I kind of hate to post this but a list was posted of Sam Storms’ problems with Premillennialism so I thought I should say something. I read Storms’ list of “problems” and am fine with all of them from the context of my understanding of the millennium. I might respond to his list at some point.
In another setting, I’d said, “Eschatology is a tough nut to crack. It is like an ill-fitting jacket. Okay overall, pinches in a spot or two. You just have to decide which places you’re okay being pinched.” I believe this is essentially true. From my perspective Dispensational Premillennialism pinched in far too many places. Amillennialism seemed to fit pretty well till I’d worn the jacket for a while then I noticed the pinches and they became uncomfortable. Postmillennialism always seemed like a jacket with three arms or something. I could never get that one to fit though I do appreciate its optimism. What I’ve found is that Historic Premillennialism embraces all the strengths of these other perspectives and pinches in a few spots that I’m currently OK with.
Anyway, here goes with my list of some of the problems. If you are amillennialist there are some important things you must reckon with:
You must necessarily read New Testament prophecies of Jesus’ Second Coming the same way Jews read Old Testament prophecies of Jesus’ First Coming. This thought came from George Eldon Ladd:
From the Old Testament perspective, the church age is not seen…There are indeed prophecies which describe the coming of a Messianic personage in suffering and humility such as Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 9:9-10, other prophecies which describe the victorious King of the Davidic Line (Isaiah 9, 10), as well as a prophecy of the coming of a heavenly Son of Man in Daniel 7. But the Old Testament does not relate these several prophecies to one another, either theologically or chronologically. God will finally act to redeem his people, and different prophets describe this eschatological redemption in different terms. The Old Testament makes no effort to synthesize the prophecies; and the effort to decide which prophecies apply to the church age, which apply to the millennial era, and which belong to The Age to Come ignores this basic fact of the prophetic perspective. – George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 37
What Ladd is saying is that in the Old Testament, the prophets and the prophetic message didn’t clearly articulate a space between the events of Jesus First Coming (the Suffering Servant) and those of his Second Coming (reigning Davidic King). The perspective of the Old Testament prophets was that those events appeared to happen at once. That is why the Apostles expected Jesus to “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6) before his ascension. They did not yet understand that there would be a time period between Christ’s two comings.
Non-millennialists do the same thing with the New Testament explanations of the events of Jesus Second Coming and the ushering in of the New Heavens and New Earth. Ladd again:
One would never discover this fact [of the millennial reign of Christ] from most of the New Testament because it sees the future like a two-dimension canvas in terms of length and breadth without depth. The transition between the two ages is viewed as though it were one simple event, even as the Old Testament prophets looked forward to a single Day of the Lord. – George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 38
And
From the New Testament perspective, the eschatological act of God is usually viewed as a single day which will introduce The Age to Come. However, the Revelation of John, as well as 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, indicates that there are yet to be two eschatological stages in the accomplishment of the divine purpose and the establishment of God’s Kingdom. – George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 37
You must conflate two separate resurrections into one. In Revelation 20:4 John says that he saw “the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus…came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” In verse 13 the sea and Death and Hades give up the dead and they are judged. The amillennialist must deal with these two resurrections (separated by “a thousand” years) in such a way that there is only one resurrection at Christ’s return. Some amillennialists have said that the first resurrection is speaking of regeneration, the new birth. After all, regeneration is passing from spiritual death to spiritual life (Ephesians 2:5). The immediate problem with that is that anastasis, which is translated ‘resurrection’ in Revelation 20:5, always refers to physical resurrection, never regeneration. And the resurrection mentioned in verse 5 is “the first resurrection,” that is, the resurrection of the beheaded martyrs. Their resurrection is described as a pysical one, not strictly spiritual.
Also consider how those who were raised in Revelation 20 are described. They are those “who had been beheaded” who “had not worshiped the beast” or “received its mark”. They were not brought to life, i.e. regenerated or born again, before they did these things in order that they might be able to do them, but after they had done them. In any other discussion we would say that regeneration is the only way we are able to resist such things, otherwise we’re slaves to sin. The implication that those who were raised can do it before they are regenerate is problematic. No, it was after they had done these things that they were brought to life. In other words, as John describes it, they behaved like born-again Christians, were killed for that, and then were brought back to life. The only way that makes sense is if they were physically resurrected after their martyrdom.
