What Is Amillenialism & How Does It Differ From Dispensational Pre-millennialism?

[Street Sweeper]

Following from:
http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=22638#post22638


I thought this discussion needed a face-lift - so new title/topic!;)



The RCC is the biggest holders to this thinking. Thus they majority of the holders in total.I hope you're not suggesting that I’m a closet Roman Catholic!

Regardless, the Church of Rome is not the largest stakeholder. The Roman Catholic Church, perhaps in an uncharacteristic fit of common sense, has actually avoided endorsement of any of the major eschatologies. The largest group with interest in, if not absolute commitment to amillennialism, is most definitely protestant in character.

I’m not sure what you meant by the “second largest refutation and difficulty, in seeable existence, for Amil”. What is the refutation, and what is the difficulty?

You are correct about the post-millennial expectation of a final tribulation following what they regard as the millennial reign. I would have tended to see that particular aspect as more in line with the pre-millennial concept of the tribulation. Given that postmillennialists anticipate godliness, rule of law etc. etc. to improve in what might be considered the foreseeable future, and amillennialists anticipate the opposite, I remain at a loss as to why you make an apparently close association between the two perspectives.

I would like to continue the discussion about characteristics of the amillennial perspective before we delve into the underlying theology. It worries me that you may have a view of amillennialism which is at odds with the orthodox amillennial position. I think that unless we can reasonably agree on the position we each have, it will be very difficult to work through the reasoning we use to reach our respective stances

Never the less you obviously have a particular interest in Amos. I couldn’t find among your recent posts the particular passage that you are concerned about – but I will make an assumption that Chapter 9, verses 11-15 are occupying your thoughts. If I have correctly identified the passage, I think you may be concerned as to whether I read this as a literal prophecy forecasting reconstruction of the hardware(bricks, buildings, infrastructure, geographic boundaries etc.) of Israel as an ethnic nation, or as a symbolic representation of Jesus as God’s Tabernacle, rebuilt at His resurrection.

I would be overly presumptuous to suggest that a literal rebuilding of national Israel could not, or will not occur. I also recognise however that Jesus has in fact rebuilt the temple as He promised (John2:19). The partial quotation by James in Acts 15, of the Amos passage similarly affirms that the tabernacle has indeed been rebuilt. The Amos prophecy has therefore been fulfilled.

CI, perhaps your intent here was to highlight this difference in approach to Bible interpretation. It seems that dispensationalists choose to interpret the New Testament from the perspective of the Old Testament. To me, it seems only reasonable that the New Testament should be allowed primacy over the Old Testament. Surely the Apostles and those who were taught directly by our Lord, and inspired by the Holy Spirit are in the best position to explain and interpret the prophecy of the Old Testament.

[CoreIssue]

Never the less you obviously have a particular interest in Amos. I couldn’t find among your recent posts the particular passage that you are concerned about – but I will make an assumption that Chapter 9, verses 11-15 are occupying your thoughts. If I have correctly identified the passage, I think you may be concerned as to whether I read this as a literal prophecy forecasting reconstruction of the hardware(bricks, buildings, infrastructure, geographic boundaries etc.) of Israel as an ethnic nation, or as a symbolic representation of Jesus as God’s Tabernacle, rebuilt at His resurrection.
This is but a kick off of discussion concerning what the Bible says about Israel and the End Times. But one proof Amil is wrong.
I would be overly presumptuous to suggest that a literal rebuilding of national Israel could not, or will not occur.
Bible says it will. And as the covenant nation. Not Replacement Theology.
I also recognise however that Jesus has in fact rebuilt the temple as He promised (John2:19).
19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
Totally out of context they way you are using it.

He is speaking of the Temple of his body, not the physical Temple.

The partial quotation by James in Acts 15, of the Amos passage similarly affirms that the tabernacle has indeed been rebuilt. The Amos prophecy has therefore been fulfilled.

Temple of the body, not the physical Temple.

And they were not saying Christ was the rebuilt Temple in Acts. Totally out of context and proper grammar.

They were saying, to the Jews, that the Temple would be rebuilt and Israel restored, but God was acting with the Gentiles now. And that they should work with that effort, not against it.
CI, perhaps your intent here was to highlight this difference in approach to Bible interpretation. It seems that dispensationalists choose to interpret the New Testament from the perspective of the Old Testament. To me, it seems only reasonable that the New Testament should be allowed primacy over the Old Testament. Surely the Apostles and those who were taught directly by our Lord, and inspired by the Holy Spirit are in the best position to explain and interpret the prophecy of the Old Testament.
It isn't one or the other, but a flow of progress, Old to New. Yes, many things are clarified, in the NT, but none ever annul or replace the old. None change the OT meanings from literal to figurative, where the statements are literal.

Let us look at Amos 9, all of it. Just as you need to look at all of Acts 15, not just a couple of verses, to establish full meaning. You will see it agrees with what I said about Acts 15.

