{"id":154,"date":"2019-01-03T12:29:37","date_gmt":"2019-01-03T12:29:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/practicalchristainity.info\/?p=154"},"modified":"2019-01-27T23:49:10","modified_gmt":"2019-01-27T15:49:10","slug":"the-kingdom-is-now","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/2019\/01\/03\/the-kingdom-is-now\/","title":{"rendered":"The Kingdom is Now"},"content":{"rendered":"
    \n
  1. The Interpretation of OT Prophecy<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Traditionally, all OT prophecies which seem to teach an earthly kingdom were understood by AM\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0as pointing to future, literal realities, but rather were to be interpreted figuratively. I.e., they describe\u00a0spiritual<\/em>\u00a0blessings now being fulfilled in the church. Recently, however, Anthony Hoekema has popularized (although he did not invent) a view which takes a more serious, or should I say\u00a0more literal<\/em>, perspective concerning these prophecies. Concerning such OT texts, Hoekema writes:<\/p>\n

    \u201cDispensationalists commonly say that we amillennialists spiritualize prophecies of this kind by understanding them as being fulfilled either in the church of this present age or in heaven in the age to come. I believe, however, that prophecies of this sort refer neither primarily to the church of this age nor to heaven, but to\u00a0the new earth<\/em><\/strong><\/b>.<\/strong><\/b>\u00a0The concept of the new earth is therefore of great importance for the proper approach to Old Testament prophecy. All too often, unfortunately, amillennial exegetes fail to keep biblical teaching on the new earth in mind when interpreting Old Testament prophecy. It is an impoverishment of the meaning of these passages to make them apply only to the church or to heaven. But it is also an impoverishment to make them refer to a thousand-year period preceding the final state. They must be understood as inspired descriptions of the glorious new earth God is preparing for his people,\u201d (Ibid., 205-06).<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The Interpretation of the Book of Revelation<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Most AMs interpret the book of Revelation according to what is called\u00a0progressive parallelism<\/em>. \u201cAccording to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ\u2019s first coming to the time of his second,\u201d (Clouse,\u00a0The Meaning of the Millennium<\/em>, pp. 156-57). This has also been called theRecapitulation<\/strong><\/b>\u00a0view, meaning that the structure of Revelation does not relate consecutive events but frequently covers the same ground from different perspectives.<\/p>\n

      The 7 sections are: (1) chps. 1-3; (2) chps. 4-7; (3) chps. 8-11; (4) chps. 12-14; (5) chps. 15-16; (6) chps. 17-19; (7) chps. 20-22. Therefore, according to this viewRevelation 20:1<\/a>\u00a0is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0to be thought of as following in chronological order chapter 19 (which describes the Second Coming of Christ). Rather, it takes us back once again to the\u00a0beginning<\/em>\u00a0of the NT era and\u00a0recapitulates<\/em>\u00a0the entire present age. By doing this the AM is able to interpret (a)\u00a0the binding of Satan<\/em>\u00a0in\u00a0Rev. 20:1-3<\/a>\u00a0as having occurred during our Lord\u2019s earthly ministry, and (b)\u00a0the 1,000 year reign<\/em>(i.e., the millennium) of\u00a0Rev. 20:4-6<\/a>\u00a0as describing in symbolic language the entire inter-advent age in which we now live. Therefore, the thousand-year period is no literal piece of history; it is a symbolic number coextensive with the history of the church on earth between the resurrection of Christ and his return.<\/p>\n

      Addendum on Covenant Theology<\/em><\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n

      This note on Covenant Theology should not be taken as an assertion that all AMs are Covenant Theologians. In point of fact, there are Covenant Premillennialists and non-Covenant Amillennialists (although admittedly the latter are rare).<\/p>\n

