War of Gog and Magog

[Jac3510]

This is especially for PL, but I thought you all might find this interesting. Literalists have embarrassed themselves quite a bit with sensationalist interpretations of Ez. 38-39, whereas spiritualizers have had to play their normal allegorical cards. Thus, no one has really offered anything of any substance.

Briefly, by way of summary, the prophecy states that "Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal" (NIV) will attack Israel and be utterly defeated by God Himself. Now, I, as we know, fall into the literalist camp. PL rightly asked how this passage could mean "Russia" would invade Israel. I hope to briefly show that this teaches no such thing.

There are two arguments commonly put forward for the identification.

1. The first is etymological. "Rosh" is argued to be connected to "Russia," and "Meshech" to "Moscow." Really, this argument should be dismissed even at face value, and especially by those who hold to a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. It is rather silly to think that Ezekiel would be using names that didn't exist yet . . . however, because the idea is so popularly put forward, we can show a much better understanding of these geographical references. As for "Rosh," (cf. the NASB translation, "Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal), the Hebrew word is either translated as a place or as an adjective modifying "prince." The latter seems more likely, as there was no place called "Rosh" that Ezekiel could have had in mind. Further, if read as an adjective, this particular construction can be found in two other places in the OT: 2 Ki 25:18 and 1 Chr 27:5, both of which were written in the same general era as Ezekiel's book. Therefore, if we follow the NIV's translation, the primary argument for a Russian connection is dismantled. Gog is the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, not the president of Russia.

If this were not enough, Gog is identified as the prince of Meshech and Tubal. These two names, along with Gomer (see v. 6) are all found in the geneology of Gen. 10. These people, all descendants of Japheth, all settled in the areas bordering the northern Mediterranean. (cf. Ez. 27:12-15). Thus, to link Meshech with Moscow and Tubal with Tobolsk is not well supported. Archeology, however, has found Assyrian tablets that locate these two regions in modern Turkey.

Finally, remember that Gog is joined by Gomer and Beth Togarmah. Genesis 10:3 tells us that Beth Togarmah is a descendant of Gomer, and these can be easily identified with modern day Armenia. Ezekiel rounds out his list by saying that Persia (modern day Iran), Ethiopia, and Put (North Africa) will join this battle as well. Thus, it seems that it is best to understand Ezekiel as referring to the areas of Turkey and northern Iraq/Iran, along with north Africa, with his prophecy.

2. The second argument is geographical. Ez. 38:6, 15 says that Gog comes from "the remote parts of the north." Because Russia is the farthest north from Israel, she is often identified with Gog. However, the Hebrew text behind this phrase is easily shown to have a variety of meanings, only one of which is "remote north." To cite only one example, Jeremiah (closely associated with Ezekiel) uses the same words to describe Babylon! (Jer. 1:13-15; 6:22) If Ezekiel is using the word in the same way, then he would be referring to northwestern Iran and eastern Turkey.

Thus, both of the arguments for Russia being Gog turn out to be ill-founded, and grammatical-historical study seems to lend much better support to a Turkey/Iran connection.

All of these arguments are taken from Paul Tanner's paper Rethinking Ezekiel's Invasion by Gog. He goes on to argue that the battle of Gog in Ez. 38-39 is the same as the battle of Gog in Rev. 20, although I find that set of arguments less convincing. Regardless, it is an excellent read for anyone interested in this subject.

Hope this helps,

God bless

[bluesman]

And now days we hear News of the President Of Iran wanting to wipe Israel
out. Were talking more of the Islamic extreme countries coming against
Israel.

Although, I see Russia and/or China possibly being the supplier of the weapons.

and the "Kings of the East", North Korea seem to be getting out of hand.

I hear that in Iran some think their messiah will come within 3 years.

We see things right now escalating in the Israel/ Palestine affairs.

Michael
Thomas

[puritan lad]

Thanks Jac,

Another Dispensational mainstay falls by the wayside, and this is coming from a Dispensationalist.

