Paul and Olena Miles with Grace Abroad Ministries
Last weekend, we had an ISBH webinar on Dispensationalism and Rabbinic Literature. It was a good time; we had some great speakers in English and German. We are currently working on translating everything and getting it posted online.
I did a session on Postponement Theology and Rabbinic Literature, which I am posting here.
Today’s post is a fine-tuning of how we use the term, “the Antichrist.” No doctrinal issues are in jeopardy that I am aware of, but Zane Hodges proposed that the term, “the Antichrist,” refers to the coming false prophet of Revelation 13:11, not to the first beast of Revelation 13:1. Here is Zane’s argument from his commentary on 1 John:[Read More]
There is a debate as to whether Deuteronomy 18:15 refers to the Messiah, or Joshua, or maybe even both or more. It seems to me that Messiah is in view here.[Read More]
James 2 has become a proof text for a concept that is known in Russian as “Salvation Through Lordship,” which supposes that saving faith must be accompanied by works (or submission to the lordship of Christ) in order to be truly salvific. There are several problems with this view, but one problem in this context is that James 2 is saying precisely the opposite, that it is possible to be saved through faith alone, not through lordship, and still lack works. Obviously, James wants his audience to have both faith and works, so in James 2:21–24, he appeals to the life of Abraham to distinguish between faith and works and to show that faith and works have two different results.[Read More]
The word, repentance, is perhaps the most controversial word in the New Testament to define. The three basic opinions are that repentance is a change of works that is necessary for eternal life, a change of mind that is necessary for eternal life, or a change of works that is not necessary for eternal life (this article defends the third definition). Each of these three have several nuances and subversions, and each of them is able to comply with the notion of the kingdom offer and postponement. Regardless of the compatibility of the views with the main contention of the kingdom postponement, a study of repentance is in order as the kingdom offer itself is Μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”[Read More]
Upon the final rejection of the kingdom offer when Israel’s leadership commits the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Jesus withdraws the offer and postpones the kingdom to a future day. No such postponement had ever been expressed in clear terms prior to this, though details such as the depictions of a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah could be clues that the Old Testament prophets only see the hills while the valleys remain unseen. The grammatical-historical reading of the parables in Matt 13 keeps in mind that God has obligated Himself to the promise of a future kingdom, so the consistent dispensationalist brings out of the treasure both old and new and sees these parables as descriptive of the kingdom postponement. Granted, there are variations within dispensationalist interpretations of these parables and there is room for internal dispute, but the views to be rejected are those that turn the postponement parables into inauguration parables that fundamentally redefine the terms of the Messianic Kingdom.[Read More]
