There are a few reasons as to why I posted the following essay. For whatever it’s worth, note that this is not necessarily an exhaustive list of reasons: (1) To answer the improper belief and erroneous claim both that Amillennialism necessarily entails Anti-Semitism and that Dispensational Premillennialism does good service to or seeks the best interest of the Jews (2) To subject my beliefs to critique both by those who, in principal, hold the same eschatological perspective as I do as well those who strongly disagree with me. (3) To show forth a historical alternative to Dispensationalism, which happens to be more recently constructed (contrary to what has been inculcated) though it is widely believed. Note however that Premillennialism, a variation of which is elemental to Dispensationalism, is historically believed. And this is partly why recognition of the fundamental differences between what is called Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism is necessary. (4) To encourage the believer to be Pro-Christ. Wherever I stand, I stand with Jesus (Josh 5:13-15)!
By the way, for one argument for the biblical soundness of Amillennialism, click here: Problems with Premillennialism. Now on to the principal intent of this post…
A Purpose for this Writing
In the past, it has been thought and even today it is currently being asserted that if one holds to Amillennialism, then he must believe that the Land Promise divinely issued for the sake of Abraham and his seed has been revoked. For the Millennium, as happening after the return of Christ, is said to be the grounds upon which that promise, concerning Abraham and his seed, shall come to fruition. Those who hold to Amillennialism are commonly and erroneously (as in this site: gotquestions.org) referred to as Replacement Theologians, so as to be seen as believing that God has rejected Israel and has set the Church in it’s place (as if the Church did not consist of Jews!). There is a twofold reason why such disparaging expressions about Amillennialism take place: There is an ignorance of Amillennialism and there are misunderstandings of Scripture. It will be my attempt to vindicate Amillennialism, in respect to the extent to which it is impugned by the more notable and erudite Dispensationalist, and stay the reproach that men have designated for those that hold to it as well as articulate at some measure how the Land Promise is still maintained and that it still necessarily finds fulfillment in light of a proper adherence to Amillennialism. Of course, particularly for those who depart from Dispensationalism in order to lodge at any non-Dispensational perspective on the Millennium (whether Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or even Postmillennialism), a dramatic change on how the term ‘Israel’ is defined is necessary. But an espousal of a non-Dispensational eschatology doesn’t necessarily entail the espousal of the notion that God has forsaken his intent to accomplish his love toward Israel. What I intend to do by the following words is not to comprehensively and conclusively prove Amillennialism, but simply to show in one respect how Scripture itself is perfectly consistent with it.
A Word on the Identity of Israel for whom God’s Promises were made
By the Dispensationalist, there is much emphasis as to what is to be done with Israel. For what we do with Israel should jibe with God’s intent to effectually bring mercy to Israel as he has brought mercy to the Gentiles, to bring about a mass conversion for Israel, to actually save all Israel. That God will accomplish these things, there is ardent agreement on my part. But when we use the term, ‘Israel’, it is necessary that there be qualifier applied to it. Consider the following verse (and everything from the beginning of Romans Ch 9 to the very end of Romans Ch 11 for that matter).
Rom 9:6 – Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
You have here a statement that is quite unequivocal, conveying that one is not Israel just because he is (born) of Israel. This necessarily excludes reprobate Jews (those Jews who actually will never come to faith in Jesus Christ) from being deemed Israel. But in the same context, insofar as Israel is distinguished from “the World” (the Gentiles), Israel necessarily or logically excludes the World also. Thus Israel in this context consists exclusively of the elect Jews. But upon the confirmation of the New Covenant, a middle wall of partition, once separating the elect Jews (Israel) from the elect Gentiles (the World), is broken down. This is not so that the elect Jews, whom God foreknew, would be replaced, but rather so that the Gentiles who were far off and strangers would be reconciled with the elect Jews to God, so that they might also be citizens of the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:11-19). So in accordance with how Paul uses the term ‘Israel’ in Rom 9-11, of course the invisible Church (true believers) doesn’t replace Israel. The Church comprises Israel.
