In the prophecy about Elam, it says God will establish his throne there.
Those who take the prophecy as future, say this refers to the Millennium.
But if so, where is God's throne really going to be during the Millennium - in Iran, or in Jerusalem? It can't literally be in both places.
Most people haven't even thought about the prophecy about Elam, let alone considered some of these dilemmas.
And almost all the prophecies which are popularly thought to be about the Millennium have similar dilemmas.
In order to make the prophecy fit their futurist presupposition, I guess they would have to argue that it doesn't literally mean God's throne will be established in Iran - because they claim His literal throne will be in Jerusalem - so they would take it that it's only the EVIDENCE of God's rule that will be seen in Iran, not His literal throne.
They would have to take it non-literally, in order to make it fit their model of Christ visibly reigning from a throne in Jerusalem. And yet they insist that they are always strictly literal!
The non-literal sense in which they would have to take it could just as well describe Old Testament events. The evidence of God's rule was indeed seen in the judgment of Elam.
We do sometimes see God's throne referred to in a non-literal, non-visible sense in the Bible. The Psalms are full of it. And the Bible says Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord, etc.
So if someone was to say the prophecy is already fulfilled, that would not be a case of saying the part about Elam's judgment is fulfilled while arbitrarily and inconsistently saying that the part about God's throne being established is still future.
Rather, it would be a case of saying that God's throne was established over the affairs of nations during Old Covenant times, in a non-literal, non-visible sense - just as the futurists claim it will happen in a non-literal, non-visible sense in Iran during the Millennium.
It requires just as much if not more symbolising of the prophecy to place it in the Millennium as it does to see it as fulfilled.
I'm not dogmatic about anything to do with the future, except that I don't believe God will be expecting anyone anywhere ever to get circumcised and to travel to Jerusalem annually to offer blood sacrifices and to keep the Feast, or else be cursed. Not even in a purely memorial or commemorative sense. Plus, I assert that it's necessary to see at least those parts of the prophecies as fulfilled, in order to be able to prove that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled at least parts of the Messianic prophecies which occur in those contexts. Therefore I see those parts of the prophecies, at least, as fulfilled. Those are my only real assertions at this stage.
Those who take the prophecy as future, say this refers to the Millennium.
But if so, where is God's throne really going to be during the Millennium - in Iran, or in Jerusalem? It can't literally be in both places.
Most people haven't even thought about the prophecy about Elam, let alone considered some of these dilemmas.
And almost all the prophecies which are popularly thought to be about the Millennium have similar dilemmas.
In order to make the prophecy fit their futurist presupposition, I guess they would have to argue that it doesn't literally mean God's throne will be established in Iran - because they claim His literal throne will be in Jerusalem - so they would take it that it's only the EVIDENCE of God's rule that will be seen in Iran, not His literal throne.
They would have to take it non-literally, in order to make it fit their model of Christ visibly reigning from a throne in Jerusalem. And yet they insist that they are always strictly literal!
The non-literal sense in which they would have to take it could just as well describe Old Testament events. The evidence of God's rule was indeed seen in the judgment of Elam.
We do sometimes see God's throne referred to in a non-literal, non-visible sense in the Bible. The Psalms are full of it. And the Bible says Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord, etc.
So if someone was to say the prophecy is already fulfilled, that would not be a case of saying the part about Elam's judgment is fulfilled while arbitrarily and inconsistently saying that the part about God's throne being established is still future.
Rather, it would be a case of saying that God's throne was established over the affairs of nations during Old Covenant times, in a non-literal, non-visible sense - just as the futurists claim it will happen in a non-literal, non-visible sense in Iran during the Millennium.
It requires just as much if not more symbolising of the prophecy to place it in the Millennium as it does to see it as fulfilled.
I'm not dogmatic about anything to do with the future, except that I don't believe God will be expecting anyone anywhere ever to get circumcised and to travel to Jerusalem annually to offer blood sacrifices and to keep the Feast, or else be cursed. Not even in a purely memorial or commemorative sense. Plus, I assert that it's necessary to see at least those parts of the prophecies as fulfilled, in order to be able to prove that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled at least parts of the Messianic prophecies which occur in those contexts. Therefore I see those parts of the prophecies, at least, as fulfilled. Those are my only real assertions at this stage.
I can't get enough of discussing the meaning of God's holy Scriptures, so I'm always delighted to meet someone else who's willing to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment