And unless I'm mistaken, until quite recently, Israel was also a "non-existent nation." No, I'm not in the least bit worried that God's Word will fail.

Roger

[Ely]

Joel, I guess the Amill/Pret starting-point is that if the prophecy wasn't literally fulfilled in OT times, then it must have been (or are being) fulfilled non-literally in NT times whereas the futurist starting point is that if the prophecy wasn't fulfilled literally in OT times, it will be fulfilled literally in NT times.

And thanks for your answer Roger, spot on.

[Roger Samsel]

Ely,

I recently finished teaching a series of lessons on Isaiah 13-23 which concern the nations (Babylon, Israel, Assyria, Philistia, Moab, Syria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Edom, Tyre) in prophecy, so this is fresh in my mind. These chapters are loaded with prophecies that have been literally fulfilled, and also with countless others that have never been fulfilled. Here's one that has never been fulfilled.

Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city.
And it will be a ruinous heap. Isaiah 17:1

This has never been fulfilled. Damascus was still a city in the days of the Apostles (Saul of Tarsus was on his way there when he met Christ). And Damascus is today the capital city of Syria. It boasts that it is the oldest city in the world, and in fact it is! But it will be destroyed and become a ruinous heap. I know this with 100% certainty because it is right there in black and white. Do I know exactly when or how this will be fulfilled? Of course not. I suspect that it might be fulfilled in conjunction with Revelation 16:17-21, but I do not know that. What I DO know is that "until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." That is the bedrock of our faith, the infallible, unalterning Word of God. Everything else is shifting sand.

The evil of amillennialism is that it steals God's Word from God's people (and therefore undermines their faith) under the guise of "non-literal fulfillment." They do not believe that God will do what He said He would do. They believe He will do something different - and in some cases exactly the opposite - of what He said He would do and just call it that. Thus, they are NOT Bible believers. And to crown the irony, they have the gall to call this "spiritual."

Sincerely,

Roger

[Roger Samsel]

Here's another one that has never been fulfilled. Believe it and rejoice!

18 In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear by the LORD of hosts; one will be called the City of Righteousness.
19 In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border. 20 And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them. 21 Then the LORD will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to the LORD and perform it. 22 And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them.
23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians.
24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, 25 whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.” Isaiah 19

I believe this with all my heart because the Bible says it and I can't wait to see it fulfilled. Amills do NOT believe it, and here's how they caricature and mock those of us who do.

Modern-day Jews aren't looking for a Messiah to come and save them from their sins. But just like their forefathers, the Pharisees, the kind of salvation that they are looking for from their Messiah when he comes is salvation from their enemies so they can own the whole earth in their restored kingdom and all who are not Jews will become their slaves and be forced by their Messiah to convert to Judaism. Makes one wonder why any Christians today would have this same kind of an abominable future hope at our Savior's return.

Roger

[Admin]

Roger,

Note the anti-semitism dripping from that comment you copied over. It is little wonder that pretty much every incident of "christian anti-semitism" we have seen has come from non Premills.

This post has been edited by Joel Tamburo: 19 October 2006 - 10:40 AM

[Ely]

The evil of amillennialism is that it steals God's Word from God's people (and therefore undermines their faith) under the guise of "non-literal fulfillment." They do not believe that God will do what He said He would do. They believe He will do something different - and in some cases exactly the opposite - of what He said He would do and just call it that. Thus, they are NOT Bible believers. And to crown the irony, they have the gall to call this "spiritual."

Hey Roger, I know what you mean, but this a bit harsh I think. Amills do believe the Bible, they just have a very (very) different way of intepreting portions of it than we (futurists) do. But again, I see what you're getting at.

[Admin]

Hi Ely,

It may sound harsh, but consider:

Preterism (which is simply a logical extension of Amill hermaneutics) denies the resurrection of the body.

Amillennialism redefines the title "Christ" into something the authors of Scripture would call heretical. They also redefine the term "Israel" the same way (which enables a lot of christian anti-semitism - look at things like the liberal Protestant churches divesting from Israel campaign).

