“$1000 For One Scripture That Says…” On the heels of the previous post being about dispensationalism, I find this long-standing challenge by TK Burk to be an interesting one. For those who may have seen the last post, but weren’t sure what dispensationalism is, Burk’s eight points below should help give you an idea of what is taught in this school of thought:
A biblical doctrine is not biblical unless it has biblical passages proving it is biblical fact. That may sound a little simplistic, and maybe even a bit of a tongue twister, but it is still the main rule to follow when rightly dividing God’s Word. Please, keep this in mind when reading through this $1000.00 challenge.
Each of the following eight points are taken from foundational teachings in the prophecy view called “Dispensationalism.” If Dispensationalism is truly biblical then there should be Bible passages that clearly speak of these points. If there are no such scriptures, how then can Dispensationalism be said to be biblical? For this challenge, I am offering $1000.00 to the first person that can give just one Bible verse that actually says any of the following Dispensational teachings:
- God delayed His Kingdom because the Jews rejected Jesus.
- There is a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel.
- There will be a secret pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.
- God will require the building of a physical third Jewish Temple.
- God will no longer accept grace and Jesus’ blood for salvation but will instead return to the Law and animal blood sacrifices.
- An Antichrist will make a seven-year covenant with the Jews.
- There will be a future seven-year tribulation period.
- A physical Jesus Christ will return to establish a 1000-year reign on earth.
If you’re a Dispensational believer, and if you believe that any or all of the above eight teachings are biblical, would you please give us at least one Bible verse that actually says any of the above? Though Dispensational teachers claim to have much scriptural evidence to support their teachings, you only need one Bible scripture to qualify for the $1000.00.
This $1000.00 offer has been around for many years. To date not even one verse has ever been sent to prove any of these Dispensational teachings are in fact biblical…not one. This silence alone should be enough to prove that these main points in the Dispensational theory are not biblical. However, since Dispensationalism is still claimed by some to be biblical, this $1000.00 is still being offered to the first person that can give such a verse. If you are a Dispensationalist and you cannot find such a scripture, I hope you realize that this means you are missing much more than just $1000.00–you are missing the fullness of God’s Truth.
For continuity, responses to this challenge must use the King James Bible. Use the below “reply” area to send in any Bible verses. Comments concerning the lack of any such scriptural evidence are also welcomed.
(Source)
Burk is right – not one Scripture passage substantiates any of those eight points. As a side note regarding #5, my understanding is that dispensationalists/pre-millennialists would probably say that God’s grace and Jesus’ blood will still be the basis for salvation in an alleged future millennium, but that animal sacrifices will be re-established as some kind of a memorial. It’s still a very strange idea, though, in my opinion, and certainly without Scriptural basis.
Pursuing Truth 
Hello Adam, thanks for posting this challenge. I put it on my Facebook page and no takers yet,lol! I wanted to ask if you have done any writing on the supposed Psalm 83 theory that seems to be big right now with dispensational teachers. With all that is going on in the middle east, it was only a matter of time before someone made the declaration that this is an end time event. thanks again for your blog…Jack Harper
LikeLike
Hi Jack. You’re welcome, and I’m not surprised that no one took you up on it on Facebook. I’ve thought about writing on the Psalm 83 theory, but haven’t done it yet. I’ve seen the hoopla too. One guy, at least, looks to be making millions off his nonsense on the subject.
LikeLike
Hey You have a great site with great articles, Adam!
I got here researching 70 AD and dispensationalism.
Why are you not saynig the name of this guy making millions with this PSalm 83 theory (and other prophetic materials)? Is it to not give him/her free publicity?
I think I know who that may be. To respect your silence, I won’t say the full name, but I think the initials are B.S. (seriously! not a joke!) 😀 Am I right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Oscar. Yes, Bill Salus does have those initials. Good catch. 🙂 I actually don’t remember why I didn’t name him at the time (more than three years ago).