If instead the amillennialist says that this resurrection actually happens at the same time as the one in verse 13, then what does their reigning with Christ mean? They were raised and then reigned with Jesus. If they are raised at the time of the final judgment in what sense did they reign with Jesus? And why would John mention a specific interval of their reign if they are raised, judged and brought in to the New Heavens and New Earth in one event?
A potential answer to this is that at our spiritual resurrection we reign with Christ. This sounds good because as Ephesians 2:6 says, God “raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” As glorious as that truth is, it doesn’t mean that we’re currently reigning with Jesus. New Testament discussion of our reigning with Christ always puts it in the future:
The saying is trustworthy, for:
if we have died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:11–13)
and
Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! (1 Corinthians 4:8)
You must reconcile the current binding of Satan with verses in the New Testament that indicate he is still actively deceiving people. One of the verses that bothered me enough to move me out of amillennialism was 2 Corinthians 4:4: “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” If Satan is currently bound as described in Revelation 20:1-3, “that he might not deceive the nations any longer,” then he should not be able to “blind the minds of unbelievers.”
That is not to say that at the cross Jesus didn’t in some sense bind Satan. Matthew 12:28-29 indicates that Jesus’ and his disciples’ ministry of casting out demons was in essence binding the strong man and plundering his house. But that appears to be different than Satan’s binding more fully so that his deceptive powers over humanity are removed. The non-millennialist usually equates the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 with the binding of the strong man in Matthew 12 and exegetically that appears to require stronger justification that has been offered.
Perhaps “so that he might not deceive the nations” in Revelation 20:3 is not describing the extent of Satan’s binding but rather the reason for it. But that doesn’t solve the problem because if his being bound doesn’t prevent him from blinding the eyes of the unbelievers, then Jesus did not achieve his purpose in binding him.
You must believe that the present earth will never be set free from its bondage under sin but will only be destroyed and recreated. Under a non-millennial view, Jesus returns to earth, judges the living and the dead then ushers in the final state in one cataclysmic event. According to 2 Peter 3:10-12 on the Day of the Lord the creation will be dissolved and judgment will come. There is no deliverance of creation, only a day when it is replaced. But Romans 8 indicts that creation is waiting a day when it will be delivered from the futility it was subjected to at the fall. If there is not a time when peace reigns on the earth but there is only recreation, creation is not waiting for deliverance but destruction. It would be like a hostage waiting for friendly forces to come and shoot her rather than liberate her.
We experience rebirth before resurrection. There is a period for us when we are born again but are not yet glorified. We have redeemed hearts but un-redeemed bodies. The non-millennialist must believe that this “now and not yet” does not apply to the rest of creation even though verses like those in Isaiah 11 describe a time when the earth is at peace with itself, not yet burned up and replaced, death is weakened but not removed.
You must see the reign of the promised Davidic King as only ever partial on this earth. The non-millennialist sees Jesus currently reigning from heaven, as he truly is, and must accept that as the full extent of it. Though he is promised to rule the nations with a rod of iron (Isaiah 11:4, Psalm 2, Revelation 2:25-27), he actually will only rule his church on this earth. We do not see Jesus rule this way yet (Hebrews 2:6-9) but there is a day coming when he will (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
We do not see Jesus rule the nations in this manner now and in the non-millennial view, he never will. The nations rage under God’s sovereign control as they have all along (Danial 7). But what seems to be pictured in many verses is the significant, earthly reign of the Davidic King over the nations of the earth. As I mentioned above, the Apostles still had this hope when Jesus ascended to heaven. His answer to them did not sound particularly amillennial; “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” (Acts 2:7) An amillennial answer might have been more along the lines of “Yes I shall as you receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Instead Jesus tells them to not worry about when that will happen but that they will first be his witnesses to the nations under the hope of that coming day when Jesus will rule in that fashion.
Also, I did a follow up post on the binding of Satan here.
11 Comments
Hi Tim,
Thanks for posting this. I agree that all positions have their strengths and weaknesses; but I do believe there is only one position without any contradictions (Amillennialism, of course).
Let me respond to just a few of your statements. I offer this constructive criticism/disagreement as a brother and a friend, though I might sound a little forceful at times :)
You said:
“From the Old Testament perspective, the church age is not see”
I do not agree with Ladd’s presupposition and/or premise here. I’m not a dispensationalist. The church age is most definitely seen in the OT, despite the fact that many Jews missed it.