[Jac3510]

NP - and I hope as you come across Dispensationalists who hold to this view that you point them in this direction. I cringe when I hear people pushing that, just like I cringe when I hear people say that OT Jews were saved by keeping the Law. I cringe when I hear people use the phrases "Age of Law" and "Age of Grace," and I cringe when I hear people say that the Jews were too hasty in accepting the Mosaic Covenant.

Maybe I should write a book . . . something like "Top Myths of Dispensationalism" or something like that. :p Anyway, I expect that this will be the standard understanding of the Gog war in the dispensational camp over the next several years. Whether or not the consensus ends up being that this is the same or different event described in Rev. 20, I don't know. I hold that they are two separate events. Tanner doesn't. We'll see how it goes . . .

God bless

[puritan lad]

Jac,

I'm still interested in a complete overview of your eschatology. As I pointed out earlier, there is really no consensus on the order of events in Dispensationalism, as you have already eliminated one of them and three other ages that I haven't addressed.

Dispensationalism covers more than just eschatology, as you pointed out above. For example, A.W. Pink wrote an entire book refuting the Dispensationalist view of the Law (see A Study in Dispensationalism), yet his endtimes views seem very dispensational to me, (He was definitely futurist). I would also include John MacArthur in this camp.

Understand that when I refute "Dispensationalism" in this forum, it'll be the common endtimes view that I outlined above. However, I'm sure that there are several mainstays in your endtimes views that do not change, such as the meaning of Greek words like "genea", "mello", "tachos", and "engus".

In any case, any eschatology that has to revise itself every ten years or so is questionable at best.

PL

[Canuckster1127]

Jac,

I'm still interested in a complete overview of your eschatology. As I pointed out earlier, there is really no consensus on the order of events in Dispensationalism, as you have already eliminated one of them and three other ages that I haven't addressed.

Dispensationalism covers more than just eschatology, as you pointed out above. For example, A.W. Pink wrote an entire book refuting the Dispensationalist view of the Law (see A Study in Dispensationalism), yet his endtimes views seem very dispensational to me, (He was definitely futurist). I would also include John MacArthur in this camp.

Understand that when I refute "Dispensationalism" in this forum, it'll be the common endtimes view that I outlined above. However, I'm sure that there are several mainstays in your endtimes views that do not change, such as the meaning of Greek words like "genea", "mello", "tachos", and "engus".

In any case, any eschatology that has to revise itself every ten years or so is questionable at best.

PL

Hal Lindsay and company have left us quite a legacy.

I believe that an imminent return is Biblical and motivationally used within Scripture in a few different contexts.

However, continually revising scriptural interpretation to align with current events is hermeneutical suicide and in the end weakens the faith.

My 2 cents anyway.

That, and the most painful part of my ordination process was reading Pentecost's "Things to Come" cover to cover. I think we should consider that course of action for Al Queda detainees. If that doesn't break them .... I don't know what will!

[puritan lad]

As a consistent postmillennialist, I disagree that an imminent return is Biblical. The context of the verses that speak of the imminent return suggests that they are referring to 70 AD, but we can discuss that more later. (In fact, if the inspired writers spoke of an imminent Second Advent nearly 2,000 years ago, we would have to question the authority of their statements. It's painfully obvious by now that they would be wrong. More than a few skeptics have noticed this. The problem is, they are correct.)

As for motivation, I hold that the imminency of Hell is more threatening than any future tribulation period, assuming that there will be such a period. Jonathan Edwards was quite motivational, and knew nothing of a pre-trib rapture.

God Bless,

PL

[Canuckster1127]

As a consistent postmillennialist, I disagree that an imminent return is Biblical. The context of the verses that speak of the imminent return suggests that they are referring to 70 AD, but we can discuss that more later. (In fact, if the inspired writers spoke of an imminent Second Advent nearly 2,000 years ago, we would have to question the authority of their statements. It's painfully obvious by now that they would be wrong. More than a few skeptics have noticed this. The problem is, they are correct.)