LikeLike
I’m hardly sympathetic to dispensationalism; I rarely engage dispensationalists in debate because, to put it bluntly, I have a hard time taking it seriously. But I do believe in being fair, and this challenge is bogus.
The whole thing is rigged for a predetermined result. It is like taking the “Mormon challenge”: ask God in prayer if the book of Mormon is true, and you will feel a burning in your bosom. So if I don’t feel this “burning in your bosom,” then the book is false? Well, no, that just proves your prayer wasn’t sincere.(!) It’s the old, “Let’s flip a coin; heads I win, tails you lose.”
While it is always nice to have a “Thus saith the Lord” to back up one’s doctrinal beliefs, this is not required to prove a doctrinal point. On numerous occasions Jesus was confronted by Pharisees, and Jesus was unable to provide a “Thus saith the Lord” verse. Instead, He would often cite several passages, and then reason from them towards the correct doctrinal position.
Of course, it is possible to cherry pick a number beliefs of any one of us that cannot be established by the simple reading of a single verse. But TK Burk not only gets to do the cherry picking, he is also the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner of this challenge. Even though he is clearly biased on many levels against reaching a solution to this challenge, he alone is to judge when a Scripture is sufficiently clear.
For ex., regarding the gap between the 69th and 70th week of Dan. 9:24-27, I believe there is such a gap, and I can present a plausible argument from that passage alone, and bolster it with historical facts. Is that sufficient to “prove” it to Burk? I suspect not.
I’m not ideologically opposed to keeping the 70 weeks consecutive, but the main argument against Burk’s own view is: #1. It seems plain enough to me that Dan.9:26-27 speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD, and #2. There is no way to get to 70 AD using consecutive weeks.
Looking at Burk’s interpretation of this passage, the 70 weeks ends 3&1/2 years after the crucifixion of Christ. OK. So what significant event that is relevant to this particular prophecy happened at this time? Perhaps I missed it (I read through much of it, and skimmed through the rest due to length), but I didn’t see where he addressed this. So he ties up this prophecy with another prophecy, when Jesus predicted Jerusalem’s doom in that generation. But this passage doesn’t end with another prophecy, but with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple!
Take another example, #8’s “A physical Jesus Christ will return to establish a 1000-year reign on earth.” What constitutes sufficient proof that the reign is “physical”? Being that Burk holds to “fulfilled eschatology,” would he even acknowledge the physicality of the Christian’s resurrection body as explicitly taught in Romans 8:11?
Elsewhere, Burk makes a big deal about how there is “ONLY” just “ONE” verse that speaks of Christ’s thousand year reign, as if God has to say something more than once to be authoritative. This is misleading: while there is only one passage that speaks of this thousand year reign (Rev. 20), this thousand years is explicitly mentioned five times across several verses.
I don’t believe the thousand years is literal, but I can see a literal thousand years much, much easier than I can see his “a thousand years is really a symbol for forty years.” That is utterly ridiculous!
But in the interest of fairness, I will offer Burk a bazillion dollars if he can provide me with a single Bible verse that plainly teaches a thousand years really equals just forty years. ;^)
LikeLike
Steve,
Your response on my $1000.00 offer is very interesting. I have dealt with everything you mentioned on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact, over my years your concerns were also mine at one time or another, so I get what you’re saying.
Your point about how Jesus “cited” Old Testament verses is exactly what I’m trying to point out with my challenge. He would often speak snippets of OT passages to prove His points or better explain what they had meant. That is not the case with the eight points I use in my challenge. They do not have such OT evidence. This is why Dispensationalism is based, not on biblical evidence, but on man’s opinions. It begins with a theory of what is to come. It then finds verses that they massage to fit those theories. This is why my challenge asks, not for passages that “support” their view, but passages that actually teach what they say is biblical. You cannot claim a teaching is biblical if you have no Bible that teaches it, right?