1 I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said:
"Strike the tops of the pillars
so that the thresholds shake.
Bring them down on the heads of all the people;
those who are left I will kill with the sword.
Not one will get away,
none will escape.

2 Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22498a)]
from there my hand will take them.
Though they climb up to the heavens,
from there I will bring them down.
3 Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,
there I will hunt them down and seize them.
Though they hide from me at the bottom of the sea,
there I will command the serpent to bite them.
4 Though they are driven into exile by their enemies,
there I will command the sword to slay them.
I will fix my eyes upon them
for evil and not for good."
5 The Lord, the LORD Almighty,
he who touches the earth and it melts,
and all who live in it mourn—
the whole land rises like the Nile,
then sinks like the river of Egypt-
6 he who builds his lofty palace [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22502b)] in the heavens
and sets its foundation [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22502c)] on the earth,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land—
the LORD is his name.
7 "Are not you Israelites
the same to me as the Cu****es [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22503d)] ?"
declares the LORD .
"Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt,
the Philistines from Caphtor [e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22503e)]
and the Arameans from Kir?
8 "Surely the eyes of the Sovereign LORD
are on the sinful kingdom.
I will destroy it
from the face of the earth—
yet I will not totally destroy
the house of Jacob,"
declares the LORD.
9 "For I will give the command,
and I will shake the house of Israel
among all the nations
as grain is shaken in a sieve,
and not a pebble will reach the ground. 10 All the sinners among my people
will die by the sword,
all those who say,
'Disaster will not overtake or meet us.'

He first prophecied the destruction of Israel. But he made it very clear a remnant would remain.
11 "In that day I will restore

What day? The Day of the Lord. The Trib followed by the MK.
David's fallen tent.
This means the whole house of David, which is Israel. Christ as king.
I will repair its broken places,
restore its ruins,
and build it as it used to be,
The blueprint is in Ezekiel. Along with the Priesthood and the rest.

Future. Has not happened yet. Not the death of Christ or the resurrection.

Restoration of the nation of Israel.

12 so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name, [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22508f)] "
declares the LORD, who will do these things.
13 "The days are coming," declares the LORD,
"when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills.

Possession and restoration of the land.
14 I will bring back my exiled [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22510g)] people Israel;

You cannot bring back the Church when it never possessed the land or was outcast as covenant body.

Only Israel fits here. And is so stated.

they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.

No way to get Christ and the resurrection out of this. Or the Church.

Rebuild, not build. Land, not flesh.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,

Israel, not Church. There land, fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant through his flesh descendents. The Eternal Covenant God will keep.
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,"
Never again. Cannot apply to the Church.

HAVE given. Past tense. Most assuredly not Church.

Nation restored, not death and resurrection of Christ.
says the LORD your God.
Not conditional. Will be done.

No way to get Replacement Theology out of this.

Burden is upon you to give proof this has to be spirualized into the Church and Christ's death and resurrection.

I don't have to defend literal reading, Amils have to show reason for not reading it literally.

Okay, I have shown a literal take on John, Acts and Amos. No conflicts, all fit together, literally. No stretch of imagination to get where I am.

But, the same cannot be said for Amil. Why should anyone read these verses as Christ, Church and Replacement Theology? A question I have asked many and never gotten an answer to.

Please don't take my statements as a personal attack. But I find Amil a total statement of people seeking to fit the Bible to what they want to find, not what is said.

I have plenty more verses to literally support my position.

Just show me how you can change the meanings, here, so drastically.

[Street Sweeper]

Hi CI,

Obviously you are passionately committed to the physical temple and have chosen to interpret all references to the current/future temple as affirmation that the ethnic nation of Israel will be re-established, along with the accompanying temple practices.

Within that very limited framework I can see how you are choosing to downplay Jesus centrality as the final sacrifice and focus of salvation. However I do think your approach to the scriptures is leading you badly astray.

We know that Jesus is now the only high priest who mediates on our behalf, and “who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.” Hebrews 8:1,2.

and

“11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption”. Hebrews 9:11,12.

Hebrews does not annul or replace the Old Testament, but it does require that we recognise a different reality of meaning than might be assumed from literalistic interpretation of OT references to ‘rebuilding of the temple’.

There is no need for an earthly temple to be rebuilt. In fact I wonder whether seeking forgiveness of sins from God through renewal of the superseded sacrificial system, may be the abomination referred to in Matthew 24. Certainly such a practice would be an affront to God. How could man consider offering further sacrifices when Jesus’ perfect sacrifice has justified us for all time?

Dispensationalism may allow for ongoing or re-established sacrifices through its proposition of 2 different people of God. Christians or the Church are permitted the freedom of forgiveness through Christ, while dispensationalists claim Israel is bound to the earthly temple, its ritual and the Mosaic law.

This however flies in the face of what we are told in the clearest of terms in both Old and New Testaments, that there is a single people of God, not two separate groups, nor a second group taking the place of the first.

[Jessie]

Hi CI,

Obviously you are passionately committed to the physical temple and have chosen to interpret all references to the current/future temple as affirmation that the ethnic nation of Israel will be re-established, along with the accompanying temple practices.