The logical question is, to what avail is "believing the Bible" if you redefine its words and terms from what the author and the original audience would have understood?

[Roger Samsel]

Hey Ely,

Just to be clear, I was careful not to call into question their salvation. I believe they are Christians.

Now having said that, it may sound harsh, but if you don't think I am correct regarding the question of whether or not they are Bible believers, I suggest a simple test. Show them this passage in Isaiah 19 (or countless others I could mention) and then quiz them.

1. Do you believe that there will be five cities in Egypt that will speak the language of Canaan (Hebrew)?

2. Do you believe that in that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt?

3. Do you believe that there will be a pillar to the Lord at the border of Egypt?

4. Do you believe that the Egyptians will be converted to the Lord?

5. Do you believe that the Egyptians will bring sacrifices and offerings to the Lord to this altar?

6. Do you believe that there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria?

You will have to insist on definitions and consistency throughout this discussion. Be prepared for virtually every single word in the passage to be assigned a meaning that would be utterly foreign to the original readers, and would remain foreign to the church until several centuries after the apostles.

I'm saying all this because that is what happened constantly during the debate we had recently with the Amill team from ETF. Yes, they claim to believe the Scriptures, but they DO NOT BELIEVE what it actually and literally says. In fact, they consider what it actually and literally says to be heresy! They only believe their own non-literal interpretation of it. That is why I say they are not Bible believers.

Sincerely,

Roger

[Ely]

Roger, your comment sounds a lot less harsh when fleshed out. Actually, I've seen/heard plenty of amillennialists do some spectacular things which passages such as those. The latter portions of Zecharaiah and Ezekiel come in for some particularly outlandish "exegesis"!

[Admin]

Also, Ely, I would encourage you to hold them to the axiom that words and phrases used in the Bible have to be defined in a biblical manner. Without that there is no firm foundation.

[Ely]

Also, Ely, I would encourage you to hold them to the axiom that words and phrases used in the Bible have to be defined in a biblical manner. Without that there is no firm foundation.

Joel, I'd like you to look at something. Steve Gregg was asked why he thinks that the trumpet mentioned in Olivet discourse (Matthew 24:31) should not be equated with that in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. He replied thus:

The image of a trumpet has a variety of uses in scripture. Its appearance in two or three different prophetic contexts does not necessarily mean that it is used with the same significance in each case, nor that the same event is indicated in each. Many, for example, have tried to find, in Paul’s reference to “the last trump” (1 Cor.15:52) an allusion to the "seventh trumpet" in Revelation 11:15ff. While there may (or may not) be identity of subject matter in the two places, Paul could not have been deliberately alluding to the seven trumpets, unless, of course, he had read the book of Revelation—which seems impossible, given the early date of writing for 1 Corinthians.

The possibility that the “loud trumpet” in Matthew 24:31 is the same as that which occurs at the resurrection and rapture (1 Thess.4:16-17/ 1 Cor.15:52) can neither be assumed, nor ruled-out, without prior consideration of the context of both passages. If Matthew 24 is describing the publishing of the Gospel throughout the world through God’s messengers (Gr. angeloi), then the mention of the loud trumpet may symbolically connect this Gentile mission with some Old Testament referent, unrelated to the second coming, wherein trumpets played a significant role.

A brief survey of the use of trumpets in the Old Testament will provide a large variety of possible candidates, many of which might provide a symbolic parallel to the evangelization of the world. Among the ways trumpet blasts were used in the Old Testament (which is the frame of reference for Christ’s language), we find the following.

Trumpets were used to announce the Jewish New Year (Lev.23:24) and the Jubilee Year (Lev.25:9), as well as the beginning of almost any significant religious event (Num.10:10). The preaching of the Gospel is the announcement of the ultimate Jubilee (Luke 4:18-21).