Concerning your “bazillion dollar” offer for a “single Bible verse that plainly teaches a thousand years really equals just forty years,” I think I can do that. Revelation clearly states that everything written within it was to be fulfilled soon after its writing. These internal biblical evidences are as follows:
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Revelation 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Revelation 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Revelation 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Revelation’s message is very clear—expect that the things written there will soon come to pass! This “soon” means during the generation in which Revelation was written. The Bible’s time texts all agree that these things were to “soon come to pass,” and they did during the 70 AD siege of Jerusalem, just as prophesied in the Old and New Testament.
Revelation 22:10 is another scripture that confirms the key to understanding Revelation’s prophecies is found within the soon expectancy of its prophecies to be fulfilled. This verse deals with whether the apostle John should or should not seal Revelation’s message from his readers.
Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, SEAL NOT THE SAYINGS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK: FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND.
John is told by Jesus not to seal his words because their fulfillment is “at hand.” This wording is similar to that we find in the book of Daniel. There Daniel was told to seal his prophetic message because its fulfillment was to be delayed until a later time when his 70th week would be completed.
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, SHUT UP THE WORDS, AND SEAL THE BOOK, EVEN TO THE TIME OF THE END: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Where Daniel and John’s wording differs is in the fact that God told Daniel his prophecies were for a later time, but He told John that his were for a time that was soon to come. This soon coming scenario was possible during the generation of John since, by the time of Revelation’s writing, the 70 weeks that Daniel wrote about were completed, and the prophecies about Jesus “coming” in judgment against those who rejected His New Covenant were “soon” to take place.
These biblical time indicators alone prove that Revelation 20 is not speaking of a 2,000 plus year future fulfillment, but is instead one that was to occur within the generation of those who crucified Christ. This conclusion is the same timeframe in which Jesus gave for the fulfillments for all He prophesied in His Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 Mount Olivet Discourses (See Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). And when you see that “the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ” is the Apostle John’s Mount Olivet Discourse explained in great detail, then it is easy to see the 1,000 year prophecy must also fit within that same biblically given timeframe.
Let me know when you’re ready to send me my “bazillion dollars.” That much cash sure will make the bill paying go much easier.
LikeLike
Hello TK, just so you know, I am a (partial) preterist, so we already agree on much of Revelation. I, too, believe Matt. 24-25 is the blueprint for the book of Revelation.
I believe Matt. 24:1-25:30, along with the parallel passages in Mark & Luke, are all 70AD. But after speaking of what was about to happen to that generation, Jesus then briefly looks ahead to the fate of that generation at the (still) future final judgment in Matt. 25:31-46, which parallels the events at the end of the millennium in Rev. 20:11-15.
I recently guest-posted here a three part series on the biblical heavens & earth. In the third post, and in its comments, you can learn more about my views on Rev. ch. 20 and the resurrection there, if you wish.
Back to the thousand years and the bazillion dollars… If I understand your view correctly, you believe the millennium began in 30AD and ended in 70AD. That being the case, since Revelation was written about 65AD, then most of the millennium would have been past at the time of Revelation’s writing. But a simple reading of the text does not suggest it is already past. In fact, the simple reading would place the beginning of the millennium at the destruction of Babylon and the killing of her people, and the punishment of the beast and false prophet (the chapter that immediately precedes the beginning of the millennium passage).
Regarding the near time frame of Revelation, I agree with you, it would be fulfilled soon after it was written. But the book speaks of events at the beginning and end of a “thousand year” period. If we go by either of the more obvious meanings of a thousand years (a literal thousand years, or a long, indefinite period of time), then it is obviously impossible for such a time period to both begin AND end in the near future. So the events at the end of this time period (Rev. 20:7-15) would necessarily be excluded from the near time frame of the rest of the book.
So my bazillion dollars are safe! =)
If I may make a request, I would like to see a post on your blog about the nature of the resurrection body. I looked through your site and I could not find much about this subject. Also, I would appreciate it if you would address the points I made about the resurrection in the third post on the biblical heavens & earth on your blog. I’ve always had a hard time getting the fulfilled eschatology folks to engage my arguments on the resurrection body. Thanks!