Within that very limited framework I can see how you are choosing to downplay Jesus centrality as the final sacrifice and focus of salvation. However I do think your approach to the scriptures is leading you badly astray.

We know that Jesus is now the only high priest who mediates on our behalf, and “who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.” Hebrews 8:1,2.

and

“11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption”. Hebrews 9:11,12.

Hebrews does not annul or replace the Old Testament, but it does require that we recognise a different reality of meaning than might be assumed from literalistic interpretation of OT references to ‘rebuilding of the temple’.

There is no need for an earthly temple to be rebuilt. In fact I wonder whether seeking forgiveness of sins from God through renewal of the superseded sacrificial system, may be the abomination referred to in Matthew 24. Certainly such a practice would be an affront to God. How could man consider offering further sacrifices when Jesus’ perfect sacrifice has justified us for all time?

Dispensationalism may allow for ongoing or re-established sacrifices through its proposition of 2 different people of God. Christians or the Church are permitted the freedom of forgiveness through Christ, while dispensationalists claim Israel is bound to the earthly temple, its ritual and the Mosaic law.

This however flies in the face of what we are told in the clearest of terms in both Old and New Testaments, that there is a single people of God, not two separate groups, nor a second group taking the place of the first.

you've spirtualized what is literal

[a.baker]

Sorry just trying to understand and I may have it all wrong but...

Is what being said here is: at the end of times the temple that will be rebuilt is a church in the land of Israel and the other is saying its not a physical land/building thing its our bodies which our bodies turn into a holy temple for the holly spirit to dwell in after we are reborn?

And what is amil? What is being said and what is being found? And since Jesus are we supposed to take the old testament into consideration as well, or throw it out the window?

[Street Sweeper]

Hello a.baker,

The discussion is all about the second coming of Jesus, and how Bible prophecy is used to build a timeline of events during the last days. The 4 major models, which each have there own variations, are:
Historic pre-millennialism
Dispensational pre-millennialism
Amillennialism and
Post-millennialism

The millennialism part of the names refers to Jesus millennial reign. The term can be found in Revelation chapter 20 where a period of 1000 years is documented. The names of the different models indicate expectations that Jesus will return before or after the 1000 years.

In the case of amillennialism the millennium period is not regarded as a literal 1000 years, but is the current time in which we live - between Jesus resurrection and His second coming.

There a several aspects of theology which will tend to lead people to acceptance of 1 of these models over another. It’s quite a fascinating topic if you are prepared to spend the effort in studying the various aspects. It also has implications for politics and international policy.

Some of the key areas impacting the discussion are:
The nature of the kingdom of God

The role of national Israel and its relation to the church – this can also be expressed as whether there is one people of God or two.

The ‘ages’ of God’s revelation – perhaps a poor expression on my part, but considers either several defined periods under the dispensational model, or two ages under the other models (This age and the age to come)

The approach to Bible study – Biblical theology vs Systematic theology

The understanding and significance of covenant in God’s relationship to man.

Ummmm……….. and probably a whole heap more.


There has been a lot of talk about literal vs spiritual interpretation of the bible. I consider this a distraction but I’m sure you will come to your own understanding on this issue.


I have a preference for the Amillennial model, but I do recognize it has some limitations.

I accept the Old Testament as a very significant and important part of Gods revelation. I think most Christians would say the same.

I suspect we will be discussing the nature of temple and the Kingdom of God, in a lot more detail shortly.

I hope this helps a little, and I apologise if you already have a reasonable understanding of this information.

[a.baker]

Thank-x Streetsweeper! No I am pretty simple in what I do know when it comes to the end of times and the bible and such. I am ready to search and seek for the answers. My problem is that now that I am seeking, I am lost! I have found God thru Jesus but I am lost if that makes sense? I plan on looking and thinking and then praying about it. Hopefully God will answer my prayers, questions, and concerns with these issues. I know He is listening but its so hard to know what way to go with Him. Since I have come to this website I have been obsessing over God which is a good thing but yet its starting to drain energy from my soul. So any input from anyone is wonderful and helpful in helping to discover the way we are supposed to live, think,and what is to be taken in and how. Confusing, but I have barely scratched the surface and I don't plan on giving up!

[CoreIssue]

I will only address a couple of key points, since the post was a reply to a question.
The role of national Israel and its relation to the church – this can also be expressed as whether there is one people of God or two.
This is one of the false ideas Amils and some others present.

There are not two or more people of God. There is but one.

But there several covenants within the Bible to groups and individuals. Which has nothing to do with being people of God.
The approach to Bible study – Biblical theology vs Systematic theology
Another semantically phrased statement. As if Systematic isn't Biblical.

Systematic means you read the Bible literally, until you encounter figurative language. Then you look for the literal defining for the figurative that will be given within the Bible.

It also says each passage must be read grammatically. Meaning it stands on its own.

Then you build the bigger picture by reading them together.

If a conflict, then you look for where you got the grammar wrong.