As for motivation, I hold that the imminency of Hell is more threatening than any future tribulation period, assuming that there will be such a period. Jonathan Edwards was quite motivational, and knew nothing of a pre-trib rapture.

God Bless,

PL

Yes. I understand the problems inherent and the circumstantial arguments surrounding the efficacy of the position.

More important to me are the internal textual bases and the actual point of view of the original audience and those following. As I examine the evidence in that regard, I do have hard questions for a great deal of popular eschatology as promoted today.

I was not referring to any element of the tribulation in my very general comments. I was speaking only to the element of imminence in the context of premillenialism. That more than anything is the sticking point for me.

Other motivations certainly exist including death itself and the afterlife. That doesn't argue effectively in my mind for the removal or discounting of imminence unless it is found within the Scriptures themself.

[Jac3510]

Jac,

I'm still interested in a complete overview of your eschatology. As I pointed out earlier, there is really no consensus on the order of events in Dispensationalism, as you have already eliminated one of them and three other ages that I haven't addressed.

Dispensationalism covers more than just eschatology, as you pointed out above. For example, A.W. Pink wrote an entire book refuting the Dispensationalist view of the Law (see A Study in Dispensationalism), yet his endtimes views seem very dispensational to me, (He was definitely futurist). I would also include John MacArthur in this camp.

Understand that when I refute "Dispensationalism" in this forum, it'll be the common endtimes view that I outlined above. However, I'm sure that there are several mainstays in your endtimes views that do not change, such as the meaning of Greek words like "genea", "mello", "tachos", and "engus".

In any case, any eschatology that has to revise itself every ten years or so is questionable at best.

PL

Eh . . . you are overstepping just a little bit by saying there is no consensus on the order of events. Is there 100% agreement on every detail? Of course not, but there is broad agreement on the general order from the rapture forward. There are some dissenters at every stage, of course, but that's the way it is in every camp on every issue.

Anyway, I'm perfectly willing to give an overview of my eschatology. I just have to find out the easiest way to do that. Presenting a timeline alone wouldn't help . . . I still follow the standard Rapture->Advent of Antichrist->Establishment of the Covenant with Isreal->Tribulation->Breaking of Covenant->Great Tribulation->Armegeddon->Second Advent system of thought. But that's not my eschatology. That is how I see the order of the major events during the Tribulation period. We would need to look at much broader issues, like how I see the dispensations (both in identity and purpose), God's general plan, etc. The long and short of it is that I interpret the Bible theocratically. That affects the way I read both the OT and NT.

So, since you are the one interested in my views, do you have a suggestion how you would want me to present this?

[puritan lad]

Jac,

What you have is a nice start. How about a basic timeline with supporting scripture reference, just to make sure that I don't presume anything? I'm already very familiar with the popular scriptures, and find them to be "weighed in the balances and found wanting".

As far as a consensus, there really isn't any agreement on whether the rapture takes place before, during, or after the tribulation, though a clear majority hold the pre-trib view.

[Jac3510]

Fair enough (and good restatement on the consensus issue) . . . let me see what I can do without writing a book!

As I've mentioned before, I hold to a four dispensation view, and that forms the basis of any timeline I might build. These four dispensations would be the Pre-Jewish Age, the Jewish Age, the Church Age, and the Messianic Age. I think that you'll have more agreement with me than you think. But, I will point out where you will disagree. So, let me elaborate on each of these:

1. The Pre-Jewish Age began with Creation and ended with the calling of Abraham (Gen. 12:1). I suppose you could technically say this begins with Gen. 3:6 and ends with 12:1 . . . from the Fall to the Call (haha, that could preach ), but as this is an overview, I don't want to get into subdividing the ages.