LikeLike
Steve,
Matthew 25:31-46 speaks of a 1,000-year Millennial reign? How so? Where? What verse mentions a 1,000-year earthly reign of a physical Jesus Christ? Do you believe chapters 24 and 25 connect? If they do, what verse or verses says that part of those prophecies were for 70 AD and others are for a time yet in the future?
Do you believe Jesus is not currently sitting on His “throne of glory” (Mat 25:31)? If He is, then Matthew 25 is fulfilled. If He is not, please explain how Jesus was honest when He said He currently has “ALL power in Heaven and in Earth” (Mat 28:18)? This is only a beginning of the many verses that refer to Jesus currently sitting in power and glory.
Also, I did not see where you reconciled how Revelation says its prophecies would soon be fulfilled with your notion that some of its prophecies are still—more than 2,000 years later—unfulfilled. Where are the time text verses within Revelation that say such a thing? I have the verses that say to expect a soon fulfillment. Where are those that say otherwise?
I look forward to your replies.
Jesus’ best!
LikeLike
Hello TK. I’m an amillenialist, so I do not believe in a literal thousand year reign. I believe the millennium began in 70AD, continues through the present day, and will end one day when Jesus returns to this realm in the flesh at the Second Coming.
I do believe Matt. 24 & 25 connect. I believe Matt. 24:1-25:30 is all about 70AD. The focus in this passage is on what was about to happen to that nation in that generation. When Matt. 24:30 speaks of the “tribes of the earth,” I believe in context it is better translated as the “tribes of the land,” as in the tribes of the Holy Land, the ancient nation of Israel. When Jesus speaks of the heavens & earth perishing in that generation (Matt. 24:34-35), Jesus is using the “heavens & earth” to actually refer to the Jewish land and nation, as was the case in Jer. 4:23-26.
But in Matt. 25:31-46, Jesus speaks of the end result of that generation of Jews at the final judgment. In this context, the judgment is not limited to one generation of one nation, but the judgment of all nations throughout all generations. This is indicated in Matt. 25:32, when it says “all the nations” will be gathered before Christ for judgment. There was only one nation judged in 70AD.
How do I reconcile a still future resurrection with the nearness of Revelation’s fulfillment? Revelation speaks of being fulfilled soon AND it speaks of a thousand year reign. There are three obvious ways to reconcile this: #1. The thousand years would soon begin. #2. The thousand years would soon end. #3. The thousand years would soon begin and end.
Options #2 & 3 would mean a thousand = forty or fewer, which I find dubious in the extreme. I hold to option #1, that when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, this kicked off the beginning of the “thousand years.” And since there was no resurrection a thousand literal years later, then the thousand years must represent a large, indefinite period of time.
Psalm 50:10 uses the number one thousand to represent a large, indefinite number, presumably much larger than an actual thousand. Can you provide me with a single verse that clearly uses a thousand to represent forty?
LikeLike
1. God delayed His Kingdom because the Jews rejected Jesus.
a. Romans 11:25-29 (circa 56-57AD)
2. There is a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel.
a. 1 Cor 11:26. Clearly, Jesus’ death on the cross is represented in Daniel 9:26, and we are to proclaim His death until He comes…which is why Christianity has continued this one (of two) practices since the time of the Apostles.
3. There will be a secret pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.
a. 1 Thess 5:1-9 (in particular, vs. 2-3 contrasts delineates between you and they, them)
4. God will require the building of a physical third Jewish Temple.
a. Matthew 24:15 (33AD) 2 Thess 2:4 (50AD) Rev 11:1-3 (95AD, but points to a future temple)
5. God will no longer accept grace and Jesus’ blood for salvation but will instead return to the Law and animal blood sacrifices. I don’t think it will be done as a memorial, but if it were, it’s no stretch to believe that, since we partake of the Lord’s Supper as a Memorial of Christ’s death on the Cross, and we do so until He returns. (1 Cor 11:26)
a. Incorrect understanding of the animal sacrifices. They were for restoring fellowship between man and God, not for salvation. (Sin offering, Peace offering)
b. Hebrews 10:1-4 makes this clear. So your question is flawed to begin with.
