Is This Just Wishful Thinking?

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings, dear bride of Christ,

Your beauty is breathtaking to Him. You were the joy that helped endure the cross. And one day soon, your radiant beauty will be perfected, and you a fit bride for the young virile and thoroughly lovely Son of God Jesus Christ. Living happily ever after for real.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

I've been reading through the Psalms, referring to Matthew Poole's commentary as needed.
Today I landed at Psalm 67. It's pretty short, so I posted the whole Psalm.
A perennial question comes to mind when I see the desires of the Saints for the whole world to be filled with the glory of the King of all things.

Psalm 67:1-7​

May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us, that your way may be known on earth, your saving power among all nations.​

​

Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you! Let the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you judge the peoples with equity and guide the nations upon earth.​

​

Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you!​

The earth has yielded its increase; God, our God, shall bless us.​

God shall bless us; let all the ends of the earth fear him!​

I have a perennial question that comes to mind when I see these desires of the Saints.

Is this all just wishful thinking?​

There must be fifty to a hundred places in the Old Testament where these sentiments are canonized. But lots of people want things that they can't have. Something they will never have. But not all the places are simple desires. These same sentiments are established by the God-breathed prophecies scattered throughout the Bible.

We also have the testimony of God Himself. Consider the disastrous events detailed in Numbers 13 and 14, of the spies' evil report, the murmuring of the people, and God's wrathful decision to disinherit all of Israel. The Lord said he would make a new nation from Moses' line. We see Moses' intercession as a look ahead of the work of Christ's intervention for the elect. So God relents total rejection and brings the lesser sanctions upon Israel as follows. God sentenced 600,000 adult men to die in the wilderness, never to enter the Promised Land. The 10 spies that brought the evil report, God killed them on the spot. Yet, amid this turmoil, we have the following sacred oath of God.

And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:​

but as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. (Numbers 14:20‭-21)​

Remember that Jesus was first designated the Savior of the World by the hated half-bread gentiles in Samaria. (John 4:39-32)

Jesus had a thing or two to say about this desire following his resurrection.

Matthew 28:18‭-‬20​

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,​

​

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.​

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:​

teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:​

and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.​

Amen.​

 

[jwright82]

Greetings, dear bride of Christ,

Your beauty is breathtaking to Him. You were the joy that helped endure the cross. And one day soon, your radiant beauty will be perfected, and you a fit bride for the young virile and thoroughly lovely Son of God Jesus Christ. Living happily ever after for real.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

I've been reading through the Psalms, referring to Matthew Poole's commentary as needed.
Today I landed at Psalm 67. It's pretty short, so I posted the whole Psalm.
A perennial question comes to mind when I see the desires of the Saints for the whole world to be filled with the glory of the King of all things.

Psalm 67:1-7​

May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us, that your way may be known on earth, your saving power among all nations.​

​

Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you! Let the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you judge the peoples with equity and guide the nations upon earth.​

​

Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you!​

The earth has yielded its increase; God, our God, shall bless us.​

God shall bless us; let all the ends of the earth fear him!​

I have a perennial question that comes to mind when I see these desires of the Saints.

Is this all just wishful thinking?​

There must be fifty to a hundred places in the Old Testament where these sentiments are canonized. But lots of people want things that they can't have. Something they will never have. But not all the places are simple desires. These same sentiments are established by the God-breathed prophecies scattered throughout the Bible.

We also have the testimony of God Himself. Consider the disastrous events detailed in Numbers 13 and 14, of the spies' evil report, the murmuring of the people, and God's wrathful decision to disinherit all of Israel. The Lord said he would make a new nation from Moses' line. We see Moses' intercession as a look ahead of the work of Christ's intervention for the elect. So God relents total rejection and brings the lesser sanctions upon Israel as follows. God sentenced 600,000 adult men to die in the wilderness, never to enter the Promised Land. The 10 spies that brought the evil report, God killed them on the spot. Yet, amid this turmoil, we have the following sacred oath of God.

And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:​

but as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. (Numbers 14:20‭-21)​

Remember that Jesus was first designated the Savior of the World by the hated half-bread gentiles in Samaria. (John 4:39-32)

Jesus had a thing or two to say about this desire following his resurrection.

