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.
