PDA

View Full Version : Discussion TO: Amillenialists- PERIOD OF PEACE



DurbanDude
Nov 26th 2008, 08:35 AM
I have been asking this question often over the last week, and surprisingly haven't got one clear answer yet. I really don't want to argue the point, I am sure that I will disagree with your answers but may open a discussion another time to debate your answers, for the meantime I just want a clear answer.

QUESTION:
There are many verses in Isaiah, Zechariah and elsewhere in the Old Testament that refer to the period when Israel and Jerusalem are at the forefront of earth, highly respected by the nations eg Zech 8, Zech 14, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 65. The nations are forced to assemble in Israel annually, there are old men in the streets of Jerusalem, there is longevity, the Messiah rules with an iron rod. These verses are referring to a very physical world and seem to be referring to this current earth but with a new system in place. This is a different world with peace such as we have never seen before. I place these verses as occurring in the millenium, but from my understanding the amillenialist does not place these verses in the millenium. When does this period of peace for Israel occur, or has it occurred already according to your beliefs?

Here is one answer that I have received in another thread, it does not tackle the question directly though so I still need to know more:


wpm:
Unlike Premil's 3-ages-concept, Amil believes in only 2 ages: "this age" and "the age to come." They are of the view that "the last days" commenced with the earthly ministry of Christ and will end with the climactic Coming of Christ ("the last day"). This final day sees a general resurrection and a judgment. Scripture depicts the Second Coming as all-consummating - bring an end to the last vestige of the fall. It shows all mankind before the same throne at the same time. Amils believe this ushers in the "new heavens and new earth" (the eternal state).

Premils take passages expressly relating to "the last days" and the "new heavens and new earth" (as you do above) and locate them in a supposed future millennial age. I believe this is an error. I don't believe such an age exists. Rev 20 relates to the here-and-now. Revelation is not chronological. Anyway, in keeping with the rest of Scripture, all the wicked are destroyed in Revelation 19. There is no way they can possess, inhabit or inherit this supposed future age, as I see it.

Many OT passages are difficult, but if we let Scripture interpret Scripture the fuller revelation of the NT will quickly unravel their exact fulfilment. Israel was the particular focus of God's favour in the OT, that has all changed. The nations (plural) are now that focus. Premil errs in their anticipation of the return to the OT structure in my view.

Looking at the part that I highlighted, this answer implies that the great period of peace for Israel has all happened already before the crucifixion.(the period when people have long lives above one hundred years old,when all nations go to Jerusalem annually to worship God otherwise they get punished with no rain - Zech 8, Zech 14, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 65)

If so ,when did this happen, under David's reign, Solomon? Or maybe in a spiritual sense?

Or maybe some amillenialists believe these happen in the current age before the new earth?

modanufu
Nov 26th 2008, 12:23 PM
Hi Durban Dude,

As you may already have concluded from the quote you give, amill believes in only one people of God. This was in the OT concentrated in Israel and since the first coming of our Lord in the worldwide church consisting of those Jews and Gentiles that believe in Him.

The period of peace promised for OT Israel we amills see fulfilled in the coming new creation. This appears a.o. from a comparison of the promises in Rev. 21-22 and Isaiah. I'll show you some of them in the first part of Rev. 21:

Rev. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth
Isa. 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth

Rev. 21:2 And I, John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband
Isa. 51:2 put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city
Isa. 61:10 [Jerusalem speaking in the person of Isaiah] I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

Rev. 21:6 I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely
Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

To make it short, for the section Rev. 21:9 ff. you will find some references to Isaiah in your own Bible. There are many.

Dik

DurbanDude
Nov 26th 2008, 01:57 PM
Thanks modanufu,

I thought that wpm was hinting that this period of peace was in the past. So you are saying the period of peace is the post-millenial period of the New Earth. Do you believe that there are mortals during this period? And the disobedient?

I believe that the following 4 verses if read in their context are some of the verses referring to this period of peace. We can deduce from the bolded verses below that there are mortals in this period. And we can deduce from the blue sections that there is some sort of occasional disobedience in this period. How do disobedience and mortality fit into the post-millenial period, or do you place some of these verses into another period?

ZECH 8:3 Thus saith Jehovah: I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called The city of truth; and the mountain of Jehovah of hosts, The holy mountain.
ZECH 8:4 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age.
ZECH 8:5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.
ZECH 8:6 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith Jehovah of hosts

Zechariah 14:
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain

Isaiah 65:
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Isaiah
2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more

wpm
Nov 26th 2008, 05:19 PM
Thanks modanufu,

I thought that wpm was hinting that this period of peace was in the past. So you are saying the period of peace is the post-millenial period of the New Earth. Do you believe that there are mortals during this period? And the disobedient?

I believe that the following 4 verses if read in their context are some of the verses referring to this period of peace. We can deduce from the bolded verses below that there are mortals in this period. And we can deduce from the blue sections that there is some sort of occasional disobedience in this period. How do disobedience and mortality fit into the post-millenial period, or do you place some of these verses into another period?