In times of war, the trumpet alerted the nation to impending invasion (Joel 2:1) and gathered the troops to battle (Ezek.7:14/ 1 Cor.14:8). Trumpets played unusual and significant roles in the invasion of Jericho (Josh.6:20) and in the campaign of Gideon against the Midianites (Judges 7:18). Obviously, the church is like an army of God carrying the message of liberty into hostile spiritual territory, and we are engaged in a warfare against the powers of darkness.

The above examples might be said to find a spiritual counterpart in the evangelization of the Gentiles, but there are two other uses which seem particularly apt as being possible reasons for Jesus to use the sounding of a trumpet as a symbol of this campaign.

First, the sounding of trumpets often heralded the rise of a new king (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:10/ 1 Kings 1:34/ 2 Kings 9:13; 11:14). The message of the Gospel is the announcement that “there is another king—one Jesus” (Acts 17:7). It is "this Gospel of the kingdom" that will be proclaimed in all the world before the end comes (Matt.24:14).

Second, Isaiah 27:13 speaks of "a great trumpet" being blown to gather the outcasts who had been ready to perish in Assyria and Egypt. Some would take this as a prediction of a restoration of the Jews, but, for various reasons, I understand it to be a prophecy about the Gentiles coming into the church.

It is, therefore, not necessary to identify the trumpet of Matthew 24:31 with that of the resurrection passages in Paul’s epistles, and there is good reason, especially in the context, to associate it with world evangelization.

Do you consider this to be a valid biblical definition of terms (trumpet)"? How would you (or any one else) respond to this? What would you say requires the exegete to connect the trumpet in this passage with that in the other two mentioned passages?

[Admin]

No, it is not a valid definition.

Note what Steve says:

If Matthew 24 is describing the publishing of the Gospel throughout the world through God’s messengers (Gr. angeloi), then the mention of the loud trumpet may symbolically connect this Gentile mission with some Old Testament referent, unrelated to the second coming, wherein trumpets played a significant role.

He is using an allegorical interpretation of Matthew 24 to justify redefining a term in a manner foreign to its biblical use. Amills also do this sort of jiggering when they redefine the title "Christ" into something more at home in the Greek Pantheon than the Bible.

Read Matthew 24 as it is written. There is not a thing in it that makes it about the "publishing of the Gospel". It is about exactly what it says it is about, namely:

Matthew 24:3

3Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Roger, what do you think?

[Roger Samsel]

Ely,

The possibility that the “loud trumpet” in Matthew 24:31 is the same as that which occurs at the resurrection and rapture (1 Thess.4:16-17/ 1 Cor.15:52) can neither be assumed, nor ruled-out, without prior consideration of the context of both passages.

I agree 100% with this sentence. However, the very next sentence tells me that he has no intention of doing that.

If Matthew 24 is describing the publishing of the Gospel throughout the world through God’s messengers (Gr. angeloi), then the mention of the loud trumpet may symbolically connect this Gentile mission with some Old Testament referent, unrelated to the second coming, wherein trumpets played a significant role.

A brief survey of the use of trumpets in the Old Testament will provide a large variety of possible candidates, many of which might provide a symbolic parallel to the evangelization of the world. Among the ways trumpet blasts were used in the Old Testament (which is the frame of reference for Christ’s language), we find the following.

So when are we going to consider the context of both passages? Perhaps there is more to his discussion than the excerpt you provided, but within this excerpt, he ignores the contexts of both passages and goes on a fishing expedition to find a reference to trumpets that suits his purpose. So let’s ignore Steve Gregg for the moment and look at the contexts ourselves. As Joel pointed out, Matthew 24 is primarily about the second coming of Christ. Everything else that is mentioned is mentioned only as it relates to this great event. Deception, wars, tribulations, persecutions, the falling away, and false prophets are ALL mentioned specifically and only in relation to the second coming.

…but the end is not yet… v6

…but he who endures to the end shall be saved… v13

… so also will the coming of the Son of Man be… v27

… so you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near – at the doors! v33

… so also will the coming of the Son of Man be… v37

…watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming… v42

… Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect… v44

… blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing… v46


Even “world evangelism,” which Gregg claims Matt 24 is all about, is only mentioned as it relates to the second coming. Note verse 14,

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Nothing else is said in Matthew 24 about world evangelism. Not one thing.