However, Paul’s usage of ‘Israel’ in Rom 9-11 does not necessarily preclude the appropriateness of referring to the invisible Church as Israel (or spiritual Jews), especially considering that believing Gentiles are considered citizens of Israel as Scripture indicates (Eph 2:12, 19, see also Rom 2:25-29, Phil 3:3, Col 2:11-12, Rom 9:6-9, Psa 73:1, Matt 3:9, Gal 3:29, and possibly also Gal 6:16 depending on whether “the Israel of God” refers to the entire church or believing Jews within the church, neither of which interpretations, I’m perfectly certain of).
A New Testament Explanation of the Promise of Inheritance to Israel’s Father
Hebrews 11:8 – By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out to a place which he should after receive for an inheritance; and he went out not knowing whither he went.
Abraham was to receive (this inheritance that he went out to) “after”, and not then. Not just after he left from his native residence, Ur of the Chaldees, but “after” his earthly life. This is corroborated with the context, especially the next two verses as well as with Acts 7:5 which says, “And he gave him [i.e. Abraham] none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child“.
Hebrews 11:9 – By faith he sojourned in a land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise.
Even when he arrived in and walked and dwelt upon that land, which was then called Canaan, he is referred to as a sojourner. Verse 10 tells us why…
Hebrews 11:10 – For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
He never received what was promised physically (Heb 11:13 & 39, Acts 7:5). Notwithstanding, he did receive it through promise (Gal 3:18). And since God did promise him, he looked for (or forward to), that city, that country, that world, which was heavenly. And in such a way should the promise be ultimately, absolutely fulfilled.
The Scriptural Account of God’s Promise to Abraham Concerning him and his Seed
Now lets look at the scriptures, which show us God’s intimations to Abraham concerning the land that he and his seed should possess. The very first verse, I will not comment on, but nonetheless have included as a preface for the series of passages in the book of Genesis that I shall pose for the sake of the subject at hand:
Gen 12:1 – Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Gen 13:5 – For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
God does not merely say to Abraham that he will give the land to his seed, but regards Abraham as being a future recipient of the land as well. This must pertain to the land, not (or at least not merely) in its temporal state, but in it’s final and renewed. For even though his seed did possess the land physically when Joshua was leading them, Abraham had not. Therefore, seeing as the fulfillment of this promise is for Abraham and his seed to experience, and not his seed only, the totality of this promise has not been fulfilled as of yet. So while the land was to Abraham’s seed, those who did possess it, it will also be for him as and as a part of the New Heaven and the New Earth.
Gen 13:15 – Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
Notice, here, that God says Abraham will be given the land that he himself is told to tread upon. Meanwhile, in this particular instance, his seed is not even mentioned even though they should also be given the land, seeing as they were in him, are blessed with him, and are plainly said, by God, to be the heir to the land, as he was an heir to the land (Rom 4:13). Abraham had yet to physically receive the land that he tread upon for as long as he was living, seeing as he never actually received it in the entire duration of his earthly life.
Gen 12:7 – And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Gen 15:18-21 – In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
In these two verses, God speaks of the land as it should be (i.e. in its temporal state) when given exclusively to Abraham’s seed. Note that even Abraham is excluded. With Gen 12:7, he says that Abraham’s seed will be given the land and with, Gen 15:18-21, to stress the certainty and irrevocability of his promise, he says not that they would be given the land, but that his seed had been given the land. And he gives specific details, naming real geographic locations, enabling us -the readers- to know the state and extent of this land as should be given to his seed according to the way he means it here in this passage, whether it be in it’s temporal state or whether it be in its renewed. And it is clear that he is speaking of the land in its temporal state, and such that his seed, and not he himself, should physically possess. And according to Scripture and so as to fulfill the promise issued to Abraham, his seed did in fact possess the land (Josh 21:43-45, 23:14, 1 Kings 4:20-21, 8:56). It is in this state that Abraham’s spiritual and true seed (otherwise known as the elect or the remnant) physically did receive it, and as they should have -in faith (as evidenced by Heb 11:30).