ZECH 8:3 Thus saith Jehovah: I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called The city of truth; and the mountain of Jehovah of hosts, The holy mountain.
ZECH 8:4 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age.
ZECH 8:5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.
ZECH 8:6 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith Jehovah of hosts

Zechariah 14:
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain

Isaiah 65:
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Isaiah
2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more

The difficulty is, you are presenting passage after passage that are not all related to the same period. Some I believe relate to the NT era (the last days) some to the new heavens and new earth. Unfortunately because there is no other scriptural mention of a millennium Premils are required to take from these other time-period and apply them to a supposed future millennium. This is the difficulty with dealing with your readings. I believe the time periods in many of them contradict your location of them.

There is a peace to the believer in life, but ultimate and lasting peace will only arrive at the new heavens and new earth that Christ ushers in at His appearing. Then every enemy is destroyed; every vestige of the fall is finally removed. Unfortunately, Premil resurrects all the bondage of corruption in their millennium. They swamp the new earth with the wicked - as the sand of the sea. Amils reject such a notion.

I am happy to discuss each passage you quote. It may take a while though. I would like your thoughts on what I am writing.

Isaiah 2

Isaiah 2:2 says, speaking of the Lord’s first Advent, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

First absolute: this is the last days. We know Christ ushered them in with His eartly ministry. This cannot then refer to some supposed future sin-cursed millennial period.

Isaiah receives a pictorial vision of the approaching new covenant order. It is given in a metaphorical style describing the incredible peace and reconciliation that comes through the success of the Gospel. It would be wrong to understand or interpret these words in a natural carnal sense as the cessation of violence or military conflict does not constitute true peace in God’s eyes. Scripture makes it clear: “There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked” (Isaiah 48:22). Many that live in nations that would be viewed in an earthly sense as peaceful or free are in reality filled with strife, hatred and turmoil.

Conversely, Scripture after Scripture repeatedly depicts entry into the kingdom of God and a relationship with Christ as man’s only true peace. Isaiah 9:6-7 says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

Prophesying of Christ the Old Testament prophet declared in Micah 5:2 & 5: “thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting ... And this man shall be the peace.”

Zacharias prophesied in Luke 1:76-79 of Christ, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

Zechariah 9:9-10 predicted: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass … and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from river even to the ends of the earth.”

Peace only comes through salvation. Jesus said in that wonderful passage in John 14:27 during His earthly ministry, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” If someone is redeemed then they have entered into the peace of God through the Prince of Peace. Here was the fulfilment of this reading in operation. Here was the “Prince of Peace” in operation. Peace is not merely a future hope, it is a present reality. It’s an intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Philippians 4:7 says, “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

The redeemed of all nations that come into the kingdom of God no longer “lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." They have experienced true peace and have been reconciled unto a holy God. As a consequence, their weapons of war have been made redundant; they now operate with the tools of peace. Former enemies are miraculously reconciled “in Christ” through the blood of Jesus. The prince of peace has affected a supernatural change by way of conversion. Out goes the old and in comes the new. What was once used to destroy others has been supernaturally changed to bless others. Ancient enemies are unified within God’s great spiritual kingdom. They enter into heaven's peace.

Without this peace and reconciliation men can never experience Christ. There is a love and unity among the brethren that is supernatural. 1 John 4:20-21 warns: “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”

Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 fit perfectly with the Amillennial concept of the kingdom but totally contradicts the Premillennial idea. Firstly, there are no wicked in our kingdom and there are no physical wars involved or allowed in our kingdom. It is a spiritual kingdom that is inhabited solely by God’s people and who eternally enters into the peace of God. Isaiah 57:19-21 says, describing the peace that is obtained in this kingdom, “Peace, peace to him that is far off (the Gentiles), and to him that is near (the Jews), saith the LORD; and I will heal him. But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.”

Here again, we have the great spiritual reality reference the lot of the wicked repeated. They have no understanding or experience of true peace.

The peace that would come with the kingdom was spiritual peace not physical peace marked by the cessation of violence. Anyway, this is not true peace. True biblical peace - the peace that Christ offers is the peace that comes through sinful man being reconciled to an offended God. That is all that matters. The learning war no more refers to what happens when one enters the kingdom. The New Testament tells us that "the kingdom of God is ... peace" (Romans 14:17).

DurbanDude
Nov 26th 2008, 08:03 PM
Like I said, this is just a learning process for me , so I appreciate each verse being discussed. I did suspect you wouldn't be placing all those verses into the post-millenial period , am honestly just wanting to learn where amillenialists would place them.

So I get it , you believe Isaiah 2 to be in this current age when peace comes through Jesus and you have other verses to prove that the Messiah brings peace, Old Testament and New Testament.

I don't want the thread to be sidetracked by my full thoughts on the matter (especially your "last days" comment) otherwise I will never learn what you actually believe, because we would be debating every point and side-point made , which can often be a bit frustrating for everyone.:B

So, looking forward to understanding how the other verses fit in.

wpm
Nov 26th 2008, 09:10 PM
Like I said, this is just a learning process for me , so I appreciate each verse being discussed. I did suspect you wouldn't be placing all those verses into the post-millenial period , am honestly just wanting to learn where amillenialists would place them.