Matthew 28:18‭-‬20​

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,​

​

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.​

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:​

teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:​

and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.​

Amen.​

Well beautiful verses Ed. I think it all comes down to one's view on those promises are fulfilled. Is it this side of heaven like a Postmill view or is it an Amil view. Either way its not wishful thinking. The only difference is how its fulfilled.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I think it all comes down to one's view on those promises are fulfilled. Is it this side of heaven like a Postmill view or is it an Amil view. Either way its not wishful thinking. The only difference is how its fulfilled.

Hi Jamey,

That's a pretty big difference. I would say.

As for me, I'm what you might call a 65-book postmill. I have no confessional right to a dogmatic interpretation of Revelation. Not yet. We need to keep several points in mind as we think and rethink the future of this present age. Below are several points that should humble us a bit.

The book of Revelation is still at least partially closed. How do I know this? Simple. The Church has not yet arrived at a dogmatic interpretation. Some people may have it right, meaning that other views are wrong. Right? The only third possibility is that both views are wrong.

Are there two or more interpretations of, let's say, Romans chapters one through eight? One of Grace vs. one that requires work. But, when we get to chapters nine through eleven, there should be some humility. Why? Because this latter section of Romans, in part, is related to the Revelation.

The Church will figure it out someday and then confess the one accurate interpretation. This is how everything has been done from the very first days of the Church.

Do Gentiles have to keep the Law of Moses? There was a time when both sides could promote the likelihood of their view being the truth. But there came a time (hint, see Acts 15) after which there was only one right view. Before Acts 15, there was some freedom. After Acts 15, teaching the other view became a chargeable offense. To teach the former Jewish opinion was now heresy.

I gotta go. I have a living to make. Please pardon me if I did not have the time to better think through my arguments

Thanks.

Ed

 

[jwright82]

Hi Jamey,

That's a pretty big difference. I would say.

As for me, I'm what you might call a 65-book postmill. I have no confessional right to a dogmatic interpretation of Revelation. Not yet. We need to keep several points in mind as we think and rethink the future of this present age. Below are several points that should humble us a bit.

The book of Revelation is still at least partially closed. How do I know this? Simple. The Church has not yet arrived at a dogmatic interpretation. Some people may have it right, meaning that other views are wrong. Right? The only third possibility is that both views are wrong.

Are there two or more interpretations of, let's say, Romans chapters one through eight? One of Grace vs. one that requires work. But, when we get to chapters nine through eleven, there should be some humility. Why? Because this latter section of Romans, in part, is related to the Revelation.

The Church will figure it out someday and then confess the one accurate interpretation. This is how everything has been done from the very first days of the Church.

Do Gentiles have to keep the Law of Moses? There was a time when both sides could promote the likelihood of their view being the truth. But there came a time (hint, see Acts 15) after which there was only one right view. Before Acts 15, there was some freedom. After Acts 15, teaching the other view became a chargeable offense. To teach the former Jewish opinion was now heresy.

I gotta go. I have a living to make. Please pardon me if I did not have the time to better think through my arguments

Thanks.

Ed

Thank you. Enjoy your day at work, I gotta get ready soon myself. I agree with everything you said but I lean towards amil in a nondogmatic way as you describe. Ill check back and think about it after work. Have a blessed day.

 

[RamistThomist]

As I've suggested on these passages several times, for postmillennialism to be true, these passages only give a necessary condition. They do not give a sufficient condition. A premillennialist can use these verses to apply to the millennial reign. An amil will say they apply to the New Earth. As such, as they stand, they don't prove one particular system.

And the passages from Numbers 13 don't apply. It's not clear why they also apply for the end of the age, especially when Scripture gives us a picture of what the time before Christ's return will be like: we are exiles living among people, just as it was in the days of Noah.

 

[Ed Walsh]

And the passages from Numbers 13 don't apply.

Hi Jacob,

Maybe none of what I say below applies to you. You didn't really give me much to go on.