6. An Antichrist will make a seven-year covenant with the Jews.
a. Daniel 9:27 (See Gen 29:27 validation of week as 7 years)
7. There will be a future seven-year tribulation period.
a. Jeremiah 30:7,11 (unless you can claim vs. 11 has already happened, it’s still future)
8. A physical Jesus Christ will return to establish a 1000-year reign on earth.
a. Rev 1:7 (physical coming), Dan. 2:44 (physical kingdom, destroys all other physical kingdoms on the earth)
Mr. Burke, I find it interesting that your so invested (literally) in trying to disprove Dispensationalism. Might your $$ be better spent disproving secular humanism, Mormonism, Atheism, etc? I didn’t find your challenge hard, what I find hard is your intellectual honesty in actually paying up.
LikeLike
Pete,
Thanks for commenting here. I don’t believe, however, that you’ve located any Scriptures backing up dispensationalism or overcoming TK Burk’s challenge. I won’t address all of your replies, but I’ll respond to a few of them:
1. Romans 11:25-29 does not speak of God’s kingdom being delayed. This text doesn’t even mention God’s kingdom. Israel’s hardening was also “in part” and the text doesn’t say, in terms of years, how long that would last.
4. None of those texts speak of a rebuilt temple, or of a temple beyond the first century. Matthew 24:15’s mention of a “holy place” has been understood by many to refer to all of Jerusalem, and the parallel in Luke’s gospel account (Luke 21:20-23) reveals that the abomination of desolation involved foreign armies surrounding Jerusalem. In any case, Jesus said all those things would take place in His own generation (Matt. 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32), not our generation or a generation future to us, and they did take place as and when He predicted they would. This post discusses these things in more detail: http://kloposmasm.com/2011/05/09/the-olivet-discourse-this-generation-or-that-generation-part-3-of-4/
II Thess. 2:4 has been understood by some as referring to the church, especially when considering how the Greek word for “temple” in that text is used elsewhere. In any case, Paul was talking about things that his readers knew about in the first century, and they knew then who the restrainer was (verses 5–6). This is discussed in more detail in this post: http://kloposmasm.com/2011/12/20/a-study-of-ii-thessalonians-21-8/
An immense amount of internal evidence supports a pre-70 AD date for the writing of Revelation. Regardless, Rev. 11:2 says nothing about one temple disappearing and another reappearing centuries later. The treading of the holy city underfoot for 42 months took place between February 67 AD and August 70 AD, from the time that Nero declared war on Israel until Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed.
6. Daniel 9:27 says nothing about an antichrist, and this was historically viewed (correctly) as referring to the new covenant established by the blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, a covenant made with many (see Matthew 26:28).
LikeLike
point 1 is when paul told the jews he would go to the gentiles.point 3 we are the Bride of christ would u beat your bride to silly before you married her ?point 4 How can you have a sacrifice without a Temple the jews already have the clothes and other temple furniture ready.point 5 is easy Revelation 14:7 ts the everlasting gospel fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgement has come etc…. this is different from pauls gospel found in I corinthians 15:1-6.