So I get it , you believe Isaiah 2 to be in this current age when peace comes through Jesus and you have other verses to prove that the Messiah brings peace, Old Testament and New Testament.

I don't want the thread to be sidetracked by my full thoughts on the matter (especially your "last days" comment) otherwise I will never learn what you actually believe, because we would be debating every point and side-point made , which can often be a bit frustrating for everyone.:B

So, looking forward to understanding how the other verses fit in.

I did an exhaustive study of Isaiah 65 previously. Here is some of it. I can furnish the rest if you wish. There is enough here to prove my position. Isaiah 65:17-21 says, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

The one thing we know for sure is that Scripture does not contradict itself in any way. The way some theologians’ tip-toe round this passage would lead you to believe that this passage is the one exception to this rule in Scripture. Of course we know it isn’t (or can’t). This much-debated passage therefore before us must beautifully correlates with other similar Scripture, which informs us that the Coming of Christ is climactic and that the new earth is totally free of the curse. It is essential that we always interpret difficult passages like this with other clearer and simpler passages.

The first thing we see in this reading is the time period in view; the Old Testament prophet explains that he is specifically speaking of the “new heavens and a new earth.” This is indisputable and cannot be a matter for theological debate. Whilst there are challenging parts to this passage, we can be sure of the fact that the detail described will be fulfilled in the “new heavens and a new earth.” In fact, the wording is so explicit in relation to the time-period that it removes any ambiguity or uncertainty for the reader on that front. This is the first absolute we can establish with this reading. Notwithstanding, this doesn’t stop some Bible students forcing this passage into a supposed future millennium in between this current age and the new heavens and a new earth in the age to come. This can only occur if one is to ignore the location clearly outlined by the Holy Ghost. However, a quick look at Revelation 21 disallows that possibility, making it clear that the new heavens and a new earth don’t appear until after the millennium, not the beginning as they contend. If there is any complexity in understanding aspects of this passage it does not emanate from the wording, but our understanding of the wording.

There is no doubt the wording of Isaiah 65:20 in the KJV is unusual and difficult; it seems like death might continue on in the new earth. However, when we look at the original we see more clarity, and language that correlates with other similar passages on the new heavens and new earth. Scripture makes clear that the new heavens and a new earth are free of all the fruit of the bondage of corruption. Despite what some would suggest, this passage does not contradict repeated Scripture that states there is no vestige of the fall in the new heavens and a new earth. It says, “the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.”

This verse has divided Bible students over the years because of its bizarre wording. Whilst Premillennialists normally advance Isaiah 65 and 66 to support their millennial viewpoint, neither chapter makes the slightest reference to an earthly millennium kingdom after the Second Coming. Rather, both commence by speaking of this presence age and terminate by speaking of the new heaven and the new earth. Neither chapter knows anything of a future millennium. Whilst it is difficult to dissect every minute detail in passages like this, we know that the information in view in this prophetic reading is definitely describing the period of the “new heavens and a new earth.”

The first line in the original says:

Yaamiym `uwl `owd mishaam yihªyeh Lo'- yaamaayw et-yªmalee'

Literally:

Days babe more thence become not days even full

What is this telling us? Basically, in eternity, there will be no more dying for babies. The TLB says, “"No longer will babies die when only a few days old.” The TEV says, “Babies will no longer die in infancy.” The NLT says, “No longer will babies die when only a few days old.” This is good news for mankind and a situation that could only happen in the eternal state. This is an age to look forward to. The KJV simply says: "There shall be no more thence an infant of days."

It continues:

lo'- 'ªsher wªzaaqeen yaamuwt shaanaah mee'aah ben-

Literally:

not that an old man die a hundred yrs old

Here is more good news– now for older people: No longer will old men be dying at a hundred. So, whether one is really young or really old there will be no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown.


The reading concludes this thought by making a solemn passing allusion to the wicked and their lot in eternity:

wªhachowTe yªqulaa

Literally:

[but] the sinner [will be] accursed

The result of the fall and the damage of the curse continue on, however, not on the new heavens and new earth. The wicked have their own eternal abode – the Lake of Fire. The wicked will remain in the awful ongoing reality of the curse for time and for eternity. This is too terrible to even contemplate. This text is definitely not saying there will be mortal sinners on the new earth after the Coming of Christ, as some argue. It is just saying sinners will remain accursed (even a hundred years after the appearing of the new heavens and earth). It could easily have said a thousand years or a million years. In short: They will remain accursed for all eternity.

So what is the meaning of Isaiah 65:20? It is simply presented in such a way as to indicate that there will be no ageing or death during the eternal state. It cannot in any way indicate that righteous children will die in eternity – a fact that few would deny. Such an absurd notion would obviously disregard plain truth, and contradict repeated Scripture to the contrary. This assumption is reinforced by the introductory language of same passage in question, which says, “there shall be no more thence an infant of days.” This seems to be worded in such a way as to in some way explain the great mystery of eternity. It appears to be contrasting what we on earth would deem long-life to what in eternity would be considered mere infancy. Scripture tells us, death is totally and finally destroyed at the Second Coming for the believer.