Whereas Amil does not work that way. It takes aspects that it embraces as keys and puts its own meanings on them.

Then, when you read the rest of the Bible, you figure out how to read the conflicting parts figuratively so as to make them conform.

They say it is logical and based on fact. It isn't. It is based on desired doctrines.

An example being Church and Israel. Never is Church called Israel. Never does it say Church assumed the role of Israel. The Abrahamic Covenant does not allow for Church to asssume Israel. The Bible says Israel will be restored, as I pointed out in my opening with Amos 9.

But, in reading what has been posted, you see Amils turn Amos 9 into Christ, the Cross and Church. How? They just do it, by taking part of such as Acts 15 out of context and changing their meanings.

Thus all the OT ends up figurative, prophetically speaking. Unproven and unprovable, but claimed.

There has been a lot of talk about literal vs spiritual interpretation of the bible. I consider this a distraction but I’m sure you will come to your own understanding on this issue.

A distraction?

Then lets get off the rhetoric and deal with evidence. ;)

[a.baker]

Do we know how Israel will be restored like in what way?

[a.baker]

One more question. What do you see in current time of war and Israel? Since that is an end of time sign.

[CoreIssue]

Do we know how Israel will be restored like in what way?
First, to the land. 1948.

Second, to God, Second Coming.

[CoreIssue]

One more question. What do you see in current time of war and Israel? Since that is an end of time sign.
Many opinions on that one.

Increasing pressures and threats, until the AC peace treaty.

3.5 years later the gog/magog war begins, and the AC invades Israel.

3.5 years more, Armageddon.

[Street Sweeper]

One more question. What do you see in current time of war and Israel? Since that is an end of time sign.
I see a lot of people whether, Jewish, Christian or Islamic, all treating each other very badly.

The Islamic faith developed through descent from Ishmael. Reading Genesis 16:12 perhaps reveals that the antagonism of Islam toward Jews and Christians should be no surprise to us, but I would caution against interpreting the current tensions in the middle-east as an obviously fulfilment of Bible prophecy and confirmation that Jesus will return at 3:55pm next May 13.

The signs of the end do include increasing conflicts and persecution, and as Christians we should be aware that passing time brings us progressively closer to Jesus return. Until that happens we have an obligation to look after our brothers and sisters in Christ, and to be a good neighbour to all people. Seeking peace and justice for all people should be in the forefront of our minds.

It’s not an easy balance. Promoting peace and justice may necessarily require some force. It is my hope that everyone prays for guidance, and do not try to expedite Jesus’ return by manipulating circumstances to fit their interpretation of Bible prophecy. Jesus will return as it suits His own schedule.

[CoreIssue]

No one can expedite Christ's return.

But we can get into the meat of the Bible and what it says. So, let us get off the periphrals and go to the Bible. ;)

[Street Sweeper]

This is one of the false ideas Amils and some others present.

There are not two or more people of God. There is but one.Hello CI,
Could you clarify for me, the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Christian faithful.

[CoreIssue]

This is one of the false ideas Amils and some others present.

There are not two or more people of God. There is but one.Hello CI,
Could you clarify for me, the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Christian faithful.
Easy. Two different covenants.

Same salvation, all in Christ, but two different covenants.

Covenants are not salvation. They are the mechanism by which God speaks and gives revelation to earth. A form of validation and testing for who can speaks and what anyone says.

Before Abraham, revelation was by Law of Conscience and the Holy Spirit and angels dealing directly with individuals.

Via the lineage of Abraham a definable covenant body was formed, and from it came Mosaic Law and supposed examples on how to live for God. And the temple types pointed to Christ.

Thus knowedge increased in a way that was testable and trustable for all Mankind.

Israel was the mechanism speaking to all Man.

Church built upon what came from Israel. It did not become Israel.

Church was the mechanism that furthered the revelations and works of Christ, since Israel would not do so.

So, knowledge again increased in a testable and trustable way. Church is the current mechanism speaking to all of Mankind.

When Israel is restored, it will again be God's mechanism, but in a changed way since Christ will physically be on the earth.

Now also a governmental body as well as a covenant body.

But from Adam to the end of time, salvation has always been by repentence through faith.

Note the working of Romans 8. God foreknew who would love him and he predestined such all the way to glorification, which includes conforming to Christ.

To love God is to love Christ and to love Christ is to love God, since Christ is God. Not Israel loved God and Church loves Christ.

It is one process for all saints from all times. Not a different one for different groups.

[Street Sweeper]

I’m not sure that CI has really clarified the distinction between Israel and the ‘church’ as it applies to the era in which we live. I do agree that two different covenants are applicable and, if I have the terminology correct, the covenant that was applicable to Israel prior to Christ was the Mosaic covenant, also known as the 'Sinaitic covenant', the 'Old covenant' or ‘the Law’. From the point of Christ’s death on the cross, the Law was fulfilled and ceased to have binding effect on those who recognized Jesus’ sacrifice on their behalf, and accepted Him by faith as their saviour - ie. The New Covenant provides the personal justification necessary for the perpetual Abrahamic covenant of grace.