i see its no use you are like a Jehovah Witness
;
LikeLike
Adam,
I think that Mr. Burk’s challenge to find dispensationalism (or any of the specific questions in a single verse) is flawed from the get go, (as verses and chapters weren’t added until the 13th-16th centuries). Could I pull the word dispensation (stewardship/administration) out of Scriptures? Sure, Oikonomia being the greek, could be found in four places in which Paul references either different stewardship given to him, as opposed to say Moses, or inconjunction with the ‘fullness of time’ (kairos). (1 Cor 9:17; Eph. 1:10; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25)
1. Clearly, you and I can look back through history and see how this has played out.
4. Holy Place referring to all of Jerusalem? Instead of relying on other’s opinions, why not just use what the Scritpture has to say? Exodus 26:33, 28:29; 1 Kings 8:10; Ez. 45:4; Heb. 9:25 (not conclusive or exhaustive, but a sampling of referring the Holy Place to the Temple)
Jesus said that “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors”…this generation is the one who ‘see’s all those things’. Compare this to Matt. 23:36, when Christ condemned the pharisees for all the blood that had accumulated from abel until Zecharias would come upon them, because they rejected Him (see the end result in vs. 39.
And implying that the text really only relates to what someone in the first century would understand (2 Thess. 2:4) is putting God in a small box. Is God omniscient? Did God speak through man to write what He wanted them to write?
And are you also implying that the antichrist (or son of perdition) has the ability to enter people’s hearts, either now, or back in the first century?
If Revelation were written prior to AD70, then Laodicea would have to had been destroyed in an earthquake in AD60 (this historically happened), they would have had to apostasize within 1-10 years (if we take AD70 as the date) or earlier (AD67-7 years) to fall back into such a lukewarm state, as to be nauseas to Jesus. Secondly, Nero beheaded Paul, and crucified Peter in AD66-67…why imprison John? If you hold to the ECF’s teaching that they had attempted to boil him first, but didn’t die (Tertullian?) but Nero never banished anyone. Domitian did.
Thirdly, Polycarp states there was no church in Smyrna in Paul’s day…and paul was killed in 66-67AD. Fourthly, if Paul and John wrote as contemporaries (Ephesians, 2 Timothy and Rev. 2:1-7), the errors that Christ points out in the letter to Ephesus, should have showed up in Paul’s writing as corrective action…yet it doesn’t. Lastly, Iraeneaus states that the Revelation was written in Domitian’s day, and he has alot more creditibility to me, than someone 2,000 years removed. The only thing opponents to Ireneaus statement can do these days, is to insert doubt into what is arguably, a clear statement. Even Clement of Alexandria and Origen support this late dating of Revelation.
LikeLike
Zechariah 14 for number 8, just have to combine it with the 1,000 year (specific time frame) mentioned later in the progressive revelation of Revelation. Just dropped by for a second, to let you know that I am still out here Adam, and praying for you.
LikeLike
Jerry, theology is all about making and recognizing distinctions. The problem for those of us who have been raised in, studied, dispensationalism is that those distinctions must be “deduced” from Scripture. Then those “deductions” start getting stacked one upon another like a house of cards. It is a system that has to be right in its interpretation of every passage or the whole system falls apart and quite frankly no one is that good. Let’s face it good honest people doing their best to interpret scripture disagree on these matters. Unfortunately many people today make their living off of their doctrinal interpretation and would lose their positions if they changed their opinions. True scholarship demands academic freedom to investigate the rabbit trails and follow them where they lead in pursuit of truth. So I make a distinction between scholarship and being an apologist.
LikeLike
It’s been around for years, because it is a Dishonest question he has no intention of paying up on.
Dispensationalism, is a system of interpretation. It’s not a single verse answer. If you are consistently applying a literal, grammatical, historical approach to the whole bible, it is the default view you are left with.
If you are not consistent in your interpretation, you get all the other views.
LikeLike
A clear example from the Old Testament of the fact that the Messiah must reign physically upon earth is Jeremiah 23:5-6- “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
I like to use this passage to witness to Jehovah’s Witnesses to prove the Messiah’s deity but also verse 5 clearly prophesies that the Lord Jesus Christ will reign, and He will execute judgment and justice in the earth. The Hebrew word for earth eretz, meaning the land or earth, this prophecy has not been fulfilled and must yet be fulfilled. Do we accept the Old Testament prophecies of the First Coming and then spiritualise away the prophecies regarding the Second Coming? This is poor hermeneutics.