You said:
“What Ladd is saying is that in the Old Testament, the prophets and the prophetic message didn’t clearly articulate a space between the events of Jesus First Coming (the Suffering Servant) and those of his Second Coming (reigning Davidic King). The perspective of the Old Testament prophets was that those events appeared to happen at once.”
Exactly, which is the main reason I am an Amillenialist. In other words, this statement is begging the question, for Amillennialist clearly see that Jesus is ruling and reigning RIGHT NOW, and that He is on David’s throne RIGHT NOW, in fulfillment of the OT prophecies. Thus, the OT prophets did not see a ‘space’ between the Suffering Servant and the Davidic Reign because there is no such space. Of course, Premillennialists disagree with this interpretation, which is why its begging the question.
You said:
“Non-millennialists do the same thing with the New Testament explanations of the events of Jesus Second Coming and the ushering in of the New Heavens and New Earth.”
Again, this and the subsequent statement by Ladd is begging the question, for Ladd clearly presupposes the necessity of two ages before ever considering what the NT says on the subject! Furthermore, I would counter in that NT teaching on the second coming and the two ages (not three ages) is not like OT prophecy. Jesus and Paul do not use prophetic imagery; they do not communicate to the church something seen in a cloudy vision. Instead, Jesus and Paul are systematic and detailed…and I believe their clear statements contradict any notion of an earthly millennium (I’ll spare you from trying to prove this argument right now).
You said:
“From the New Testament perspective, the eschatological act of God is usually viewed as a single day which will introduce The Age to Come.”
Again, this ‘view’ is clear and didactic, rather than mysterious and symbolic like OT prophecy (and the Revelation of John). Clear and systematic teaching interprets symbolic and mysterious, not the other way around as Premillennialists must ultimately hold to.
You said:
“However, the Revelation of John, as well as I Corinthians 15: 20-28, indicates that there are yet to be two eschatological stages in the accomplishment of the divine purpose and the establishment of God’s Kingdom.”
To say this about 1 Cor 15 is to clearly read back into the text instead of interpreting what is actually contained in the text. Yes, there are multi-faceted aspects of the eschatological accomplishment of God’s kingdom, but there absolutely is no time-period or age placed in-between anything (from this text). That must be read into it.
You said:
“You must conflate what are clearly two separate resurrections into one.”
Only a premillenialist would take such a difficult, mysterious, and symbolic passage and interpret the rest of scripture through it, rather than taking the clear and using it to explain the symbolic :) But I guess that’s why we disagree, huh?
There are two resurrections. The first is of ‘souls’, says the text, not bodies as you affirm.
You said:
“The Amillennialist must deal these two resurrections, separated by “a thousand” years, in such a way that there is only one resurrection at Christ’s return.”
Yes we do: the thousand years is the period between when this resurrection was begun/inaugurated/accomplished, at the cross, and the consummation of the kingdom and purposes of God on the last Day.
You said:
“Some Amillennialists have said that the first resurrection is speaking of regeneration, the new birth.”
Because Jesus Himself said so:
“John 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live… Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”
There is an hour which is NOW here where the dead will live (ongoing resurrection, the 1st resurrection of Rev 20); there is an hour future that all will be raised (the 2nd resurrection). Added to this is of course WHAT the resurrected in Rev 20 are raised to do, “reign with Christ” –as believers are doing right now, and “they will be priests of God and of Christ” –which we are also doing right now. So the purposes of the 1st resurrection are already being fulfilled by believers, right now, so why would there ever be a need for another resurrection and another 1000 years?
You said:
“They were not brought to life before they did these things in order that they might be able to do them, it was after they had done these things that they were brought to life. In other words, as John describes it they did regenerate things, were killed and then were brought to life.”
Well, I don’t share your strict chronological interpretation here. I believe he is rather speaking of a past resurrection of OT saints, and an ongoing resurrection of those who oppose the beast. That is, he is describing the resurrected, not detailing the order of events in their resurrection. Regardless, OT saints were resurrected, saints who had been beheaded for the testimony of the word of God.
You said:
“If instead the Amillennialist says that this resurrection actually happens at the same time as the one in verse 13, then what does their reigning with Christ mean? They were raised and then reigned with Jesus. If they are raised at the time of the final judgment how do the reign with him? And why would John mention a specific interval of their reign if they are raised, judged and brought in to the New Heavens and New Earth in one event?”
