Dr Greg Beale and Dr Josh Howard discuss the book of Revelation, Dispensationalism, "Marginal Theology" and current projects heritagebooks.org/products/un...
It would be interesting if Doctor Beale were encouraged to contribute with a dictionary-commentary: On the use of the Old Testament in the book of Revelation. On the basis that the best biblical commentary on the book of Revelation is the Old Testament and how the symbolism responds to the use of images of the Law and the prophets.
@@interestedmeow Thanks for the suggestion. Could you give me a link to these podcasts that you recommend? And if you know about these academics and their books, it would be very helpful to me. Thanks again
Grace and peace Josh. Question: this channel has had a lot of folks on for interviews regarding premill, amill and postmill eschatology conversations. Even having Mr Strenuous on to bash postmill eschatology along with giving his views on the very dangerous things about Christian Nationalism and theonomy 😵. Y'all even had a guy on talking about something called "inmillenialism"! That was kinda weird. But I haven't seen much conversation regarding preterism. I've heard it sprinkled here and there, but not a deep dive into the topic. Have y'all ever thought about having a guy on like Gary Demar? That might be a good topic. And I'm still waiting for y'all to have Dusty Deavers on...⏳️
First of all, great interview. I have been a fan of Beale's work for many years, particularly The Temple and Church's Mission and his commentary work. I regularly reference Beale in my material on my channel here on RU-vid. So thanks! I was not aware that Beale had his start at Dallas Theological Seminary. What I find most amazing about that is how far he has developed with his biblical theology. I totally agree with his observation about the developments in the last few decades. I see a lot of progress since the 1980s when I was exposed to Postmillennial and Reconstructionist material along with Reformed Theology. The one thing I would say, is that I believe he underestimates the long-term trajectory towards full preterism. It may be that some dismiss full preterism as "heresy," but the more people investigate it the stronger it will become as the natural development of this precise history of biblical theology in covenant context. If Beale can start at Dallas Theological Seminary in the 1970s and now has moved to his current excellent material and work, it won't be long before full preterism makes the leap into prominence. Maybe Beale rejects full preterism now, and throws the label of "heresy" out there. That hasn't worked in the past, and it won't work in the future. But Beale's theological grandchildren, and theological great grandchildren will become full preterist in time. And they will all look back and thank Beale for preparing the way for them with his fine work. Thanks again for the stimulating interview.
2000 years of Christ's Church bearing witness of the truths you now deny, and Beale's grandchildren will be full preterist? You truly are drinking your own kool-aid. Full preterism is a scourge that will go the way of all false teaching, the wayside. 2000 years of history proves that. You've got nothing. Less than nothing. You have a lie.
In the text, there is a reason that the Holy Spirit chronologically divides earlier events in the process of the defeat of the enemies of Christ and His church from later similar events. The destruction of the harlot (Old Jerusalem), and the triumph of Christ and His church over the beast and false prophet, who is then thrown alive into the lake of fire, (Roman Empire with its cult of Caesar worship), is separated by a large time gap of 1,000 years (millennium), from the final destruction and defeat of Satan. This is what the text says (chapters19, 20). This obvious language in the text clearly emphasizes this large time gap separation. You simply can not miss it unless you purposefully and deliberately miss it. I am aware that 1,000 years is not to be regarded as literal, but throughout the Bible, 1,000 never means less than 1,000 but is always representing a larger amount.
Today's partial preterists would likely be comfortable with the label, 'heavy preterist'. By that I mean, most of the NT prophecies regarding Christ's coming in judgement are seen to have been fulfilled around 70AD. If we apply the 80/20 rule, heavy preterists would believe that 80% of the future statements in NT were fulfilled in the past. On the opposite side, most Amills, who like the already and not yet language, would flip the 80/20 rule on its head. We see 20% of the future oriented texts as having been fulfilled in the past and 80% as not yet. As such, I don't think these positions are as close as you might think, even though both would have some aspect of the already and not yet concept at play. Besides that, I've heard more than a few Postmills outright scoff at the already and not yet tag.
@@TheLookingGlassAU I mean it’s actually a deterrent to most whether they like the content or not. I listened but I’m not a typical listener. I know since I do video marketing that video that isn’t nice looking won’t be listened to as much. I guarantee if they look at analytics it’s going to be scenes of where Beale is talking on screen that they will see drop offs. It would have been better to have a static image of Beale than what they presented or just made it an audio podcast episode
In the Last Days Christ's one faith and one baptism (Eph 4:11-14) and prophet will be here on earth to prepare the way and receive the angels that will come to reveal God's word (such as Mal 4:5; Rev 14:6, 11:3; Amos 3:7) and to bring forth latter-day scripture (Ezek 37:16-17; Isa 29:14-24). About becoming the House of Israel, essentially becoming God's covenant people (Gal 3:26-29), God decides who his people will be, therefore random guys and gals can't act on God's behalf to baptize and give the Holy Ghost. These covenants and ordinances can only be entered into through his authorized servants just as it was practiced in the Old and New Testaments (see Acts 8; Heb 5:4; John 15:16; Matt 16:19)
@@markrademaker5875 so you want to know if he thinks there will be people trying to make disciples for Christ after all sin has been ended and there are no unbelievers on the Earth? Who will they be evangelizing in the restored Kingdom?