God bless,
LikeLike
Jesus did offer the kingdom to a Jew. His name was Peter. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. There is no postponement of the kingdom. Jesus never offered the kingdom to the temple authorities, John the Baptist had already condemned them during his prophetic ministry.
LikeLike
Your reply doesn’t deal with the specific text I quoted but anyway, Jesus actually did offer Kingdom to the nation of Israel by stating the Kingdom of God is at hand but in Matthew 12 this offer was rejected so the Jews were judged in the dispersion that occurred after AD 70 yet Jesus says that there is coming a time when they will repent of their rejection of Him when He says ‘from now on you will not see Me UNTIL you say ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’ This will take place in conjunction with Zechariah 12:10-14 so actually the Messianic Kingdom has been postponed.
What you fail to recognise is that there are different aspects of the Kingdom of God, there is the 1) Universal/Eternal Kingdom, 2) the Spiritual Kingdom, 3) the Theocratic Kingdom, 4) the Millennial/Messianic Kingdom and 5) the Mystery Kingdom. It is only by recognising these different aspects that seeming contradictions then make sense, i.e. Mark 9:1 says the Kingdom can be seen whereas Luke 17:20-21 says it can’t be observed, if you only recognise one aspect of the Kingdom of God then these passages contradict but they don’t contradict if you recognise there are differing aspects of God’s Kingdom Program.
The ‘keys of the kingdom’ was simply authority given to Peter to open the door of the Church to Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles, this was fulfilled in the Book of Acts. If you’re saying Peter was given the Kingdom does this mean Peter has authority to decide who enters unto heaven and who doesn’t? The Church is simply a facet of one aspect of the Kingdom of God, the Spiritual Kingdom but it is not the entirety of God’s Kingdom Program, which unfortunately Amillennialism fails to recognise.
But as I said you don’t deal with the text I quoted that clearly prophesies Jesus exercising His Kingship upon earth, I could quote Isaiah 2:2-4 and other Scriptures that describe this but I guess you just spiritualise these away.
LikeLike
John the Baptist begins the gospel of Matthew already stating that the axe was at the root of the tree, he had already dismissed the temple and its leaders as an option remember he was a priest. Why is he at the Jordan River offering an alternative to Israel. A new exodus as it were. Dispensatioalism is all about making distinnctions, and yes I fail to recognize them. The way you read the Bible is not a simple plain reading of Scripture. Sorry Kingdom means kingdom and Jesus gave it to Peter.
LikeLike
What John the Baptist and Jesus was declaring to be at hand was different to what was present in Israel at the time, which was the Theocratic Kingdom, they were offering a much better kingdom, which was the Messianic Kingdom.
Actually the simple plain reading of Scripture leads to Premillennialism and a 1000 year reign of Christ, if Revelation 20 is read in its simple form and other Scripture.
So Peter was given the Kingdom? As I said, so if the Kingdom is his then he decides who enters and who doesn’t?
According to your view then of failing to recognise differing aspects of God’s Kingdom then Mark 9:1 and Luke 17:20-21 do contradict, and it’s according to your view that passages like Isaiah 2:2-4 and Jeremiah 23:5-6 may as well be ignored.
LikeLike
“What John the Baptist and Jesus was declaring to be at hand was different to what was present in Israel at the time, which was the Theocratic Kingdom, they were offering a much better kingdom, which was the Messianic Kingdom.”
I know it’s been over 2 years since you posted this but I was compelled to reply to part of your statement listed above.
I agree with you in essence that Jesus and John The Baptist were offering Israel something much better than the theocratic kingdom they were under at the time. I think a major flaw in the Dispensationalism that most Christians are taught assumes that the Messianic Kingdom is here on earth during the 1000 years. There is not 1 verse in scripture that supports this. This theory came about as a result of a misunderstanding of Isaiah chapter 11…”the wolf will lay down with the lamb etc.”… assuming that it is referring to literal wolves and literal lambs here on earth. There is not 1 verse in Isaiah 11 that mentions the 1000 years. It’s just not there and Isaiah 11 is the only place in the whole Bible that Dispensationalists have to imply that Christ’s Kingdom is here on earth for 1000 years.