No, we reign right now, as the NT clearly teaches (Eph 2:6, Rev 3:21, Rev 1:6, etc.). I’m not sure why you think that Amillennialists interpret the 1st resurrection as what takes place on the last day. We see ‘souls’ resurrected at the new birth, and begin to reign with Christ as the NT teaches.
You said:
“You must reconcile the present binding of Satan in order that he may not deceive the nations with verses in the New Testament that indicate that he is still actively deceiving people.”
We don’t build doctrines off of the symbolic Rev 20 alone.
We don’t interpret ‘binding’ as literal as you do. Why, in a chapter with symbolic chains, keys, pits, and dragons, do we come to ‘binding’ and what to take it hyper-literally? Satan has been defeated at the cross. Christ has been given the nations. The gospel is in every country and in every land. These things are not contradicted by the NT’s teaching that Satan is still very active.
You said:
“There is no deliverance of creation, only a day when it is replaced. But Romans 8 indicts that creation is waiting a day when it will be delivered from the futility it was subjected to at the fall. If there is not a time when peace reigns on the earth but there is only recreation, creation is not waiting for deliverance but destruction. It would be like a hostage waiting for friendly forces to come and shoot him rather than liberate him.”
So creation is waiting a temporary restoration? Because you must admit that the earth WILL be destroyed. You see, this is the big divide between A- and Pre- millennialists. We see the promises to restore the kingdom/earth/creation as eternal promises; you see them as temporary (1000years), and then eternal. We see no reason for temporal anything.
Furthermore, you contradict your own argument here because premillennialists believe/teach that there will be death during the 1000years. How is creation ‘restored’ when death still reigns in mankind?
You said:
“But what seems to be pictured in many verses is the significant, earthly reign of the Davidic King over the nations of the earth.”
Obviously I fundamentally disagree with this statement. I see eternity pictured by the prophets, couched in earthly terms to help describe the indescribable.
The promises to creation and to David are not temporary promises; they are eternal, and can only be fulfilled in the New Heavens and New Earth. Most premillennialists agree with me here, but still say that a temporary kingdom is necessary to ‘fulfill’ the true nature of the promises. I say that temporary is unnecessary, and that the typological was already fulfilled in the person and reign of Solomon, David’s lesser son.
Hey Nathan, I was hoping you’d comment. And what a comment!! :) Let me respond in kind.
Neither I nor Ladd are dispensational either.
I think to consistently hold to that position, you must necessarily be a full preterist which is a heretical position. And you’re not a heretic. :)
BTW, neither Ladd nor I deny that Jesus is reigning right now.
Ladd developed and explained this in a pretty clear manner that did not require ‘reading back’ in to the text. The quote would be too long for this post.
This is becoming an increasingly weak spot in amillennialism for me. That first resurrection cannot be regeneration. And the individuals listed are “souls” not in the sense that only their spirits are raised; can spirits die? Is resurrection a bodily thing?
But you’re ignoring what Revelation says and imposing what John says on that text. Those who are raised in the first resurrection are those who have already done what regenerate people do. Claiming the first resurrection is regeneration stands total depravity on its head.
First, I don’t hold to a strict chronological interpretation of Revelation. That’s Dispensationalism, I’m Covenantal. Second, there is no chronology in this particular verse. It is a description of those raised. The ones who are raised are the ones who have done this. It would be like saying those who received income tax refunds are those who paid too much income tax. It says nothing about when they overpaid, just that they had done so.
Just trying to cover the bases! :) I know you guys take the first resurrection as regeneration.
Yes, I’m familiar with this old saw, used it myself when I was amill. This is a bit of a tangled issue so I’ll try to unthread it carefully.
First, we (Ladd and I) agree that Satan was defeated at the cross.
Second, the binding of Satan in Rev 20 cannot be a literal binding, how does one bind spirits? Not with a physical chain.
Third, Revelation is symbolic and littered with exegetical difficulties but we may not dismiss it simply for those reasons. We must take what it says seriously.
Forth, whatever is mean by Satan’s binding, amillennialists say that that has already happened.
Fifth, what Revelation describes is that Satan is bound “so that he might not deceive the nations any longer.” That is not a general binding which removes all of Satan’s activities from the world, it is more specific.
Finally, 2Co 4:4 specifically says that Satan blinds unbelievers which seems like an activity he should not be able to do if he is bound in the manner he is said to be bound in Revelation 20.