@@TheLookingGlassAU Rev.22:2 implies there is sickness in the new heavens and the new earth. I believe that is a metaphor for sin [notice Matthew 9:12]; that's why there is evangelism in The New. Also, check out the Old Testament Passage on the new heavens and the new earth, Isaiah 65:17ff; there's death and sinners there. These Passages are one of The Spirit's Way of Speaking of New Covenant living, in other words, our present reality. Thanks for listening.
@16:22 "Every major doctrine in the NT is an eschatological doctrine". I agree because the time was at hand for these things foretold to come to pass. What John gives us in Revelation is from the heavenly point of view of how the types and shadows in the OT and signs in the NT correlated to accomplish the end of the OC age that the OT prophets spoke about how the last days would unfold - in THAT day; when the judgment of Israel would be accomplished and the new heavens and earth be fully established. ...for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10b) - we have that testimony in all its glory and fullness. EDIT: @ 30:00 Speaking of the full curses of Adam not having been removed: John 11:23 Jesus saith unto her (Martha), Thy brother (Lazarus) shall rise again. John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? Is our hope now in resurrection or was that Israel's OC hope? I believe my NT Hope is in heaven and will not spend even a moment in Sheol before I realize it when my time comes!
The problem is this view, is it ignores the Jewish texts that speak of the end of the old covenant and Mosiac age and the New Covenant in Isaiah and Jerm with the NT's end of the OC. Beale is a great scholar but ignores the scripture's key motifs.
@@TheLookingGlassAU He does. Where does he mention it? Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards other knowledgeable teachers and scholars recognized that we ARE living in the New Covenant age. The OC has gone. And since the NC has NO end...what end is he or you frigging going on about? Scripture please.
No, the problem resides exactly with what you describe. The old testament MUST be interpreted through Christ, not the other way around (which is what Dispensationalism does).
My chief objection with amillennialism are amillennialists. I am disappointed at your almost uniform misrepresentation of modern postmillennialism as a monolithic, chiliastic system. It is true that postmillennialism was laid out by Puritan Jonathan Edwards about 1740, and you can read about it in his "Humble Attempt..." or Iain Murray's book "The Puritan Hope." But the theology has matured significantly. For example, there is no "golden age" or chiliastic period. There may be some who continue to believe that but I don't know any. Holding on to archaic ideas is not new. There are still flat-earthers. I know of no one that teaches that the Gospel will be without resistance. That seems to be a straw-man. The Millennium = The Church age = The Gospel age = The Kingdom age. Jesus returns post-millennium, to a world in much better condition than He left it, following the completion of the Great Commission: having christianized all the Nations. Then final judgment. Simple. For example, take the state of world poverty. it has massively declined over the last 2000, 1500, 1000, 500, 200, 50 years, and the technological blessings we enjoy every day, and the abilities to transmit the Gospel, are all due to the Gospel! In those places where the Gospel is established there is a relative peace and freedom from persecution. Predicted by Edwards. A person would have to be "willingly ignorant" to say things are worse than when the rider on the white horse began His campaign. Satan (the strong man, Mt 12:29) being bound is comprehensible, but needs some explaining. it is most easily understood in terms of what Satan does when loosed. It doesn't say he can't deceive anyone. The spoiling of his goods is progressive. BTW, the majority of evil activity is from demons, not Satan personally, as he is a finite being. Following final judgment is the eternal Kingdom (new heavens and new earth) with Jesus ruling an Edenic earth, with His Bride, the new Adam and Eve. Genesis 1-2 is fully realized. I think you misunderstood the question of the wheat and weeds, Matt 13:36. Dispensationalists generally believe the earth is a weed field with some wheat. Almost EVERY argument that is made in favor of amillennialism applies to modern postmillennialism. As long as eschatology is held hostage by seven contoversial verses, the truth concerning "the end of the world" will be obscure. The ideas permiate all of Scripture. I can answer almost any questions you may have. michael@criticalmass.pro or mphays633@gmail.com. The Puritan's postmillennial view is at the heart of American optimism, can-do attitude, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence" and "City on a Hill" and all derive from the Putitan Hope of a better world through the power of the Gospel, which is unique in the world. It was also the inspiriation of William Carey, the father of modern missions. America's foundation of postmillennial optimism (optimillennialism) is based on the simple notion that the Gospel is sufficient to transform the world, and that we are to "disciple all the Nations." The modern pessimistic decline (pessimillennialism) dervives from the abandonment of the mission in disbelief. This pessimism was absorbed from the premillennials and expanded by the dispensationalists. The world must get bad so Jesus can return is exactly opposite of real Gospel hope. We are living the self-fulling prophecy of faith in failure.