There is, however, 1 verse in scripture that proves that the Messianic Kingdom is not on this earth at all. Read John 18:36 : Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again your making your unwarranted distinctions that scripture itself does not make. There is only one kingdom. We agree that Israel rejected Jesus, much more they excommunicated him and crucified him as a heretic. Jesus judged that generation in 70 AD. He never offered them another chance at the kingdom. He did not postpone an offer. No scripture support whatsoever. Even Tom Ice admits that. It went to Peter, a true Israelite, and the apostles. Their ministry was the hope of Israel, and a restoration of the kingdom, which is the story of Acts. Read the excellent articles posted here by Don K. Preston. God disinherited Israel when the rent the veil of the temple, and vindicated Jesus when he arose from the dead. The parables of Jesus make it clear that the kingdom was given to others, just read Luke 9 forward to Holy Week.
LikeLike
You’re not dealing with the points I raise, you say there is only one Kingdom. Jesus says in Mark 9:1 that the Kingdom is visible but in Luke 17:20-21 He says it isn’t coming with signs to be observed. Which is it then?
LikeLike
You see distinctions I see paralallels. We will never agree.
LikeLike
How can something that is visible parallel something that can’t be observed? Mark 9:1 speaks of the Physical Kingdom, while Luke 17:20-21 speaks of the Spiritual Kingdom, different aspects of the one program of the Kingdom of God, I don’t believe in two kingdoms but just different aspects of the Kingdom of God.
I hear so many straw man arguments about Premillennialism that is not true, Premillennialism is not rooted in Revelation 20, it actually goes back to Genesis 1:26-28 and Psalm 8 but as you say we will never agree so I won’t expound.
LikeLike
Preterism is half right though. where it is right it is very right, but where it is wrong, it is very wrong. The Olivet Prophecy is clearly about two events: 1) the destruction of Jerusalem, 2a) the bits up to the end 2b) the return of Jesus
LikeLike
Hi Marcus. What do you mean by “the bits up to the end”? The end of what?
Since Jesus told His disciples that He would come in judgment, in His kingdom, with His angels, and in His Father’s glory before all of them died (Matthew 16:27-28), why do you say that the return of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem (judgment) are two events?
LikeLike
Hi Adam, I do like preterism, because it nails down a lot of hard facts. But…
http://biblecommentary.college/complex-issues/the-olivet-prophecy/
the Olivet Prophecy gave me a lot of trouble for along time. but it is actually very simple.
27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. (future event)
28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
The Kingdom of God was born in AD 73 when the old covenant expired. Up to then it was in utero, waiting for the Law to expire. John the beloved disciple was one who was alive. There were others too…(historical Church figures)
Jesus could only ascend to the throne of David in AD 73; prior to that he was at the right side of his father, ’til his enemies had been put under his feet.
Mat 5:17
Think not that I am come G2064 to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am G2064 not come G2064 to destroy, but to fulfil.
Jesus’ first coming was fulfilled when he fulfilled the Law.
Mat 21:44
And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder
LikeLike
I need to amend the study slightly – I tend to write and post early as Google is a hard taskmaster.
It needs some modifications, but the overview is the same. I actually intended it only as an overview, but I will probably make it more detailed when i feel better healthwise
LikeLike
There are two glories. The glory of the father and the glory of the son
Mat 25:31
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
LikeLike
[…] How you interpret these questions will determine your eschatological future. The most popular view of our modern day is called dispensationalism. […]
LikeLike
Hi Adam. One thing I have discovered about those that attack Preterism is that they are hardly able to support their arguments with scriptures. I read the Bible dispassionately without leanings to any theological paradigm. And I can say without any equivocation that preterism is the only view I find consistent with the Scriptures. God bless you for your blog
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. God bless you too.
LikeLike