Also, in that Abraham’s seed did possess Canaan under Joshua’s leadership, the promise that Abraham and his seed should physically possess the land was partially fulfilled. How was it only partially fulfilled? (1) Only his seed physically possessed the land, and not he also. (2) Canaan itself wasn’t capable of housing a people, so great in number and bodily form, as that which Abraham and his seed are to be. (3) Abraham’s seed doesn’t consist merely of those that are his seed merely biologically. Though it absolutely comprises a portion of his biological seed, it also includes the Gentiles who are fellow-heirs and partakers of the same promises (Eph 3:6) (4) I believe and suggest also that there was only a partial fulflillment because, as yet, many more were to become Abraham’s seed, because of the continual deaths that the constituents of that seed have been subject to, as any and all men, since the children of Israel first went into the land to receive it under Joshua, and because of their displacements -however temporary- from the land which were consequent to the nation’s recurrent apostasies. And being that it was partially fulfilled, the promise that Abraham and his seed would receive the land (as an everlasting possession) was not totally fulfilled. Therefore, in that a partial fulfillment –however substantive and significant- is not a fulfillment as it shall finally be, there is a sense in which it was not received. For it is true that it is not merely that the land should be received, but that it should be received as an entirely new world, by every single one of those that are ordained both to be renewed and immortalized. And this is indeed what the scripture says (Heb 11:13 and 39, see also Heb 4:8).
As the promise that his spiritual seed should possess the land in it’s temporal state was totally fulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45, 23:14, 1 Kings 4:20-21, 8:56), I do not contest against the notion that some of those, of Abraham’s biological seed (John 8:33) and never also of his spiritual seed (John 8:36, John 3:3), should have possessed the land also. Moreover, I do not contest against that such possessing happened upon entering into it for the first time after the exodus from Egypt, upon being born within the land, and upon entering into it again at the decree of Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22&23 or Ezra 1:1-4). As a matter of fact, considering that the reprobate and elect Jews alike had part in the Old Covenant, it was necessary and perfectly fitting that the elect and reprobate Jews alike would have possession of Canaan. Yet still, though they were his biological seed, they did not receive the land, as they should have, for they lacked faith (Heb 4:2). Thus, in a noteworthy sense, they didn’t receive it (i.e. they did not receive it as spiritual or regenerate men), ad sense in which they did receive it (i.e. as natural or unregenerate men) was vain. Being that those who have not faith are not counted as Abraham’s seed (Rom 4:12, Rom 9:8, see also Gal 3:29) as Jesus himself indicates (John 8:39), they cannot be counted as having possessed the land for the fulfillment of the promise that Abraham and his seed would possess the land as a physical possession in any sense –whether temporal or eternal.
The Land Received by Abraham by Promise and by his Seed Temporally
It is certain that God gave the land to Abraham’s seed as he promised and that his seed did possess it (as it was temporal and confined). It is also certain that there is a sense in which God had yet to give the same land to his seed (as it shall be eternally renewed). This parallels significantly with God’s administrations to Abraham as enunciated earlier. And here, I shall reiterate: He received it along with other blessings by promise (Gal 3:8), which obviously is before any of the promises were even fulfilled, and thus he had yet to receive it (Heb 11:39, Acts 7:5) (see also Heb 11:8) perfectly and eternally, in and by Christ. Concerning Abraham, one manner of his own receiving of estate from God was merely virtual (by promise), and the other is perfect and eternal (in and by Christ). Concerning his seed (that is his spiritual seed), one manner of receiving was temporal (under Joshua), but the other is perfect and eternal (in and by Christ). Since there is indeed a distinction between the way in which Abraham has already received the land, which is as through the promise of God, and the way in which his seed has already received the land, as under the leadership of Joshua, let it be recalled and stressed that ultimately such a distinction is obscured insofar as neither of them in their days received the land as in its renewed, perfected, and eternal state as God had promised. And thus the scripture implies by saying that “the world was not worthy” of those who had faith (Heb 11:38). And again, speaking in respect to the world as it shall be, it is written that Abraham and his seed, by faith, should be the heir (intentionally singular) to the world (Rom 4:13) (Some might argue that ‘world’ as used in both of these two passages represent people and not a place or location, but I assert that a proper consideration of the contexts of these two passages respectively would lead to the conclusion I am supposing). It does not matter whether the land, which was part and parcel to the world and temporal, is received virtually as opposed to actually or vice-verse insofar as they all (Abraham and his seed) “desired a better” and “heavenly” place which God prepares (as Heb 11:16 says, see also John 14:2 and Isa 65:17&18), not having received it when they were alive (as Heb 11:13 quite clearly says).
