Isaiah 65 and the Millennial Kingdom

[RamistThomist]

No, he questioned their overly literal interpretation of those prophecies

It's a little more complicated than that. He critiqued them for failing to see the Messiah, not for taking God's word at face value.

But seriously, we can at least agree that the promised earthly reign of Christ begins when he returns, correct?

Nope. George Ladd. Already-not yet. I am surprised that as a Vos-Ridderbosian amillennialist, you didn't jump on this. In some sense it began when Christ came for the first time. There are future fulfillments, however. Zech. 14, Isaiah 11, a few others.

The neo-platonic strawman is getting old. No one is arguing for an immaterial kingdom.

I have a few D.G. Hart essays for you to read where he argues precisely that and does so in explicitly neo-platonic, dualistic categories. I don't think he realizes that, though. Mark Karlberg is another--he disagrees with Amillennialists Hoekema, Gaffin, Ridderbos and S. Ferguson.

We disagree as to when the earthly reign of Christ begins and what the nature of that kingdom will be.

If you agree that it will be earthly, then the only disagreement is timing. As to the nature, the disagreement is now one of degree, not kind, since you agree it will be earthly.

 

[B.J.]

There is a big difference between "giving the Jews a kingdom" and longing for a millennial reign.

And what difference would that be? The Jewish Kingdom is ruled by their promised Messiah, right? Or at last that is what they thought. A millennial riegn would be a "literal" fullfillment of Isaiah 65, and that is what they longed for, so whats the difference?

I don't hold a future earthly kingdom for the Jews. I don't know how we got sidetracked on that.

We aren't sidetracked. You see Isaiah 65 is Jewish "leftovers" from the OT, and if it is to be fullfilled "literally" it must be a Millennial reign for them, and them alone. You dont want to be caught being neo-platonic and spiritualizing the OT with the NT do you?

While I risk an appeal to authority, Al Mohler, Carl Henry, and others hold to that view.

From what I know of Mohler (from his own mouth) he holds a view that says God still has a plan for the nation of Israel. Any view that says God has something left for Israel other than Christ alone is In my humble opinion Dispensational. A historic PreMill should see the Church as having fullfilled the OT "leftovers" and a Millennial Kingdom having absolutley nothing to do with Jews per se, or any OT text. They shold argue for a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth from Rev.20, the only text in the Bible which talks about one. In other words Mohler is not a Historic PreMill, he is at the very least a Progressive Dispensational.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

everybody likes "ctrl c + ctrl v"

It's the easy way of not having to explain away the exegetical backflips that come with any other position than a premillennial one......

 

[RamistThomist]

And what difference would that be? The Jewish Kingdom is ruled by their promised Messiah, right? Or at last that is what they thought. A millennial riegn would be a "literal" fullfillment of Isaiah 65, and that is what they longed for, so whats the difference?

Jesus told the Jews that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to a nation bearing fruit. That is one way to look at it. Another way is to posit a difference between cultic-politico Jewish state and Jewish brethren who are saved en masse. The latter does not logically necessitate a religious state of Israel.

We aren't sidetracked. You see Isaiah 65 is Jewish "leftovers" from the OT, and if it is to be fullfilled "literally" it must be a Millennial reign for them, and them alone. You dont want to be caught being neo-platonic and spiritualizing the OT with the NT do you?

Dispensationalism--and even given the great gains of progressive dispensationalism--messed up when they had the nation of Israel mediating the blessings to the world. My form of premillennialism (ala Russell Moore) has Christ mediating the blessings to the world in the millennium.

But to answer the Jewish question--yes, there is an element here for the future Jews. But they are Jews who will convert to Christianity.

From what I know of Mohler (from his own mouth) he holds a view that says God still has a plan for the nation of Israel. Any view that says God has something left for Israel other than Christ alone is In my humble opinion Dispensational.

If that is what you want to call it, fine. I don't consider myself a dispensationalist (given the whole theonomy thing ). But I think you are pinning something onto my position that I wouldn't hold. I hold the Jews will be saved in the millennium ala Christ alone. I don't know how we got off track on that.

A historic PreMill should see the Church as having fullfilled the OT "leftovers" and a Millennial Kingdom having absolutley nothing to do with Jews per se, or any OT text. They shold argue for a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth from Rev.20, the only text in the Bible which talks about one. In other words Mohler is not a Historic PreMill, he is at the very least a Progressive Dispensational.

I don't see the problem. You keep pinning a Jewish part on me that I never held to. You can if you want to, but that's not my position. But as pertaining the bolded part, the reason--as best I understand it--that we appeal to the OT for a millennial kingdom is that there are passages there that don't make sense otherwise. Again, I dont' see the problem hermeneutically.

EDIT: This might clear up some. I don't hold that the church "replaces" Israel. Rather, the NT indentifies Christ as the firstborn of Israel, as Israel, etc. Therefore, all these glorious OT promises are applied to Christ. He inherits the promsis (Acts 13-32-35). The church, by union in Christ, shares (or will share; already not yet stuff) these promises.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Nope. George Ladd. Already-not yet. I am surprised that as a Vos-Ridderbosian amillennialist, you didn't jump on this. In some sense it began when Christ came for the first time. There are future fulfillments, however. Zech. 14, Isaiah 11, a few others.

I don't deny the already/not yet distinction. but there will be a time when that distinction is no more. I was referring to his bodily return in glory. You do believe that his return causes a significant change in the world order don't you?

I have a few D.G. Hart essays for you to read where he argues precisely that and does so in explicitly neo-platonic, dualistic categories. I don't think he realizes that, though. Mark Karlberg is another--he disagrees with Amillennialists Hoekema, Gaffin, Ridderbos and S. Ferguson.

Hart and Karlberg are hardly representative of the Reformed Amil camp.

If you agree that it will be earthly, then the only disagreement is timing. As to the nature, the disagreement is now one of degree, not kind, since you agree it will be earthly.

Perhaps one of degree during the interadvent age, but not after Christ returns.