This passage agrees with Revelation 21:1-4, which says, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband … And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

John146
Nov 26th 2008, 09:35 PM
I have been asking this question often over the last week, and surprisingly haven't got one clear answer yet. I really don't want to argue the point, I am sure that I will disagree with your answers but may open a discussion another time to debate your answers, for the meantime I just want a clear answer.

QUESTION:
There are many verses in Isaiah, Zechariah and elsewhere in the Old Testament that refer to the period when Israel and Jerusalem are at the forefront of earth, highly respected by the nations eg Zech 8, Zech 14, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 65. The nations are forced to assemble in Israel annually, there are old men in the streets of Jerusalem, there is longevity, the Messiah rules with an iron rod. These verses are referring to a very physical world and seem to be referring to this current earth but with a new system in place. This is a different world with peace such as we have never seen before. I place these verses as occurring in the millenium, but from my understanding the amillenialist does not place these verses in the millenium. When does this period of peace for Israel occur, or has it occurred already according to your beliefs?

Here is one answer that I have received in another thread, it does not tackle the question directly though so I still need to know more:


wpm:

Looking at the part that I highlighted, this answer implies that the great period of peace for Israel has all happened already before the crucifixion.(the period when people have long lives above one hundred years old,when all nations go to Jerusalem annually to worship God otherwise they get punished with no rain - Zech 8, Zech 14, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 65)

If so ,when did this happen, under David's reign, Solomon? Or maybe in a spiritual sense?

Or maybe some amillenialists believe these happen in the current age before the new earth?What you see as peace for the nation of Israel, I see as peace for the Israel of God, which is the church.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

I believe you are missing the spiritual meaning of those passages. Those are prophetic books and they contain a great deal of symbolic or spritual language. For some reason, you want to take everything literally. I believe you miss the explanations of those OT passages that we are given in the NT. Frankly, the idea of a peaceful earth is a rather carnal hope. We should have our minds on the heavenly and not on the earthly. Just like Abraham.

Hebrews 11
8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

modanufu
Nov 27th 2008, 10:43 AM
Hi Durban Dude,

The problem is that there are two approaches to the OT and when they are mixed the result is confusion. One approach is reading the OT without the NT, in a historical way. In that case one puts oneself in the position of the writer and the time in which he lived and tries to understand his message, his prophecies, his longing for the coming Messiah etc. The other approach is interpreting the OT from the NT, or in other words, reading the OT in the light of the NT and the interpretation given by the NT. If you mix the two approaches you'll suddenly find yourself in a labyrinth.

Now my point. If you read e.g. Isaiah 65-66 in a historical way, then there is no way or method to distinguish between a coming millennium and the coming eternity. That is because this distinction can only be found in Rev. 20 when read in a chiliast way. The new heavens and the new earth mentioned in Isaiah cannot in his book be distinguished from the period after the Babylonian exile. All is one in his visionary world.
On the other hand, it we read it in the light of the NT -- and this is my point -- in Revelation 21-22 which is about the new creation there are many references to Isaiah implying that Rev. sees the period of peace for Israel expected by Isaiah as fulfilled in the new heaven and the new earth for all believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think this is an argument in favour of the amill position.

Now, all the verses you quote now will lead us into a long complicated discussion so I propose to stick to Isaiah. Then there is the famous verse:

Isa. 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

My idea is this. Isaiah looking into the future but speaking to the people in his own time does this in words and representations that can be understood by his people. So when he speaks about eternity here he expresses this in terms of extraordinary old age which is for the people in that time the ideal way of life.

That's it for the moment. :)
Dik

DurbanDude
Nov 27th 2008, 03:46 PM
I did an exhaustive study of Isaiah 65 previously. Here is some of it. I can furnish the rest if you wish. There is enough here to prove my position. Isaiah 65:17-21 says, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

The one thing we know for sure is that Scripture does not contradict itself in any way. The way some theologians’ tip-toe round this passage would lead you to believe that this passage is the one exception to this rule in Scripture. Of course we know it isn’t (or can’t). This much-debated passage therefore before us must beautifully correlates with other similar Scripture, which informs us that the Coming of Christ is climactic and that the new earth is totally free of the curse. It is essential that we always interpret difficult passages like this with other clearer and simpler passages.

The first thing we see in this reading is the time period in view; the Old Testament prophet explains that he is specifically speaking of the “new heavens and a new earth.” This is indisputable and cannot be a matter for theological debate. Whilst there are challenging parts to this passage, we can be sure of the fact that the detail described will be fulfilled in the “new heavens and a new earth.” In fact, the wording is so explicit in relation to the time-period that it removes any ambiguity or uncertainty for the reader on that front. This is the first absolute we can establish with this reading. Notwithstanding, this doesn’t stop some Bible students forcing this passage into a supposed future millennium in between this current age and the new heavens and a new earth in the age to come. This can only occur if one is to ignore the location clearly outlined by the Holy Ghost. However, a quick look at Revelation 21 disallows that possibility, making it clear that the new heavens and a new earth don’t appear until after the millennium, not the beginning as they contend. If there is any complexity in understanding aspects of this passage it does not emanate from the wording, but our understanding of the wording.