Here, God's plan was much in a seed form and not focused on a particular line of humanity. He dealt with mankind generally, as such incidents as the tower of babel and the flood indicate.

2. The Jewish age began with the call of Abraham and ended with either a) the birth, b) baptism, c) resurrection of Christ, or d) Pentecost. I'm torn between (c) and (d), but I'm sure that you can see that it doesn't matter all that much . . .

It is here that God takes the promise of Gen. 3:15 and gives it its firms real framework. In Gen. 12:1-3, God makes the Abrahamic Covenant, which I view as unconditional and eternal. I would be interested to know if you take the AC as unconditional or not. I've read some a/post-mill's who argue for a conditional nature (implicit obedience), which becomes their basis for considering it invalid today. I've read others who consider it unconditional, but fulfilled in the reign of Solomon. Anyway, at this point, I'm pretty much in full agreement with the Dallas crowd. The Abrahamic Covenant is further defined by the Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants.

As I view things, the Abrahamic Covenant will never end, even through all of eternity. The seeds of the Theocratic Kingdom are found in these few verses and are expanded in the above relatd covenants. Throughout the Jewish age, the key issue was the coming of the Messiah who would establish the Messianic (Theocratic) Kingdom. He would be a king in the line, and of the type, of David. He would be a Prophet and Priest. He would grant Isreal permanent dominance and security in this world, as well as lift the curse of Gen. 3. Needless to say, Jesus was and is that promised Messiah.

3. The Church Age began with either the Resurrection of Jesus or Pentecost (I lean to the latter of these, although I'm far from committed) and will end with the Rapture. It is EXTREMELY important to see how this age relates to the previous. Remember that the primary issue in the Jewish Age was the expectation and proclamation of the Kingdom of God. When Jesus came on the scene, He did exactly that. He actually offered the Jews their Kingdom. Had they accepted Christ then and there, He would have established the Theocratic Kingdom immediately. Of course, in reality that could never happen because Christ had to suffer and die for the sins of His people, and also for those of the world. But, that doesn't change the fact that the offer was still there. Jesus offered the Kingdom, then, and the Jews rejected it, as they had rejected all of the prophets, and as was prophecied.

Now, as a standard dispensationalist, I do not see the Church superceding Israel at this point. Remembering that I interpet Scripture theocratically, I see the Gospel of the Kingdom as the issue preached in the Jewish Age. That is the very Gospel Jesus preached on earth. However, upon His death and resurrection, we have the Gospel of Christ, revealed specifically to Paul (Gal 1:12). I was tempted to label this age "The Gentile Age" rather than the "Church Age," only in the Church, there is, of course, no distinction. Because the Jews rejected their Kingdom, God puts it off for another generation. He will now institute a plan which was completely unrevealed to the OT prophets, which is why Paul says the Church was a mystery. It is by this plan that God will graft Gentiles into Jewish people's salvation (which is promised in its ultimate from in the New Covenant), as per Romans 11. It should be obvious then that there is, and always has been, only one salvation, which is by grace through faith. Jesus offered salvation to all who believed in Him because He preached the Gospel of the Kingdom. He is the author of salvation, however, and can give it to whom He will on what terms He will. The Gospel of the Kingdom is not preached to Gentiles, but rather the Gospel of Christ, which is again grace by faith. By faith in Christ we are joined to the Church, and the Church is grafted into the the Abrahamic Covenant.

4. The Messianic Age. This age will begin at the rapture and never end. No one, not even amillennialists or postmillennialists deny there will be a rapture. Paul flat says, "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever" (1 Thes 4:17), and again, "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed" (1 Cor 15:51-52). The debate is when the rapture will take place. Covenant theologians, like yourself PL, hold that the rapture happens at the time of the Second Coming. I take a pre-trib position.