      The word \u201ccovenant\u201d denotes a compact or agreement between two parties, mutually binding them to certain responsibilities, each one to the other. In Covenant Theology the whole of Scripture is read and understood as being an expression of two such covenants: (1) the covenant of\u00a0works<\/em>, and 2) the covenant of\u00a0grace<\/em>.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The Covenant of Works<\/em><\/strong><\/b>– the two parties in the covenant of works were God and Adam. Thepromise<\/em>\u00a0was life; the\u00a0stipulation<\/em>\u00a0was obedience; the\u00a0penalty<\/em>\u00a0of failure was death.<\/li>\n
      2. The Covenant of Grace<\/em><\/strong><\/b>– as we know, Adam fell. To save men from the consequences of his disobedience, a second covenant came into effect, one planned from all eternity: the covenant of grace. In this covenant there aretwo aspects<\/em>, one God-ward, one man-ward.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        (1) The God-ward, or divinely oriented aspect of the covenant of grace is often called the\u00a0Covenant of Redemption<\/em>. In this covenant the parties involved are God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS. The Father contracted with the Son to secure unto Him an elect company of people out of the fallen mass of humanity; the Son contracted with the Father to secure for the elect all the unfulfilled obligations of the covenant of works, i.e., obedience to the precept of the law and suffering of the penalty of the law; and the HS contracted to apply the redemption secured by the Son to those elected by the Father and to generally oversee the administration of the covenant in all its parts.<\/p>\n

        (2) There is also a man-ward aspect to the covenant of grace, wherein the parties are God and the believer. The\u00a0promise<\/em>\u00a0of the covenant is eternal life; the\u00a0stipulation<\/em>\u00a0is repentance and faith, a repentance and faith, it should be noted, which Christ has secured for his people in the discharge of his responsibility to the Father under the Covenant of Redemption. Thus Berkhof defines the Covenant of Grace as \u201cthat gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience,\u201d (Systematic Theology<\/em>, p. 277).<\/p>\n

        Covenant Theology understands the \u201cdispensations\u201d (in the non-technical sense of that term) of Scripture as but phases of the one purpose of God expressed in the covenant of grace. In other words, the dispensations or historical periods of the Bible are to be seen as different and progressive applications of that one all-governing, determinative covenant. Berkhof explains:<\/p>\n

        \u201cOn the basis of all that has been said it is preferable to follow the traditional lines by distinguishing just two dispensations or administrations, namely, that of the Old, and that of the New Testament; and to subdivide the former into several periods or states in the revelation of the covenant of grace,\u201d (Ibid., p. 293).<\/p>\n

        Thus the biblical covenants such as those with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David are simply historical developments, varying forms of administration, or phases of the one eternal covenant of grace as defined above. Thus, in effect, the Covenant Theologian argues that God has one central purpose, the salvation of the elect, and that all the dispensations are essentially the fulfillment of this purpose.<\/p>\n

        An effective way to illustrate or better define Covenant Theology is to consider the emphasis that its adherents place on the\u00a0unity<\/em>\u00a0of the covenant, especially as reflected in the doctrine of\u00a0infant baptism<\/em><\/strong><\/b>. As mentioned, the covenant theologian believes that throughout the Bible the covenant of grace is\u00a0one<\/em>, a unity, all the while recognizing the many variations and expressions in the administration of it. The most significant of these \u201cadministrations\u201d in the OT was that which took effect via God\u2019s relationship with Abraham (the Abrahamic Covenant). In that covenant God contracted with Abraham to be a God to him and his seed forever. The sign and seal, i.e., the visible ratification of the covenant, was physical circumcision, much as the ring is the seal and token of the marriage covenant between man and wife. The next step in the argument is obvious:<\/p>\n

        There is but one covenant of grace, administered in the OT as the Abrahamic covenant; administered in the NT as the New covenant. The sign and seal of the covenant of grace in the old dispensation was circumcision. The sign and seal of the covenant of grace in the new dispensation is baptism. Circumcision was administered to infants in the old,therefore<\/em>\u00a0baptism should be administered to infants in the new. In summary, the one covenant of grace is thought to stand\u00a0above\/outside<\/em>\u00a0history and is reflected\/expressed in the historical covenants. Since infants were included in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace, why should they not be included in the new administration of that same covenant?<\/p>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        The goal of this new editor is to make adding rich content to WordPress simple and enjoyable.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":155,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-systemic"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":290,"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154\/revisions\/290"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/155"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ilekt.me\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}