There is no doubt the wording of Isaiah 65:20 in the KJV is unusual and difficult; it seems like death might continue on in the new earth. However, when we look at the original we see more clarity, and language that correlates with other similar passages on the new heavens and new earth. Scripture makes clear that the new heavens and a new earth are free of all the fruit of the bondage of corruption. Despite what some would suggest, this passage does not contradict repeated Scripture that states there is no vestige of the fall in the new heavens and a new earth. It says, “the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.”

This verse has divided Bible students over the years because of its bizarre wording. Whilst Premillennialists normally advance Isaiah 65 and 66 to support their millennial viewpoint, neither chapter makes the slightest reference to an earthly millennium kingdom after the Second Coming. Rather, both commence by speaking of this presence age and terminate by speaking of the new heaven and the new earth. Neither chapter knows anything of a future millennium. Whilst it is difficult to dissect every minute detail in passages like this, we know that the information in view in this prophetic reading is definitely describing the period of the “new heavens and a new earth.”

The first line in the original says:

Yaamiym `uwl `owd mishaam yihªyeh Lo'- yaamaayw et-yªmalee'

Literally:

Days babe more thence become not days even full

What is this telling us? Basically, in eternity, there will be no more dying for babies. The TLB says, “"No longer will babies die when only a few days old.” The TEV says, “Babies will no longer die in infancy.” The NLT says, “No longer will babies die when only a few days old.” This is good news for mankind and a situation that could only happen in the eternal state. This is an age to look forward to. The KJV simply says: "There shall be no more thence an infant of days."

It continues:

lo'- 'ªsher wªzaaqeen yaamuwt shaanaah mee'aah ben-

Literally:

not that an old man die a hundred yrs old

Here is more good news– now for older people: No longer will old men be dying at a hundred. So, whether one is really young or really old there will be no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown.


The reading concludes this thought by making a solemn passing allusion to the wicked and their lot in eternity:

wªhachowTe yªqulaa

Literally:

[but] the sinner [will be] accursed

The result of the fall and the damage of the curse continue on, however, not on the new heavens and new earth. The wicked have their own eternal abode – the Lake of Fire. The wicked will remain in the awful ongoing reality of the curse for time and for eternity. This is too terrible to even contemplate. This text is definitely not saying there will be mortal sinners on the new earth after the Coming of Christ, as some argue. It is just saying sinners will remain accursed (even a hundred years after the appearing of the new heavens and earth). It could easily have said a thousand years or a million years. In short: They will remain accursed for all eternity.

So what is the meaning of Isaiah 65:20? It is simply presented in such a way as to indicate that there will be no ageing or death during the eternal state. It cannot in any way indicate that righteous children will die in eternity – a fact that few would deny. Such an absurd notion would obviously disregard plain truth, and contradict repeated Scripture to the contrary. This assumption is reinforced by the introductory language of same passage in question, which says, “there shall be no more thence an infant of days.” This seems to be worded in such a way as to in some way explain the great mystery of eternity. It appears to be contrasting what we on earth would deem long-life to what in eternity would be considered mere infancy. Scripture tells us, death is totally and finally destroyed at the Second Coming for the believer.

This passage agrees with Revelation 21:1-4, which says, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband … And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

Thanks for explaining that , other bibles do translate it differently , pointing to the "mortality" meaning.

If the way you have explained it is in fact correct then I would agree with you on this particular verse; that is is post-millenium and not during the millenium as I originally thought. If you follow my debate in another thread you can see that I definitely believe other OT verses are referring to the millenium but you've explained this well. With the mention of the new earth in Isaiah 65:17 I guess the verses quoted should be seen as occurring after the millenium , will definitely consider what you are saying here.

Dave Robb
Nov 27th 2008, 03:49 PM
Hey fello Durbanite, good to meet you

Blessings Dave
oh ate too ate oh wun 7 for oh too

wpm
Nov 27th 2008, 04:06 PM
Hi Durban Dude,

The problem is that there are two approaches to the OT and when they are mixed the result is confusion. One approach is reading the OT without the NT, in a historical way. In that case one puts oneself in the position of the writer and the time in which he lived and tries to understand his message, his prophecies, his longing for the coming Messiah etc. The other approach is interpreting the OT from the NT, or in other words, reading the OT in the light of the NT and the interpretation given by the NT. If you mix the two approaches you'll suddenly find yourself in a labyrinth.

Now my point. If you read e.g. Isaiah 65-66 in a historical way, then there is no way or method to distinguish between a coming millennium and the coming eternity. That is because this distinction can only be found in Rev. 20 when read in a chiliast way. The new heavens and the new earth mentioned in Isaiah cannot in his book be distinguished from the period after the Babylonian exile. All is one in his visionary world.
On the other hand, it we read it in the light of the NT -- and this is my point -- in Revelation 21-22 which is about the new creation there are many references to Isaiah implying that Rev. sees the period of peace for Israel expected by Isaiah as fulfilled in the new heaven and the new earth for all believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think this is an argument in favour of the amill position.

Now, all the verses you quote now will lead us into a long complicated discussion so I propose to stick to Isaiah. Then there is the famous verse:

Isa. 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

My idea is this. Isaiah looking into the future but speaking to the people in his own time does this in words and representations that can be understood by his people. So when he speaks about eternity here he expresses this in terms of extraordinary old age which is for the people in that time the ideal way of life.

That's it for the moment. :)
Dik

Excellent post. Full of much truth and wisdom. :pp

DurbanDude
Nov 27th 2008, 05:18 PM
First, I have directly showed you from Scripture that the peace is spiritual and in the last days. You seem to dismiss this although it is expressly taught in Isa 2. We all need to let the Bible speak for itself and locate the setting.

When in your opinion is the last days if it isn't intra-Advent as Amils believe?

When did or will the last days commence?
When did or will the last days terminate?
When is the "last day" of the "last days"?
What occurs on "last day" of the "last days"?

Second, I have showed you in detail what the peace described is. It came with the earthly ministry of Christ. It relates to the last days. Again, you negate to address every single passge I furnish.

.

I may be giving the impression that I am dismissing certain points but just want to be true to the nature of this thread that it is an opportunity to learn the amillenialist viewpoint rather than debate it.

The term "last days" can mean a lot of different events depending on when it was written.

To those in Daniel's day , last days could mean the empires of Persia and Greece , the abomination of Antiochus , the first coming of Christ, the second coming, the day of the Lord etc etc

To those disciples of Jesus the last days could mean the crucifixion , the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD , the restoration of Israel , the "antichrist" , the resurrections , the millenium.

It is a generalised term meaning God's future destiny.

In this thread I don't wanna debate , but have handled your verses in another thread , so please let's rather debate there.



Fourth, a major problem Amils have with Premil is its failure to recognise or acknowledge the spiritual change of focus from "the nation" to the "nations." Moreover, they seem to miss the NT spiritualising of literal physical OT realities by Christ and the Apostles.

Christ redireced our eyes from the natural to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the temporal to the eternal. Moreover, Amils realise the New Testament Church is the same entity as the OT Church, only in a more developed form. It is greater in magnitude and greater in its embrace.
.

I completely agree with the change of spiritual focus from the Jews to the nations , and I try never speak on behalf of other pre-mills , but know that most of them acknowledge this and it is central to their beliefs. I think the main disagreement that you will get regarding this change of focus is that it is somehow related to Satan being bound for 1000 years.

wpm
Nov 27th 2008, 05:25 PM
I may be giving the impression that I am dismissing certain points but just want to be true to the nature of this thread that it is an opportunity to learn the amillenialist viewpoint rather than debate it.

The term "last days" can mean a lot of different events depending on when it was written.

To those in Daniel's day , last days could mean the empires of Persia and Greece , the abomination of Antiochus , the first coming of Christ, the second coming, the day of the Lord etc etc

To those disciples of Jesus the last days could mean the crucifixion , the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD , the restoration of Israel , the "antichrist" , the resurrections , the millenium.

It is a generalised term meaning God's future destiny.

In this thread I don't wanna debate , but have handled your verses in another thread , so please let's rather debate there.



I completely agree with the change of spiritual focus from the Jews to the nations , and I try never speak on behalf of other pre-mills , but know that most of them acknowledge this and it is central to their beliefs. I think the main disagreement that you will get regarding this change of focus is that it is somehow related to Satan being bound for 1000 years.

This focus back to pre-mill beliefs could be seen as an attempt to debate rather than explain on this thread, just trying to keep things simple here.

Because you addressed Isaish 65 when I was submitting my post I actually deleted that post. But I guess there were other relevant issues that you addressed.

What in the NT would suggest that the last days relate to a future millennium?

Also, can you see that the temple is spiritualised in the NT, Zion is shown to be heavenly, the people of God of all nations are now seen to be the true circumcision? Can you see the removal from the theocratic old covenant type to the NT substance in Christ?

DurbanDude
Nov 27th 2008, 05:30 PM
Because you addressed Isaish 65 when I was submitting my post I actually deleted that post. But I guess there were other relevant issues that you addressed.

What in the NT would suggest that the last days relate to a future millennium?

Also, can you see that the temple is spiritualised in the NT, Zion is shown to be heavenly, the people of God of all nations are now seen to be the true circumcision? Can you see the removal from the theocratic old covenant type to the NT substance in Christ?

:lol: I thought I was asking the questions on this thread?:hmm:

honestly , there are some times when the temple is spiritualised and sometimes when it is not. There is spiritual salvation and physical resurrection. There is the rule of Christ in our lives and the future physical rule of Christ. I don't believe it is difficult to know which is which, and I disagree with most interpretations of amillenialists.

wpm
Nov 27th 2008, 05:40 PM
:lol: I thought I was asking the questions on this thread?:hmm:

honestly , there are some times when the temple is spiritualised and sometimes when it is not. There is spiritual salvation and physical resurrection. There is the rule of Christ in our lives and the future physical rule of Christ. I don't believe it is difficult to know which is which, and I disagree with most interpretations of amillenialists.

Fine, it is still a free country. ;)

We both agree that the last days relate to the millennium, only I believe the last days/millennium is current and ongoing. You still haven't give me an corroboration for projecting the last days into a period following the Coming of Christ.

DurbanDude
Nov 27th 2008, 06:32 PM
Fine, it is still a free country. ;)

We both agree that the last days relate to the millennium, only I believe the last days/millennium is current and ongoing. You still haven't give me an corroboration for projecting the last days into a period following the Coming of Christ.

I don't really understand this question :hmm:

I already told you that I believe the phrase "last days" can apply to any or all future events, so obviously anything that happens after the second coming would also be the last days.

Or are you saying that I haven't yet given proof that the millenium occurs after the Second Coming?

wpm
Nov 27th 2008, 11:44 PM
I don't really understand this question :hmm:

I already told you that I believe the phrase "last days" can apply to any or all future events, so obviously anything that happens after the second coming would also be the last days.

Or are you saying that I haven't yet given proof that the millenium occurs after the Second Coming?


You have made the last days such an indefinite period that I am unsure whether you believe there is a last day to the last days. When is the last day?

DurbanDude
Nov 28th 2008, 08:36 AM
You have made the last days such an indefinite period that I am unsure whether you believe there is a last day to the last days. When is the last day?

These seem to be leading questions because of a point you are trying to make. I don't think the bible defines the phrase "last days" or "time of the end" as any particular event , but uses the phrases in a more general sense. The phrase "last day" could be referring to the last day of any age, depends completely on the context.

wpm
Nov 28th 2008, 06:24 PM
These seem to be leading questions because of a point you are trying to make. I don't think the bible defines the phrase "last days" or "time of the end" as any particular event , but uses the phrases in a more general sense. The phrase "last day" could be referring to the last day of any age, depends completely on the context.

As I have said, I strongly believe we are in the last days (the period in-between the 2 Comings of Christ). The last day is Christ's appearing. It is that day that sees the destruction of the wicked and this current fallen earth.

modanufu
Dec 3rd 2008, 10:30 AM
Hi DurbanDude,

Yesterday I suddenly saw, roaming through the lanes and slums of this Message Board, that you answered my post. However, slowly things get clearer. I'm learning, I'm learning...


If you follow my debate in another thread you can see that I definitely believe other OT verses are referring to the millenium but you've explained this well.

Perhaps I'll try to answer some other posts as well. Depends on how much energy I have because this is still kind of a problem. I'm trying to wrestle out of a long difficult period and I'm doing this by painting (that really works, thanks to God).

I see you're a serious Bible student. Please don't expect that the amillennial view will give a perfect solution of ALL problems. The Scriptures are sometimes difficult to understand. But as an ex-premil I'm convinced that the problems in the premil framework are many times bigger.

Kind regards,
Dik

DurbanDude
Dec 3rd 2008, 02:05 PM
Hi Durban Dude,

The problem is that there are two approaches to the OT and when they are mixed the result is confusion. One approach is reading the OT without the NT, in a historical way. In that case one puts oneself in the position of the writer and the time in which he lived and tries to understand his message, his prophecies, his longing for the coming Messiah etc. The other approach is interpreting the OT from the NT, or in other words, reading the OT in the light of the NT and the interpretation given by the NT. If you mix the two approaches you'll suddenly find yourself in a labyrinth.

Now my point. If you read e.g. Isaiah 65-66 in a historical way, then there is no way or method to distinguish between a coming millennium and the coming eternity. That is because this distinction can only be found in Rev. 20 when read in a chiliast way. The new heavens and the new earth mentioned in Isaiah cannot in his book be distinguished from the period after the Babylonian exile. All is one in his visionary world.
On the other hand, it we read it in the light of the NT -- and this is my point -- in Revelation 21-22 which is about the new creation there are many references to Isaiah implying that Rev. sees the period of peace for Israel expected by Isaiah as fulfilled in the new heaven and the new earth for all believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think this is an argument in favour of the amill position.

Now, all the verses you quote now will lead us into a long complicated discussion so I propose to stick to Isaiah. Then there is the famous verse:

Isa. 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

My idea is this. Isaiah looking into the future but speaking to the people in his own time does this in words and representations that can be understood by his people. So when he speaks about eternity here he expresses this in terms of extraordinary old age which is for the people in that time the ideal way of life.

That's it for the moment. :)
Dik

hi modanufu,

I actually haven't yet replied to this post. Isaiah 65 I currently see as a debatable chapter at the moment. wpm gave an interesting interpretation that explains it as post-millenial after the new earth without any contradictions. All other interpretations of Isaiah 65 indicate mortality after the New Earth when most Christans are in consensus that the New Earth has neither mortality nor disobedience. Eternity isn't a difficult concept to comprehend so I doubt your interpretation mentioned above.