A Delicate Point Concerning Israel as Relating to a Right to Possess Israel-Palestine
As I state emphatically that the promise of Abraham and his seed’s rightful possession to the world is realized merely spiritually now and physically at the coming of Christ, I am certainly not trying to make a case that ethnic Israel should under no circumstance occupy the land that is today called Israel and Palestine and that we should contest that occupancy as it now is, except to the extent that there real is scriptural grounds. But I do believe that we should avoid both of what constitutes two diametrically opposed and unbiblical standpoints…
As Gentile Christians (for those of us who are Gentile Christians), I don’t believe that we should side with those that seek for ethnic Israel to be “driven into the sea”, lest we be not too unlike the Assyrian, Rabshakeh who said, “The Lord said unto me, go up against this land and destroy it” (2 Kings 18:25) which entailed the destruction of the occupants of that land. Rabshakeh sought not only for destruction concerning Israel, but even affirmed that God actually sent him. Although God did send him in some sense, it was certainly not as he thought, or at least not as he affirmed. We are not to go in the way of Rabshakah and act outside of the boundaries of Scripture, which says that we are to love our neighbors (Rom 13:10) and indicates that we are to be a light of the Gospel to the whole world, not excluding ethnic Israel (Rom 11:14), especially considering the fact that Scripture says that God is able and actually will bring about a mass revival within ethnic Israel. Aside from this, we see quite consistently that after God has finished bringing another nation even against apostate Israel, He disposes of that other nation. I would not opt to be a part of the nation, which God shall dispose of, however much or in whatever way God uses that nation to chasten Israel.
On the other hand, we should be discerning and incisive and fruitful about our treatment of ethnic Israel if we should deem it is necessary to have concern for them. After all, for the sake of our own souls, we should not be overly desirous that this temporal world be our own (1 Pet 2:11, Phil 3:19-20, Col 3:2, 1 Cor 7:31). And a corollary of this is that we should not encourage others, particularly the Jews, to be overly desirous of this temporal world either. Israel-Palestine, being part and parcel to this world, is no exception. In the times of Moses, an entire generation, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, was not allowed into Israel-Palestine, and because of unbelief. Today, especially since May 14, 1948 Jews chiefly occupy the land, though the majority of them are unbelieving. As astonishing and significant as it might be that the Jews have become or been established as an independent nation and as scriptural as it actually is that God shall eventually bring about a mass conversion within ethnic Israel, should we now commit the error of making our concern for the welfare of the Jews to be also the condoning of a system of worship or the attempted keeping of Old Covenant ordinances that God, himself, has purposely abolished (Dan 9:27, Heb 10:5-12))? If our treatment of the Jews, is not for the furtherance of the Gospel among them (as well as all other peoples) to begin with, in effect we will do just that. If our treatment for the Jew is not unrelentingly according to the Gospel, in effect we will do just that. And while it might appear that we are “pro-Israel”, we would actually be performing a grave disservice to them.