I am sure you are way smarter than me. I mean that. But the way you dismissed everything I said about Numbers as if it was an afterthought–"And, about those references to Numbers, go away kid, you bother me." Was what I said that dumb?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

I have heard this bald statement many times before. It is so without merit that it always makes me smile. This "sweeping generalization," or, as it is also called in logic, the "fallacy of accident," is so easily refuted by a thread that runs through the entire New Testament that I seldom attempt to correct it. I muse to myself, "well, this fellow apparently does not understand this fundamental story of the Bible."

Please, don't misunderstand what I say. But some truths taught in the Bible are so evident that to refute them is to cheapen them. It's like trying to prove to an atheist that God exists when the Bible clearly teaches that the atheist already knows this–that his problem is moral and not a lack of information.

Over my years on the PB, I have told versions of this story in Numbers 13 and 14 perhaps half a dozen times, getting the same "this does not apply" answer.
I have always ignored them. But I think a short refutation might be helpful to several readers.

I am asking a question like the Professor in C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The Professor had just finished a lesson in logic with Peter and Susan that began like this.

"Logic!" said the Professor, half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools?

The Professor ended this lesson with these words.

"Nothing is more probable," said the Professor, taking off his spectacles and beginning to polish them, while he muttered to himself, "I wonder what they do teach them at these schools."

My question is similar.
"I wonder what they do teach them about Biblical Theology at these schools."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

I argue that there is a parallel to the Great Commission of our Lord in the Old Testament that we need to learn from. The words of institution are far inferior to the terms of Jesus (Matthew 28:17-20). The promise, first given to Abraham, is repeated 33 times from Genius 12 to Deuteronomy 32. The promise was the Land of Canaan. God adds the following words in nearly all the references to the Land. "I will give you."

That's the big deal you've been harping on? Do you expect us to believe these simple words constitute a Great Commission? You can't be serious.

Well, the best answer I can give you is that God took it very seriously. I know that the words of Jesus' GC are a thousand times more substantial than "I will give you." But that's my point. Look again at God's response to the Israelites' unbelief in Numbers 13&14. How do you think the Lord ac if we slight His Great Commission?

The New Testament is in the Old concealed;
the Old Testament is in the New revealed.
—Augustine​

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. (1 Peter 1:10–12)

Longman, T., III, & Groves, J. A. (1999). Foreword. In T. Longman III & J. A. Groves (Eds.), Living in the Gap between Promise and Reality: The Gospel according to Abraham (p. ix). P&R Publishing.​

Notes:

1. I am pretty sick this Lord's Day, and I know my mind will not serve me well enough to cover all the bases.
2. This subject has the potential to become a long post. And I know that is a turn-off for many. I often just skim and sometimes pass over long posts.
3. Before I paste the Scriptures and commentator citations, I will list the main points. That's about as far as most will go.

Main Points:

1. The Great Commission (GC) is not a strictly New Testament concept.
2. The GC is nowhere limited to mere evangelism. I.e., That you may go to heaven when you die.
3. The first institution of the GC was given to Adam while still in the Garden. (Genesis 1:26-28)
4. The GC was addressed to Noah and his sons. (Genesis 9:1-7)
5. The GC becomes clearer in God's call to Abraham and His promise to him that "in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 12:1-4)
6. In the GC given to David as king of Israel, we see more clearly the whole-world dominion of the Great King Jesus. (Psalm 2, and many other places)
7. The ultimate form of the GC was given by Jesus to his disciples. All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus, who assures his disciples that the victory is one.
8. Jesus is indeed the Savior of the World.

This will have to be continued. I have gotten too sick to think anymore today.

A few New Testament passages that support my point.

• 1 Corinthians 10:1–11
• Romans 4:13–25
• Genesis 12:7 with Galatians 3:16

Bye for now,

Ed W.

 

[Poimen]

Ed:

I think your perspective is hopeful and thus one, in that sense, should be held by all Christians who take the Bible seriously. Indeed, it is not too much to expect that the Lord will do a great work in the world because he has already done so, and that many times.

I sympathise with your approach to scripture even though I consider myself, yet, an amillenialist. The reason I do is because I am not convinced that the timing of these affirming prophecies are for this world without the universal renewal of Christ's return. In many ways I too would be a postmillenialist if it were not for Revelation and some of Jesus' sayings.