Someone from a pre-mill perspective said that the description of the new earth here is rather referring to the renewed earth (changed world in a pre-mill millenium). This is also not entirely satisfactory. My interpretation is that the reference to the new earth is just an "aside" , a comment thrown in about the far future while talking about the millenium period. This also isn't perfectly satisfactory.

So far wpm's explanation is (very complicated research into the Hebrew) the viewpoint that fits the best, he says these verses are post-millenial and those verses about old age are actually meaning there is no such thing as old age then.
No more an infant dying young or a man being considered old at 100, and the sinner will be accursed.

third hero
Dec 3rd 2008, 06:47 PM
Someone from a pre-mill perspective said that the description of the new earth here is rather referring to the renewed earth (changed world in a pre-mill millenium). This is also not entirely satisfactory. My interpretation is that the reference to the new earth is just an "aside" , a comment thrown in about the far future while talking about the millenium period. This also isn't perfectly satisfactory.

So far wpm's explanation is (very complicated research into the Hebrew) the viewpoint that fits the best, he says these verses are post-millenial and those verses about old age are actually meaning there is no such thing as old age then.
No more an infant dying young or a man being considered old at 100, and the sinner will be accursed.

Being the one from the premil perspective that has offered the changed earth idea, I believe that scripture, especially Revelation 16:17-20, proves it. The whole idea of an earth without mountains and islands is completely different than any other version of this earth, which is exactly what hapens when the seventh vial is poured out.

The reason why I completely reject wpm's interpretation of Isaiah 65 is the fact that according to Revelation 20:11-21:27, the old order, including death, sin, and the wicked, will not exist on the New Earth. However, Isaiah 65:19-20 clearly show that the old order, including death, is still around, as anyone who dies at the age of 100 would be considered cursed. According to Revelation 20:14, death is hurled into the Lake of Fire. If this happens before the advent of the new earth, and Isaiah 65 is about the new earth, then the Second Death is not the absolute destruction that the Bible teaches us it is.

So we either have a contradiction, or something else is at play here. This is why Chapter 16 is so important to understanding Isaiah 65. IF the Earth looses all of it's mountains, all of it's cities, and all of it's Islands, what do you call it? Is it not a "New Earth"? It is definitely not the old earth with island resorts and cities that span thousands of years. Heck, Babylon, (which I still say is Rome), will no longer exist after the Beast destroys it. (Revelation 18). What do you call an earth that has seriously lost most of it's inhabitants? What did Noah call the earth that was created after the flood? Was it a new earth? IF this is the case, and it is, then the new earth described in Isaiah 65 has to be the one where the Lord rules over all of the earth, the one devoid of mountains and valleys, the one that is created as the result of the seventh vial of the Lord's wrath.

You see, my interpretation of Isaiah 65 hinges on the fact that in Revelation 20, the old order, the order of sin and death, of enemies of the Lord given space and time to rebel against Him, will be once and for all destroyed, when this world, whether it has mountains or not, will be destroyed by fire. Isaiah 65 has the same order of today in it, as verses 19-20 implies. Death is still represented there, although in a seriously weakened state, it is still there. Therefore, this has to be a picture of the Millennium, where Lord Jesus brings about peace on this planet, as well as weakening the power of death. This can not be the New Earth in Revelation 21, because on that new planet, death will not exist, since death, like Satan, Hell, the wicked, the Beast, and the false prophet, will be eternally destroyed in hte Second Death.

DurbanDude
Dec 3rd 2008, 09:40 PM
3H , there are enough verses in the bible about mortality and rebelliousness among the unsaved inhabitants of earth in the millenium. So whichever way Isaiah 65 is interpreted, as a millenium scenario or post millenium scenario doesn't threaten my basic belief in the millenium.

You could be right though , I agree with you on the dramatic nature of the changes on earth, the bible makes it clear about the mountains being removed etc. Its just the fact that the new earth is mentioned in Isaiah 65 and 66 that I battle to associate this with the millenial earth.

I don't think wpm's translation mentioned any old age or death occurring in Isaiah 65, but was saying that there will no longer be such things as old age and infant death.

At this stage I'm going to sit on the fence with Isaiah 65.

John146
Dec 3rd 2008, 10:53 PM
The reason why I completely reject wpm's interpretation of Isaiah 65 is the fact that according to Revelation 20:11-21:27, the old order, including death, sin, and the wicked, will not exist on the New Earth.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

How do you reconcile what you're saying with what this verse says? This verse says the former heavens and earth will not be remembered or come into mind. Yet in your view it would still be very much still remembered and in mind if this is speaking of the supposed millennial kingdom being ushered in. Isaiah 65:17 is very similar to Revelation 21:1.

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

And then in verse 4, it says "the former things are passed away". Seems like the former heavens and earth would have to be passed away in order to not be remembered nor come into mind. But if you have survivors of Christ's coming living on into the supposed future earthly millennium, how could they not remember how things were just prior to that?

I believe Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-8 must agree and be reconciled with each other rather than coming up with the idea that Isaiah 65:17-25 speaks about a future millennial kingdom while Rev 21 speaks of eternity.