The term ‘church’ as normally applied, encompasses those people who through acceptance and indwelling of the Holy Spirit are part of the collective ‘body of Christ’. It is clear that the association of the body of Christ with the Holy Spirit means that the ‘Church’ so defined, can only be recognized from Pentecost. There is some discussion about the visible and invisible church which I have not yet studied sufficiently and which may have some bearing on the topic – I think..:scratch:

All well and good but this doesn’t explain why dispensationalists believe that current day Jewish people do not have the same covenant blessings as gentiles. As CI noted in regard to “the working of Romans 8, God foreknew who would love him and he predestined such all the way to glorification, which includes conforming to Christ”.

While CI did not indicate the application of the Romans 8 to Israel, we should recognize that salvation for the Jews was dependent on their faith in the Christ as a future expectation, in exactly the same way people of the world find their salvation in the Christ who has now come and given His life for us.

The term church has come from a rather convoluted, and sometimes questionable, sequence of translations from the Greek ‘ekklesia’. For the sake of brevity ‘ekklesia’ has the meaning ‘called assembly’. The word also carries broader and significant connotations, but from this very brief definition it is easy to see that those called to God come from the Jews in the times before Christ just as much as they now come from all the nations including Israel.

Claims that the term ‘ekklesia’ cannot be found in the Old Testament are erroneous. Of course it does not appear in the Hebrew Tanakh, which is after all ….Hebrew. The Greek language Septuagint however does use the term several times. In most instances the Septuagint use of ‘ekklesia’ carries an entirely secular meaning, but there are, a small number of cases where ‘ekklesia’ can be recognized having similar meaning as 'those called to God'.

There are very few theologians who will claim an absolute correlation of ‘church’ and ‘Israel’. I did however come across an article by the Greek Orthodox scholar, George C. Papademetriou who argues the absolute commonality of Church and Israel in the strongest terms.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9285.asp (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9285.asp)The People of God: An Orthodox perspective
“The emergence of the Christian church was conceived by its early Apologists as being the inheritor of this heritage from the Old Testament. The church is in continuity with the Israel of God.” ………..
“The first followers of Jesus in the "days of His flesh," were not isolated individuals engaged in their private quest for truth. They were Israelites regular members of an established and instituted Community of the "Chosen People" of God ... Indeed; a "Church" already existed when Jesus began His ministry. It was Israel, the People of the Covenant...” …………
"The Little Flock" that the community which Jesus had gathered around Himself was, in fact, the faithful "Remnant" of Israel, a reconstituted People of God.” ……………
“The term "holy people of God" designates the church.” …………..

Most scholars however are more circumspect in their correlation of ‘church’ and ‘Israel’. While I now fall into the realm of personal speculation, it seems the hesitancy may underlie the following statement also by Mr Papademetriou. The Gospel of John shows that throughout the history of Israel there were always two groups among the people; these were separated through the coming of the Messiah-Jesus. Only one of the groups is and has been Israel, and this group is found in the Church.I find absolutely acceptable that those faithful to the messiah prior to His first coming, should be regarded as part of the body of Christ and hence part of the church. In this sense the church clearly existed prior to Jesus, and some interchange of the terms Israel and Church is possible.

More difficult however is the ‘national Israel’ concept. National Israel clearly encompassed both faithful and non-faithful, and both it seems were subject to God’s blessings and curses. Therefore, in the broader national frame of reference, it is difficult to demonstrate a match between church and Israel. How can the unfaithful of Israel be equated with the Christian faithful.

There must indeed have been a change in the relationship between God and national Israel at Jesus fulfillment of the law. The faithful ‘light to the nations’ however, continued its great commission through the faithful Israel, in the body of Christ – the church. This seems to be the meaning revealed thus far in my reading of ecclesiology.

The ongoing dispensational distinction between Israel and church still needs unpacking. Why is Israel still subject to a covenant different from that under which the rest of the world can receive God’s salvation?

[CoreIssue]

This isn't flying, Sweeper. You are flying right down the normal Amil road and avoiding dealing with the Biblical passges by attempting semantical and doctrinal arguments, instead.

Paul states the Body of Christ is composed of Church and Israel. Your argument dies immediately.

Now, deal with Amos 9. You have not. You are dodging the Bible and posting the normal Amil doctrinal declarations.

Final note. You states so many errors in what I believe. But I am not going to encourage more diverting away from an actual Biblical conversation by answering them point for point, which is what Amils love to do, since they fall apart when the actual Bible is dealt with.

Let us get onto serious Bible study, here, beginning with Amos 9. Please go there and deal with my answer to you.

[CoreIssue]

Sweeper, I put the pertinent Amos 9 post issues here, at the end of the thread, for thread flow.

Please tell me what THIS says. Not what you doctrine says it says. Not leaping to other verses to attempt to justify rewriting it from what it literally says to something else. Tell me what it says, for itself.