Now, specifically regarding the trumpet, here is what Jesus said,

29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I don’t know how it could be any more explicit that the trumpet in Matthew 24 signals the return of Christ from heaven with power and great glory. If this is not a second coming passage, then there are no second coming passages.

If we now compare Matthew 24 with the relevant passages in Paul (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4 and 5; 2 Thess 1 and 2; Titus 2), carefully considering the contexts, we will see that they deal with the same event. I’m not going to take the time to write this all out, but Paul mentions all of the following which are directly borrowed from Matthew 24:

The falling away (apostasy),
False prophets,
Abomination of desolation and the antichrist,
False signs and wonders,
Signs in the heavens,
Coming with clouds,
Coming with angels,
The sounding of the Trumpet,
Gathering together the elect,
Power and great glory,
Drunkenness and sobriety,
Watchfulness and sleeping,
The thief in the night.

In my opinion, the evidence that the contexts are the same is overwhelming and conclusive.

YBIC

[Ely]

I agree, thanks for your thoughts brothers. One thing that I'm finding with amills/part prets concerning the Olivet Discourse, is that they often go to great lengths to show how various things Jesus said were fulfilled literally in AD70. But whenever they come to the passages which were clearly not fulflled literally (like verses 29-31), they suddenly switch to symbolism. This is the same procedure they go through with regard to OT prophecies. I'm genuinely curious to know what stops these guys from becoming fully-fledged preterists. Surely, any passage which sounds like it hasn't yet been fulfilled could be given the same symbolism treatment?

[Roger Samsel]

I'm genuinely curious to know what stops these guys from becoming fully-fledged preterists.

As far as I can tell, it is a desire (or perhaps a fear) to not depart from the church's historic statements of orthodoxy regarding the second coming and the resurrection. They do not want to be considered heterodox. But you are right in your inference that if they were truly consistent, they would become full preterists. In fact, full preterists like to refer to themselves as "consistent preterists" and their partial cousins as "hypo-preterists."

Roger

[Admin]

Also, both Preterists and Amills (in fact pretty much anyone who is not Premill) have a BIG problem regarding the person of Christ.

It is simply not possible to hold to anything except Premill and not deny that Jesus is the Christ. It is inherent in how "Christ" is defined in the Bible. Of course, in order to dodge around the clear Scriptural proscription on denying Jesus is the Christ they simply assign a new definition to the title "Christ" that none of the audiences of the books of the Bible would have understood (in fact, they would likely have rejected it as heresy).

[Chris]

(in fact, they would likely have rejected it as heresy).

Joel, this is an overstatement IMO. Amils state that Christ is King of the Universe. That is not a foreign concept in scripture (e.g., John 1 states that He is the creator). And it is most certainly not heretical to state that Jesus is King of the Universe.

To use their words, they have a more "heavenly" view of His kingship. IMO, their definition is incomplete, but not heretical.

Chris.

[Roger Samsel]

Joel, this is an overstatement IMO. Amils state that Christ is King of the Universe. That is not a foreign concept in scripture (e.g., John 1 states that He is the creator). And it is most certainly not heretical to state that Jesus is King of the Universe.

But the term "christ" does not mean "king of the universe." The term "Christ" means "king of the Israel." Saul, David and Solomon were all called "christ." But the oath made to David was that a particular "christ" (in Hebrew "moshiach") who would be of his seed, would sit on his throne and reign over the house of Jacob (the restored 12 tribes) forever (Psalm 2; Psalm 89). This was the hope of Israel. Stating that "Christ is King of the Universe" is not the same as confessing that "Jesus is the Christ" of Scripture. In actuality, stating that "Christ is king of the Universe," without acknowledging the oath God swore to David, is a clever way of denying that Jesus is the Christ, imo.