At the rapture, then, the Church is removed (2 Thess. 2:7), and God now begins His word to bring Israel back to repentance, as per Deut. 30:1-10. The entire seven year tribulation period is designed to bring Israel to repentance. At the end of this time, they will look on Jesus "the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zech. 12:10), and "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26). Christ will then return and establish His eternal kingdom, at which time the Abrahamic Covenant, and all its daughter covenants, will finally be fulfilled. The thousand years will come and go, and then there will be one final war at which time God will destroy all wickedness and recreate the universe, and we then have the New Heaven and New Earth.

So, that's my very broad overview of God's plan . . . this really doesn't do this any justice, because we could talk an awful lot about federal headship, the relationship between Isreal and the Church, the various events within the various dispensations, etc. But, as you can see, I'm a pretty standard dispensationalist. I have a few differing opinions on some specific passages, but overall, my endtimes eschatology is standard pre-trib. I do think dispensationalism has gone too far with Scofield's seven dispensation system. What there is no doubt about, and this is where you and I should have the most agreement, is that God called Abraham promised him and everlasting covenant. I argue that covenant will be fulfilled in all literalness, whereas you see it being spiritually fulfilled through the Church.

In the end, I take the position I do because I believe that we have to understand Theocratic Kingdom in light of the Old Testament promises. OT prophetic passages should be taken literally, as literal promises to a literal people. Once we understand God's plan for the Jew, we can look to see what His plan for the Church is. But, that's my general take. I'm sure you can understand and appreciate it, even as you disagree.

So, at this point, if you want any more info, I guess the best way to proceed is for you to just ask questions. I know there wasn't a ton of Scripture here, but I thought a framework might be the best way to go about this . . .

Hope this helps.

God bless

edit: I guess a good way to summarize this is that I see my eschatology as beginning in Genesis. If you want to be precise, Genesis 1:26-28 (the purpose of man) would need a good bit of comment, because that is where it all starts. In other words, Genesis tells us what God's plan is. The rest of the Bible shows us how God accomplishes that plan, which is so much more than just the salvation of manking thorugh the death and resurrection of Christ. No . . . the Bible is not first and foremost soteriological. It is eschatological, and that's why I base everything on Genesis. This I read theocratically, as I see that as the purpose of the texts, and you can see how that would affect my understanding of the Scriptures.

Thoughts?

[Jac3510]

1.) Russia Invades Israel.
2.) A third Jewish temple is built.
3.) The Resurrection of the Righteous Dead and the Rapture of the Church.
4.) 7-year tribulation begins.
5.) A world dictator arises, takes over the European Union, and signs a peace treaty with Israel.
6.) The dictator is killed, but comes back to life.
7.) Two witnesses preach the gospel in Jerusalem, are killed, and brought back to life.
8.) After 3 ½ years, the dictator breaks the treaty and forces Israel to worship a talking statue (or beast computer). All people worldwide are forced to take the “mark of the beast” in either their foreheads or their hands.
9.) 1/3 of Israel is killed off. God pours out the plagues on planet earth.
10.) Just as Israel is about to be defeated at Armageddon, Jesus returns and slays the world dictator and his armies. He then rules from the rebuilt temple for 1,000 years.
11.) After the 1,000 years are over, Christ puts down a final rebellion. The wicked are resurrected and judged.
12.) Christ's servants reinstitute animal sacrifices in His memory.
13.) Eternity…..

This is from the post-trib thread, but it applies here, because I want to reorder this as you have some of the items in the wrong place, in my view.

