The following verses were given as possible problems with a premillennialist view. read the comments here for real context
First off I must say I am not theologian and I have a great deal of respect for amillennialist. Many have gone before me, that are far wiser than me. But because I do believe in the perspicuity of scripture, I will give the answer to this that I think best fits it, in the brevity of a blog post. (Now that is a challenge!) Also I am not a Greek scholar by any means. I view it as a seminary warm up. So here is my Armature shot at it.
Ok now to tackle the passages to the best of my ability.
The passage of Mark 13:29-31.*
"Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
Now the key word in this passage is the word generation. Now the Greek word is translated generations here and it used quite a bit in the passage its self. . (Thank God for concordances)
In the Greek it is “genea� (1074 in your Strong’s based Concordance)
It means:�race, family, generation� **
As a mater of fact the NASB version puts a footnote at the bottom stating that it also means race. So we have a situation where a word means not just a generation but it could also mean a whole race, that being the Jewish race. In other words it’s the preservation of the Jewish race.
This is also the case for the passage quoted in Luke, same interpretation for the word Generations.
Luke 21:31-33**
“So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place."
Now on to the passage in Matthew
Matthew 16:27-28**
"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Now the key thing is the word kingdom in this passage.
In the Greek it is “basileia� (932 in your Strong’s based Concordance)
It means:� kingdom, sovereignty, royal power� **
As has been well pointed out this verse right here is right before Christ transfiguration. Where he reveals him self in his glorified self, I.E. his royal power. So he was speaking of his glory being revealed.
So I have more I could add I may do it in a later post (ie a couple of weeks from now).
*from the Zondervan Exhaustive Concordance
** NASB
6 comments:
Actually, those are along the lines that I also think. So, you can pick your proverb:
"Great minds think alike"
-- OR --
"Fools seldom differ."
(c;
totally unrelated to your post..
http://www.av1611.org/crock/crockex1.html
The "Christian Rock Exposed" page I was telling you about last night...noticed that it's labeled "crock" for that's all that this guy is spewing.
blessings
I am glad you are Premillennial.
Hey Alan, my discontent with Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) is primarily because our Lord always talks of His Kingdom on the earth being more of a Spiritual one (in which He takes control of the Hearts, Saints worshipping the Father in truth and Spirit) rather than an earthly kingdom, a Kingdom that will outlast every other and also the whole splitting of the Resurrection (which also has Glorified Children of God living with people who are in present state) and other things in DP. It is just somewhat awkward in going with the flow of the Word. OT saints always expected the coming of the Lord being an event in which the God’s children are delivered and the Wicked are judged (John the Baptist is a good example). Our Lord said then He came to save and not to judge which to me points that when He comes again He will come in full Judgment.
Also DP brethren (I thank God for Godly men like MacArthur) usually say they interpret Revelation literally - that sounds like only half of the picture, DP brothers too have interpret Revelation in many areas figuratively (like “the Lamb of God with Seven Eyes�, which is figurative of Christ's omniscience, the four riders on the horse, Christ with sword in His mouth). And also the elevating of ethnic Jews seems a little unbalanced. True God has a special affection for Jacob’s children, but the elevation seems to me at the cost of the Bride of Christ’s(who you know comprises also of ethnic Jews who are of Christ from OT and NT, us who have been “grafted in� – that picture which seems to say we are in one way Abraham’s children of promise in God’s eyes) importance who is more important among men than anybody to the Lord, I do believe God will save ethnic Jews before He comes but it will be too late when He has come.
I think your interpretation of Mark 13:29-31 is probably true, but I am not sure. Your interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28 is correct I believe. But I am not sure if they really are all that problematic to DP, (Matthew 16:27-28 is a text to be dealt by all believers, and has been twisted by people who don’t know Christ to say He didn’t what he was talking). As for me I am not sure what is true but I have much to work out with in my walk with Christ. I used to be sympathetic to DP but I see it has problems that just seem not to go away. I could be pretty wrong. Ok here is a link to an article, try tackling with it: http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/19952Thessalonians.htm . I hope you are doing well, God bless you - Anonmyous
Alan, same Anonymous who posted previous post, sorry I didnt look into the context, GOd bless you
As for the nasty definition of "Reformed" or "Calvinist"(both are same). The reason I think why Presbies(there was actually a split immediately after OPC was formed because of this issue, Bible Presb Church came out seperate being tolerant of DP) don't agree that the term can be applied to those who hold to 5-pts and a Disp view of church and eschatology is because they look back into their tradition and that Tradition has almost always held Covenant Theology or rather Unity of God's Covenant in high regard and departing position for rest of Theology(which doesnt have much problem with Hist Premil) concerning esp Church and Eschatology. But esp from 1900s onwards I think the term Reformed/Calvinist is used to designate those who believe in the Sovereignity of God in all things esp Salvation(and consequeting susbscribing to the five points) and in which case all who hold to that are Reformed or Calvinists. I personally think all this debate is inconsequential and Presbies need to be charitable(I donot mean liberal) in their applying of the term now that 5-points come under serious attacks all the time(well 5-points have atttacked long ago by Amyraut and faced lot of opposition in time Edwards came, and a lot of attacks in 1800s when many of Presbies actually left it which I think resulted in theological liberalism -- so I think they are unfair with their holding of the term from those believe Disp Premill). So you see, in one sense Dr MacArthur's theology would not be 100% reformed/calvinist(according to the tradition) and in another he is full 100% reformed/calvinist(according to soteriology which is very important)
Post a Comment