Q: Both amills and premills (and mills of all shapes and sizes!) have ‘pre-conceived’ notions which we bring to texts. There’s no point in trying to make out that premills are unique in this aspect. What needs to be decided is whether premill pre-suppositions or amill pre-suppositions are the valid ones. Correct?
A: I can agree with this. Every person’s viewpoint comes from a viewpoint and is influenced by many factors. This is why I tend to take umbrage when pre-mills make the assertion that they are only taking the scripture literally – at face value – when in fact they have to spiritualize it as much as anyone else. And spiritualizing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Prophetic language is highly symbolic, hyperbolic, apocalyptic and spiritual. Oftentimes trying to literalize an obviously symbolic text leads to ridiculous interpretations.
As far as pre-suppositions go, I think the amills have a much simpler set. Among them are that scripture must be exegeted with regard to it’s historical & cultural context, genre, etc. My eschatological framework is that the kingdom is a continuum from the Incarnation which will someday be fully manifest on earth; that Jesus will return someday to stay; and that immediately following His return will be the resurrection, judgment and eternal life. It seems that the pre-mill framework is exceedingly complex (let me break out my Clarence Larkin charts), involving multiple returns of Jesus, a temple being rebuilt then destroyed then rebuilt, a millennium where Jesus reigns on earth yet somehow is unable to stop a rebellion from occurring, a floating cubed city, a reinstitution of animal sacrifices for no particularly good reason, a different plan of salvation for Jews vs. Gentiles, etc., etc. The pre-mill approach to scripture seems to be much more cavalier about stringing scriptures together to fit the pre-supposition without regard to their historical/cultural context, genre, traditional interpretation, etc.
Q: … are you saying that the church is the tabernacle of David? Is it also the tabernacle of Moses, the temple of Solomon, the restored temple and Jesus - all combined? If so, was there a similar relationship between God's other dewlling places. Did Herod's temple = the tabernacle of Moses, tabernacle of David, Solomon's temple all combined? Finally, when did Jesus actually "become" the temple?
A: The tabernacle of David was a “type and shadow” of the true temple, which is spiritual, not physical. The various tabernacles/temples are not the same except in terms of what they represented; which was the place where God dwelt among men. Jesus is the fulfillment of the “type and shadow” of the tabernacle/temple. The church, as the body of Christ now becomes the manifestation both of Christ’s kingdom (rule & reign) on earth and His dwelling place on earth. I’m not aware of a scripture that tells us specifically when Jesus “became” the temple, but I suppose it would have occurred at His birth. As John says, “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.”
Of course, after His resurrection He ascended. As the writer of Hebrews says:
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. (8:1-2)
The writer of Hebrews goes on to say:
Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
In light of this, why on earth would you want to see another man-made temple built?
Q: This is an example of you imposing your pre-suppositions onto the text. Your pre-supposition seems to be that God definitely doesn’t plan on building any kind of physical temple. So you go to Old Testament prophecies of a temple say that it is really referring to the church. You may have some grounds for doing this elsewhere in the NT, but not here. It’s best not to put words into Peter's mouth. Did he say that the day of Pentecost was a fulfilment of Ezekiel 43? No. What he did say was that the day of Pentecost was "that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” It’s actually an example of a prophecy being literally fulfilled.
A: I didn’t put any words into Peter’s mouth. I didn’t claim that Peter referenced Ezekiel 43. I said (in so many words) that the Pentecost story seems to recast Ezekiel 43 as the manifest presence of God coming to the believers rather than the temple. This is not a view that is specific to amillennialism, btw.
Since you brought up what Peter did say about Joel’s prophecy being fulfilled, I take it that you agree with Peter that the “last days” were in 1 A.D.
I am curious about something else. You stated that Pentecost was “…actually an example of a prophecy being literally fulfilled”, yet in the narrative of Acts 2 I don’t see any mention of the sun being turned to darkness or the moon to blood. Was Peter spiritualizing Joel’s prophecy?
Q: You are assuming that is what he meant. James didn’t say that the scripture was being fulfilled. Look again at what he said: “14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written.” He didn’t say it is "fulfilled", he said that it agreed with Amos' words. Like I said, James words do not force us to conclude that Amos’ prophecy was being or had been fulfilled.
A: Ok, I think we’re quibbling about semantics here, but since you don’t like fulfilled, how about applied. Would you agree that James applied Amos’ prophecy to the Gentile situation? Or did James just, in the middle of the discussion, suddenly go off on a tangent about something that wouldn’t have any relevance for thousands of years?
Q: Again, let me say that my view is that James was identifying the “tabernacle of David” as referring to the throne of David - the Kingdom which Jesus will restore to Israel when He returns.
A: So you are equating David’s tabernacle with David’s throne? On what basis are you doing that? The tabernacle is, historically and functionally, completely different from the throne. Jesus restored the Kingdom at His incarnation. That’s all through Matthew’s Gospel. It seems like you’re trying to spiritualize the tabernacle of David into being the throne of David.