This is the kind of thing Amils don't like to do, because they cannot do it. It looks foolish to say this means what they claim it means when it literally doesn't mean it.

Trying to spiritualize away meanings does not work because you can spiritualize it to say anything you want.

What does it say?
Never the less you obviously have a particular interest in Amos. I couldn’t find among your recent posts the particular passage that you are concerned about – but I will make an assumption that Chapter 9, verses 11-15 are occupying your thoughts. If I have correctly identified the passage, I think you may be concerned as to whether I read this as a literal prophecy forecasting reconstruction of the hardware(bricks, buildings, infrastructure, geographic boundaries etc.) of Israel as an ethnic nation, or as a symbolic representation of Jesus as God’s Tabernacle, rebuilt at His resurrection.
This is but a kick off of discussion concerning what the Bible says about Israel and the End Times. But one proof Amil is wrong.
I would be overly presumptuous to suggest that a literal rebuilding of national Israel could not, or will not occur.
Bible says it will. And as the covenant nation. Not Replacement Theology.
I also recognise however that Jesus has in fact rebuilt the temple as He promised (John2:19).
19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
Totally out of context they way you are using it.

He is speaking of the Temple of his body, not the physical Temple.

The partial quotation by James in Acts 15, of the Amos passage similarly affirms that the tabernacle has indeed been rebuilt. The Amos prophecy has therefore been fulfilled.

Temple of the body, not the physical Temple.

And they were not saying Christ was the rebuilt Temple in Acts. Totally out of context and proper grammar.

They were saying, to the Jews, that the Temple would be rebuilt and Israel restored, but God was acting with the Gentiles now. And that they should work with that effort, not against it.
CI, perhaps your intent here was to highlight this difference in approach to Bible interpretation. It seems that dispensationalists choose to interpret the New Testament from the perspective of the Old Testament. To me, it seems only reasonable that the New Testament should be allowed primacy over the Old Testament. Surely the Apostles and those who were taught directly by our Lord, and inspired by the Holy Spirit are in the best position to explain and interpret the prophecy of the Old Testament.
It isn't one or the other, but a flow of progress, Old to New. Yes, many things are clarified, in the NT, but none ever annul or replace the old. None change the OT meanings from literal to figurative, where the statements are literal.

Let us look at Amos 9, all of it. Just as you need to look at all of Acts 15, not just a couple of verses, to establish full meaning. You will see it agrees with what I said about Acts 15.

1 I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said:
"Strike the tops of the pillars
so that the thresholds shake.
Bring them down on the heads of all the people;
those who are left I will kill with the sword.
Not one will get away,
none will escape.

2 Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22498a)]
from there my hand will take them.
Though they climb up to the heavens,
from there I will bring them down.
3 Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,
there I will hunt them down and seize them.
Though they hide from me at the bottom of the sea,
there I will command the serpent to bite them.
4 Though they are driven into exile by their enemies,
there I will command the sword to slay them.
I will fix my eyes upon them
for evil and not for good."
5 The Lord, the LORD Almighty,
he who touches the earth and it melts,
and all who live in it mourn—
the whole land rises like the Nile,
then sinks like the river of Egypt-
6 he who builds his lofty palace [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22502b)] in the heavens
and sets its foundation [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22502c)] on the earth,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land—
the LORD is his name.
7 "Are not you Israelites
the same to me as the Cu****es [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22503d)] ?"
declares the LORD .
"Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt,
the Philistines from Caphtor [e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22503e)]
and the Arameans from Kir?
8 "Surely the eyes of the Sovereign LORD
are on the sinful kingdom.
I will destroy it
from the face of the earth—
yet I will not totally destroy
the house of Jacob,"
declares the LORD.
9 "For I will give the command,
and I will shake the house of Israel
among all the nations
as grain is shaken in a sieve,
and not a pebble will reach the ground. 10 All the sinners among my people
will die by the sword,
all those who say,
'Disaster will not overtake or meet us.'

He first prophecied the destruction of Israel. But he made it very clear a remnant would remain.
11 "In that day I will restore

What day? The Day of the Lord. The Trib followed by the MK.
David's fallen tent.
This means the whole house of David, which is Israel. Christ as king.
I will repair its broken places,
restore its ruins,
and build it as it used to be,
The blueprint is in Ezekiel. Along with the Priesthood and the rest.

Future. Has not happened yet. Not the death of Christ or the resurrection.

Restoration of the nation of Israel.

12 so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name, [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22508f)] "
declares the LORD, who will do these things.
13 "The days are coming," declares the LORD,
"when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills.

Possession and restoration of the land.
14 I will bring back my exiled [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22510g)] people Israel;

You cannot bring back the Church when it never possessed the land or was outcast as covenant body.

Only Israel fits here. And is so stated.

they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.

No way to get Christ and the resurrection out of this. Or the Church.

Rebuild, not build. Land, not flesh.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,

Israel, not Church. There land, fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant through his flesh descendents. The Eternal Covenant God will keep.
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,"
Never again. Cannot apply to the Church.