1.) The Resurrection of the Righteous Dead and the Rapture of the Church (Bema Seat, in heaven, goes on here)
2.) A world dictator arises and signs a peace treaty with Israel, and the 7-year tribulation begins. . (However, I'm not sure how much of a "word dictator" he will be in the first 3.5 years . . .)
3.) A third Jewish temple is built.
4.) Turkey/Iran Invades Israel. (Gog I)
5.) Two witnesses preach the gospel in Jerusalem, are killed, and brought back to life.
6.) The dictator is killed, but comes back to life. (HIGHLY contested interpretation . . . I don't know that I buy this)
7.) After 3 ½ years, the dictator breaks the treaty and forces all people to worship a talking statue (or beast computer). All people worldwide are forced to take the “mark of the beast” in either their foreheads or their hands.
8.) 1/3 of Israel is killed off. God pours out the plagues on planet earth.
9.) Just as Israel is about to be defeated at Armageddon, Jesus returns and slays the world dictator and his armies. He then rules from the Jerusalem for 1,000 years. Sacrificial system reinstituted.
11.) After the 1,000 years are over, Christ puts down a final rebellion. (Gog II)The wicked are resurrected and judged.
12.) Eternity…..

Please note that the rapture comes first and foremost. Nothing can happen before then, or the doctrine of imminency is undermined. For the record, the "imminent" return of Christ does not mean that it is about to happen any second. It means that it WILL happen, and there is nothing else that has to happen first. In other words, it is "on deck." Also, I am pretty sure that in the Temple will not be in the Jerusalem that Christ will reign from for the 1,000 years. And there will be no Temple of any kind in the eternal state (Rev. 21:22). Secondly, the sacrifices that do go on during the Mill. won't be Levitical sacrifices, as the Levitical priesthood will have been replaced. However, the sacrifices will go on in memory, much as we do the Lord's Supper today.

So . . . there's a bit more info

[puritan lad]

Looks good. I'll digest a little and then comment.

[puritan lad]

Jac,

I'm theocratic as well (it is inescapable). Here are my disagreements before we get down to the details.

1.) I would combine the Church Age and the Messianic age into one age. I can find no Biblical evidence to support the idea that Jesus Christ will reign on earth for some future 1,000 year period. I can, however, find tons of scriptural support for the idea that He is reigning now (Matthew 28:18, John 18:36, Romans 14:17, Revelation 1:5), and that we are currently reigning with Him (Col. 1:13, Rev. 1:6). Over and over again, the message to the Jewish People in the New Testament was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17). As a result of their disobedience, "the kingdom of God was taken away from then and given to a people producing its fruits" (Matthew 21:43). We see that Jesus reigns prior to the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:25) and “will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:33) (This was His first Advent, not His Second.)

Once you introduce a 1,000 year reign into the picture, it throws all kinds of issues into the timeline. For example, you would have (at least) two separate resurrections some 1,007 years apart. How would this coincide with Daniel 12:2 or John 5:28-29, which have the resurrection of the righteous and wicked at the same time? There will be more to this in my next post.

2.) You wrote, “At the rapture, then, the Church is removed (2 Thess. 2:7).” 2 Thessalonians 2:7 says nothing about the church being removed, nor does it mention a rapture of any kind. Again, this is a brief overview of my objections, which we can get into details later.

3.) You write, “The entire seven year tribulation period is designed to bring Israel to repentance. At the end of this time, they will look on Jesus "the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zech. 12:10), and "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26).” First objection, there is no mention of a 7-year tribulation period in the Bible. Therefore, to assign a purpose for this period is presumptuous. Secondly, Zech. 12 was fulfilled during the time of Esther.

4.) You added, “Christ will then return and establish His eternal kingdom, at which time the Abrahamic Covenant, and all its daughter covenants, will finally be fulfilled." What about Galatians Chapter 3. Is Paul, a Hebrew, mistaken when He clearly writes that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in the church and only the church? What about the kingdom that Christ has now? (See above). Will it be defeated? Why did Jesus tell us concerning the “fig tree” that “May no fruit ever come from you again!" (Matthew 21:19). Was He wrong? What will you do with 2 Peter 3:10-13. It seems to me that the plain reading of the Scripture suggests that once Christ returns, there won't be any place on earth for Him to sit and rule over.