But as I try to fit it all together I remember that I have been wrong before so I encourage you to keep on making your case. At the very least you serve us rightly orienting our hearts & minds to expectation of what the Lord can, and we trust, will do.

 

[RamistThomist]

There is a case a postmil can make. It's not found in Numb. 13. The NT does give us a motif for the Christian life. We are pilgrims in exile. Can there still be a postmil case? Perhaps, but the dominant motif is exile, not Joshua.

 

[Poimen]

There is a case a postmil can make. It's not found in Numb. 13. The NT does give us a motif for the Christian life. We are pilgrims in exile. Can there still be a postmil case? Perhaps, but the dominant motif is exile, not Joshua.

It seems to me that the Old Testament gives us the same motif for the Christian life, considering Psalm 39:12, the example of believers in Hebrews 11 etc. So being a pilgrim or in exile does not really have anything to do with the church's prominence or the spread of the gospel. Moreover, the church in exile fared well by God's grace under the hand of Cyrus and Darius. Was that not the point of the prayer in Jeremiah 29:7 even as it was answered more fully through Persia rather than Babylon? See vs. 10.

And though it is true that the dominant motif of the Bible is not Joshua, neither was Joshua in such a motif except for a limited window of time. Furthermore this motif is revived, as it has been rightly pointed out, in Christ's actions in the book of Mark which parallel that of Joshua, cleansing the land of the demonic occupation and certainly we also see the conquering Christ reflected in Revelation.

We have also times of peace and dominance that follow, which foreshadow the coming of Christ's kingdom of peace (Psalm 72 for example). Wisdom literature assumes such as it seeks to apply justice in a fallen but relatively stable world.

As far as it applies to the activity of the church, could we not choose to focus on the military language of the New Testament and conclude that there is little to no suffering for the Christian in the age of the Spirit? But this would be an error because it ignores that Christ conquers through suffering and that suffering is integral to the gospel itself.

 

[RamistThomist]

It seems to me that the Old Testament gives us the same motif for the Christian life, considering Psalm 39:12, the example of believers in Hebrews 11 etc. So being a pilgrim or in exile does not really have anything to do with the church's prominence or the spread of the gospel. Moreover, the church in exile fared well by God's grace under the hand of Cyrus and Darius. Was that not the point of the prayer in Jeremiah 29:7 even as it was answered more fully through Persia rather than Babylon? See vs. 10.

And though it is true that the dominant motif of the Bible is not Joshua, neither was Joshua in such a motif except for a limited window of time. Furthermore this motif is revived, as it has been rightly pointed out, in Christ's actions in the book of Mark which parallel that of Joshua, cleansing the land of the demonic occupation and certainly we also see the conquering Christ reflected in Revelation.

We have also times of peace and dominance that follow, which foreshadow the coming of Christ's kingdom of peace (Psalm 72 for example). Wisdom literature assumes such as it seeks to apply justice in a fallen but relatively stable world.

As far as it applies to the activity of the church, could we not choose to focus on the military language of the New Testament and conclude that there is little to no suffering for the Christian in the age of the Spirit? But this would be an error because it ignores that Christ conquers through suffering and that suffering is integral to the gospel itself.

I have no problem using military language as a way of viewing evangelism, casting out demons, etc. My criticism was the unwarranted inference of moving from that language to the claim that we will see some postmillennial age. Perhaps we will, but not from that argument.

 

[Poimen]

I have no problem using military language as a way of viewing evangelism, casting out demons, etc. My criticism was the unwarranted inference of moving from that language to the claim that we will see some postmillennial age. Perhaps we will, but not from that argument.

Granted. And I am saying that referring to a NT pilgrim exile motif does not undermine postmillenialism as I see it as one motif in scripture, not necessarily the dominant one.

 

[RamistThomist]

Granted. And I am saying that referring to a NT pilgrim exile motif does not undermine postmillenialism as I see it as one motif in scripture, not necessarily the dominant one.

Understood. I suppose my own reading of the situation is from Jesus' words of what it will be like right before he comes back.