HAVE given. Past tense. Most assuredly not Church.

Nation restored, not death and resurrection of Christ.
says the LORD your God.
Not conditional. Will be done.

No way to get Replacement Theology out of this.

Burden is upon you to give proof this has to be spirualized into the Church and Christ's death and resurrection.

I don't have to defend literal reading, Amils have to show reason for not reading it literally.

Okay, I have shown a literal take on John, Acts and Amos. No conflicts, all fit together, literally. No stretch of imagination to get where I am.

But, the same cannot be said for Amil. Why should anyone read these verses as Christ, Church and Replacement Theology? A question I have asked many and never gotten an answer to.

Please don't take my statements as a personal attack. But I find Amil a total statement of people seeking to fit the Bible to what they want to find, not what is said.

I have plenty more verses to literally support my position.

Just show me how you can change the meanings, here, so drastically.

[Street Sweeper]

Okay, Amos

Commonly known as the prophet of doom. 9 chapters of prophecy of which eight and a half talk about destruction. Only the second half of Chapter 9 offers hope for the future. The prophesied destruction appears to be focussed on the judgment at the Christ’s second coming.

I can only partly agree with you about the context of Amos 9:11. The verse is ambiguous.

The phrase “In that day” is suggestive of Jesus second coming, and the latter verses 13-15 are also descriptive of what might be anticipated in the Edenic realm. This I assume is the attraction of the passage to premillennialists (of both flavours) – it might be seen as supporting the case for a millennial kingdom under the rule of Christ following His parousia.

Acts 15:16-17 however, while being used by James to seal the decision of the Jerusalem Council that circumcision not be required of gentiles, does confirm the prophecy has current relevance. It is not something which is future. The tent has already been restored to the extent that the remnant of men and the gentiles are at that time seeking the Lord. Was Jesus the ‘restored tent’? Was some other aspect of Israel and the covenant relationship restored? – Perhaps there is a better argument to be made from the perspective of covenant. Never the less the focus of the people of God coming from both the remnant of Israel and from the gentiles is a solid fact of current applicability, not something which may occur after Jesus second coming.

Verse 13 of Amos 9 clearly shows a discontinuity from verses 11 and 12. There is no need to regard these last verses of Amos as the lifestyle to be enjoyed under Jesus millennial reign on this earth. It may equally apply to heavenly life postmillennium.


This isn't flying, Sweeper. You are flying right down the normal Amil road and avoiding dealing with the Biblical passges by attempting semantical and doctrinal arguments, instead.Unfortunately you haven’t recognised that I have been providing a great deal of information explaining how scripture as a whole provides the basis for the amillennial perspective. I think this is a much more productive form of discussion than presenting isolated passages for interpretation and then claiming the view of the other person is wrong, without in turn explaining the reasoning for that view – particularly as can be seen above when an individual passage is ambiguous.

I will respond to your queries about individual verses, but in so doing it will always be my intention to show how the passage fits into the wider theological perspective. I hope you will take the opportunity to do the same.

Paul states the Body of Christ is composed of Church and Israel. Your argument dies immediately.I gave sufficient detail explaining the continuing existence of Israel as what we now call the church, for constructive discussion to proceed. You might also like to note that Amos 9:12 states:
“so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name,"
declares the LORD, who will do these things.

In what should be emphasised is a most literal interpretation, don’t you find it remarkable that Israel will ‘possess’ the nations - not ‘there will be these other guys who will hang around and do their own thing in worship of Jehova’ ?

I did ask you to clarify the separate roles of Israel and Church, which I understand is a claim of dispensationalism, and which at this point is something I recognise as a claim for two different people of God. If it is not a claim for two people of God, please give a proper explanation.

[CoreIssue]

That wasn't an answer. It was doctrinal statement.

Post the chapter and go through it, line by line and explain it.

Don't throw out there Acts this or that and a statement. That is meaningless.

Don't throw out questions as if they are answers.

YOU go through, line and by line, and tell me what it means.

You cannot do that without the absurdity of what you are saying coming out.

[Street Sweeper]

That wasn't an answer. It was doctrinal statement. doc·trine/ˈdɒk trɪn/ Pronunciation Key
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.



Yes my response included aspects of doctrine. That is intentional. After all, the topic and this discussion is doctrinal in nature. Doctrine underlies my perspective of the millennium just as much as it underlies yours.


Post the chapter and go through it, line by line and explain it.I will go through the exegesis for you, but it may take me a few days to respond. It should be a useful exercise for me in the study of that period in history.

Don't throw out there Acts this or that and a statement. That is meaningless.

Don't throw out questions as if they are answers.

YOU go through, line and by line, and tell me what it means.

You cannot do that without the absurdity of what you are saying coming out.Do you really expect anything to change? I have presented an argument for amillennialism and will continue to do so. I have also been hoping you will do the same in support of your perspective. Unfortunately the responses so far have only been trivial disputation of my contributions along the lines of:
‘That’s garbage’
‘meaningless’
‘you’ve taken that out of context’
‘that’s not the meaning of the verse’
‘That’s not a literal interpretation’
‘you’ve spritualised what is literal’
‘wrong’

By the way, you might like to consider why current editions of the Schofield reference Bible no longer make the claim that Amos 9 is the single most important passage justifying dispensationalism.

[CoreIssue]

An argument, yes. Proof no.

Now please actually go through the chapter and tell me what it says.

Stop doing what EVERY one with non-literal doctrines always do, as in making doctrinal declarations, as if they prove something.

And if you leap off to the NT, don't post just a verse or two. Post the full context and explain it as well.

Like your ACTS 15 claim. When examined it didn't say what you claimed.

You have a tough row to hoe here. Because by trying to abandon literal you take on the burden of finding SOMEWHERE that a literal foundation can be build from.

Remember, the WHOLE chapter has to line up with your declarations. Not this segment here and there. The WHOLE chapter has to be explained.

[Street Sweeper]

And if you leap off to the NT, don't post just a verse or two. Post the full context and explain it as well.

Like your ACTS 15 claim.I did.

When examined it didn't say what you claimed.It does.

Literal can often be seen to be superficial.

I'm looking forward to seeing an argument in defence of dispensationalism

[CoreIssue]

[quote=ci]
And if you leap off to the NT, don't post just a verse or two. Post the full context and explain it as well.

Like your ACTS 15 claim.I did.

No, you didn't. You posted a couple of verses out of the whole passage and spun them to say something they didn't.

I, not you, posted the whole passage and SHOWED what it actually said.

You cannot do that and make it work.

When examined it didn't say what you claimed.It does.

Literal can often be seen to be superficial.

That is nonsense.

Not saying what you want it to say is not superficial.

And whether you like it or not, you have to have some LITERAL proof to build a case from.

Supposed meaning and claimed, as some do, revelation from the Holy Spirit does not fly.

Holy Spirit tells me you are wrong.
I'm looking forward to seeing an argument in defence of dispensationalism
And of course the attempt to divert to another topic.

NO! PROVE your claim.

You made the pro Amil claim and I challenged you. Now we are not jumping fence into another discussion to get you off the hook.

You claimed, I challenged, now you answer.

I provided the first proof passage, of many. Now your turn to deal with it. FULLY.

[CoreIssue]

And I remind you that you started this topic to escape the proofs issues on the Amil thread.

Please go back there and answer. Stop the dodging and diversion.

Sorry, but it is norm we see on these claims.

Amils have a lot of words but no substance. Not when they actually find themselves having to prove their claims.

I hope you see it is one thing to believe something, but very much something else to prove it.

[Street Sweeper]

[quote]
I provided the first proof passage, of many.
You provided the passage.

What is the proof?

[CoreIssue]

[quote]
I provided the first proof passage, of many.
You provided the passage.

What is the proof?
OK. Not biting.

Go back and read the thread.

Then lay out Amos 9, as I did, and answer it.

If you say it is not literal, prove it. Fully.

Not with verses pulled out of context, here and there.

Not playing this game. You guys all play it and it does not work.

Not playing the negative proof game.

Prove it ain't literal.

[kay-gee]

Hello Streetsweeper. Amen to you.

Hello Core Issue. Streetsweeper has pretty much stolen my thunder. As i read these posts, I see the exact same conclusion that I draw from studying Amos 9. I also see the way you answer these conclusions, so I don't think there is really any purpose in me just re-hashing it all over on the MK Quest thread. Jesus and the Church that He is building Is the totality, the fullfilment, the summation of all the OT prophets. That includes the first prophecy of His coming in Genesis. It was promised He was coming to break the power of Satan (sin). We are not promised an earthly ruler for any length of time including 1000 years. It is all about Jesus from the get-go. Choose to believe it or choose not to believe it. That is up to you. Any further argument is futile.

Streetsweeper, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say dispensationalism. Could you explain that a bit.

all the best...

[CoreIssue]

Hello Streetsweeper. Amen to you.

Hello Core Issue. Streetsweeper has pretty much stolen my thunder. As i read these posts, I see the exact same conclusion that I draw from studying Amos 9. I also see the way you answer these conclusions, so I don't think there is really any purpose in me just re-hashing it all over on the MK Quest thread. Jesus and the Church that He is building Is the totality, the fullfilment, the summation of all the OT prophets. That includes the first prophecy of His coming in Genesis. It was promised He was coming to break the power of Satan (sin). We are not promised an earthly ruler for any length of time including 1000 years. It is all about Jesus from the get-go. Choose to believe it or choose not to believe it. That is up to you. Any further argument is futile.

Streetsweeper, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say dispensationalism. Could you explain that a bit.

all the best...
No, KG. You are again trying to keep these issues from being discussed in detail and proofs.

Nothing but rhetoric here.

No more rhetoric from you guys. Answer the Amos 9 challenge, line for line.

This ain't happening again, on this topic. Meaning the constant, repetitive dodgings.