The Insufficiency of Terrestrial Jerusalem and the Anachronism of Old Covenant Practices
Gal 4:21-26 – Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to (or corresponds with) Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Right here Paul says that Jerusalem is in bondage, being such that corresponds to Mount Sinai and is therefore not worthy of being distinguished by those that are spiritual and of faith. No wonder why Abraham looked above (Heb 11:9). For earthly Jerusalem itself, as stated in the passage above, was initially allegorical and is currently in bondage, and is not the city of those that are children to Abraham (Heb 13:14). And so the land that encompasses it is in bondage, and the whole world for that matter (Rom 8:21). And all this agrees with Heb 11:38.
Now if there is land to look forward to as well as occupy now (as I would argue Gal 3:9 implies and 2 Pet 3:13-14, Heb 11:9 & 10, 12-16, 13:14, 12:22 explicitly states), which is designated for Abraham and his seed, and we know that his seed is those who have faith -Jews and Gentiles (Rom 4:17 & 18), it must be that the promises shall have their literal fulfillment in the future by Christ, and it is necessary that presently there exists a spiritual fulfillment in Christ. This should be conceded as Scripture actually requires.
Consider Jesus in his declaration to the woman at the well.
John 4:21-24 – Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Now if we will be serious about embracing Jesus’ words to the woman at the well as well as what Paul says to the Galatians, in order for all the promises to be fulfilled concerning Israel, must there really be an age, be it regarded as a thousand literal years, in which it is mandatory for all of the nations to physically offer sacrifice in a terrestrial Jerusalem?
The Return of the Jews to the Holy Land
Considering the fact that God said he would scatter Israel among the nations for persistently rebelling against him and that their return to the land would be preceded by their return unto him, I will offer some explanation as to how it is that the Jews can occupy Israel-Palestine as they do now even though they are in unbelief: In this current, post-pentacost and inter-advental age, as the New Covenant has been confirmed, the land doesn’t have such significance that God should keep them out. For Israel-Palestine has not the purpose that it once had in respect to the Old Covenant, seeing as the Old Covenant is now abolished. Their occupancy of Israel-Palestine as unbelievers reflects this. For regarding the economy or dispensation of the Old Covenant, God spoke of Israel’s turning back unto Him as taking place within the nations to which they were scattered, before they were allowed or brought back into the land (Lev 26:40-45, Deut 4:29, Neh 1:9). And in fact, they did (Dan 9:18 &19) and they were brought back into the land after the consummation of seventy years of Babylonian captivity. Aside from this, it seems that God has permitted them to occupy Israel-Palestine insofar as they are human beings that require residence in this world just like everyone else. So of course, we have no reason to suppose that God absolutely forbids and should prevent them from occupying Israel-Palestine due to their unbelief. And if on the basis of ethnic Israel’s unbelief, we will still suppose this, it seems that we might as well also suppose that God forbids the unbelieving Gentiles from occupying any place in the rest of the world.
Faith in Christ and the Anticipation of an Incorruptible and Eternal Estate
Any legitimate appropriation of Israel-Palestine, from the point at which Abraham was given the promise of it and from the point at which Joshua lead them into it until the first coming of Christ, was to be done in faith and in anticipation of the new world as spiritually occupied in Christ through his first coming and physically inaugurated by him at his second coming (Heb 11:13). Even now, any legitimate appropriation of any part of this world, whether Israel-Palestine or elsewhere, is to be done in faith (Acts 4:13). With ethnic Jews in general today as well as with many Gentiles, faith in Christ is lacking. Yet with those that are not Abraham’s seed (merely) biologically (Rom 11:7), but rather spiritually (comprising Jew and Gentile, Gal 3:29), there is faith (Gal 3:7). These are those who appropriate not merely a sliver of land, but the whole world as found only in Christ. And these are those who shall reside for all eternity in this world renewed: the New Heaven and the New Earth.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Sonny, this was a great post and well written.
Thanks for upholding the “Already and not yet” position.
Joshua, thanks for taking the time to read what I’ve written and also for your encouragement!! Grace and Peace
{ 4 trackbacks }