5.) Finally, postmillennialists do not believe that the church supercedes Israel. We believe that the church IS Israel (and always has been, even in the OT). Before I get into each part in detail, I have one more post that explains why postmillennialism is superior to other eschatologies.

God Bless,

PL

[puritan lad]

The below work is not mine. I have seen it posted on many church websites and other places, but do not know where it originated. Since many other sites use it without citing a source, I assume that it is public domain. If someone has information to the contrary, please let me know.


The Biblical and Theological Superiority of Postmillennialism

There are two sets of primary considerations: biblical and theological. The former relates to the actual biblical texts; the latter relates to the implications of these texts.

Biblical Considerations

1. Contrary to dispensationalism's view of the Church Age being unforeseen by the prophets of the Old Testament, see: Acts 2:16-21; 3:24-26; 15:14-18; Galatians 3:8.

2. Contrary to dispensationalism's view that the kingdom promises refer to national Israel rather than to the Church as the New Israel of God, see: Galatians 3:28-19; 6:16; Ephesians 2:12-22; Philippians 3:3; Romans 2:28-29; and 1 Peter 2:5-9.

3. Contrary to dispensationalism, Christ did establish His kingdom in the first century, see: Mark 1:15; 9:1; Luke 11:20; 17:20-21; John 18:33-37; Colossians 1:13.

4. Contrary to dispensationalism, Christ is now enthroned and ruling over His kingdom, see: Acts 2:29-35; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 1:3; 10:12-13; Revelation 1:5-6; 3:21.

5. Contrary to dispensationalism and historic premillennialism, Christ's kingdom is not an earthly-political kingdom, but a spiritual-redemptive kingdom, see: Luke 17:20-2 1; Romans 14:17; John 18:36-37.

6. Contrary to dispensationalism and historic premillennialism, Satan was bound in the first century, see: Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 10:18; John 12:31; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8.

7. Contrary to dispensationalism, historic premillennialism, and amillennialism, the Great Tribulation occurred in the first century (at the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem), see: Matthew 24:34 (cp. Matt. 24:2, 3, 15, 21); Revelation 1:1, 3, 9; 3:10 (cp. Revelation 7:14).

8. Contrary to dispensationalism, historic premillennialism, and amillennialism, the Church will not fail in its task of evangelizing the world, see: Matthew 13:31-32; 16:18; 28:18-20.

9. Contrary to dispensationalism, historic premillennialism, and amillennialism, Christ's redemptive labors will hold a universal sway in the world before the end of contemporary history, see: Matthew 13:31-32; John 1:29; 3:17; 4:42; 12:31-32; 1 Corinthians 15:20-26; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Hebrews 1:3, 13; 10:12-13.

10. Contrary to dispensationalism and historic premillennialism, there is but one resurrection and one judgment, which occur simultaneously at the end of history, see: Daniel 12:2; Matthew 24:31-32; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40; 11:40; Acts 24:15.

11. Contrary to dispensationalism and historic premillennialism, when Christ comes, history will end, see: 1 Corinthians 15:20-25; Matthew 13:29-30; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17.

Theological Considerations

1. In distinction to dispensationaliim, historic premillennialism, and amillennialism, postmillennialism is optimistic in its historical outlook, see: Psalm 2; 72; Isaiah 2:1-4; 11:1-9; Matthew 28:18-20.

2. In distinction to dispensationalism and historic premillennialism, postmillennialism does not allow for a monstrous and absurd mixing of immortal, glorified and resurrected saints with mortal, unglorified men upon the earth for a 1000 year period of interaction.

3. In distinction to dispensationalism and historic premillennialism, in postmillennialism Christ will not undergo a “second humiliation” on earth (or ever).

4. Contrary to dispensationalism, postmillennialism does not teach there is coming a return to “weak and beggarly elements,” such as the temple, sacrifices, Jewish exaltation, and such, see: Galatians 4:9; Hebrews 9-10; 1 Peter 2:5-9; Ephesians 2:20-21; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16.