Tim,
It seems we’ve traveled similar roads. A few years back I did an intensive study of the book of Revelation. My main tool was a the Greek/English Interlinier NT. As I progressed through that study I found myself grabbed by the scruff of the neck and dragged kicking, scraming, and protesting back to a basic pre-mil position. The telescopic view of the structure in my mind does the best justice to the way the book organizes itself; contra Hendrickson’s recapitualtion view and contra a strict chronology view…
Non of the millineal “coats” fit perfectly, and that is to be expected given the nature of unfilled prophacy, and at this point, any millineal view I hold will be held with a loose hand. I also expect that in the end we will all be in for some real suprises.. I remain firmly conviinced that the account of the 7 Thunders was included in Revelation to keep us humble.
Peace….
PS: I no longer consider myself Covanental or dispensationalsit… I find both views ill fitting…
Thanks for the note Bill! I’m still Covenantal, still think it fits the overarching Bible store the best.
I am a bit tossed on Revelation though. My gut is that is is cyclical and not linear in its nature but I haven’t studied it out enough to decide for sure. I’m pretty firmly convinced that Dispensationalists have gotten it wrong.
Revelation does keep us humble doesn’t it? :)
Hey, get and read Ladd. I have a feeling you’ll really appreciate it.
The telescopic view I mention takes in both cyclical and linier views of the structure. Robert Thomas has a appendix at the end of the second volume of his two volume commentary on Revelation. I found that appendix discussion helpful. I’m not sure the term “telescopic” is the best term to use for the view, but for lack of a better word, it is the word used.
Peace…
Fair enough Bill. I think that’s what I mean by cyclical. The same story is told seven times with the last iteration going farther than the previous. It explains the history of the progress of the gospel as it grows in a new area then gains ascendancy and then the churches fall into apostasy and then to judgment. We see that in the Near East where many of the NT letters were addressed. Today those areas are largely Muslim. Europe where the gospel flourished in the Western Church and then it fell into complacency and now is largely secular. America seems to be on a downward slide but China is growing strong in the gospel.
It is just a theory. When I get to Revelation in my read through this year I’ll try to see if that makes any kind of sense! :)
Hey Tim-
Thanks for the response. I guess when I have time I’ll check out your new post rather than responding here. But I stand by my words. I don’t think your response to mine hurts my position at all, so I’m content with letting it stand. Let the reader decide.
It does seem to me, however, that we’re either going to take one of two positions:
-Let Revelation 20 dictate how we interpret the rest of the bible regarding the millennium.
-Or let the rest of the Bible, particularly Jesus’ teaching in the gospels and Paul’s teaching in the epistles, dictate our interpretation of Revelation 20.
I’m convinced of the latter; clearly, you are convinced of the former.
Just lay Revelation 20 aside for a moment and I can disprove any millennium notion from any NT eschatological text. I guarantee it :) And I’m not talking about an argument from silence; I believe the NT contradicts the premillennial position at many points.
-a former (staunch) premillennialist myself,
Nathan
I’m not willing to “let Revelation 20 dictate” how I read the rest of the Bible. Instead, I’m trying to incorporate Revelation 20 into my formulation. I thought it was telling when you said “lay Revelation 20 aside for a moment.” I’m not sure we should do that.
My post here isn’t intended to shoot down Amillennialism. I merely picked the format Sam Storms picked and turned it around. Eschatology is difficult.
I really value your interaction here. You really ask important questions and keep me focused on important issues. Thank you.
– a former (staunch) Amillennialist myself,
Tim
I believe there’s another point that needs to be touched on which hasn’t been touched on, and that is that reading the Bible in English often hides the true meaning of certain sayings by Jesus and his apostles.
For example, the Greek word “nun” (pronounced noon) means “of present time” and the word appears in two verses which those who hold to the a-millenialist position always use in support of that position.
Yet when one looks at the original Greek word, those very same verses do not seem to support an a-millenialist position at all, especially when the verses are compared with what is said in the Revelation about the kingdoms of “this world” becoming the kingdoms “of our Lord and of His Messiah (Christ)” at the sounding of the seventh trumpet:
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now (Greek: “nun”, “of present time”) is my kingdom not from hence.” (Joh 18:36).
“For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now (Greek: “nun”, “of present time”) is, and is in bondage with her children.”(Gal 4:25).
It was not only at the ascension of the Lord that His closest apostles displayed belief in a physical kingdom, even after the day of Pentecost Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, one day said to the Jews (pay close attention to his words, and note the words “shall” and “until”):
“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Act 3:19-21)
Peter doesn’t seem to have changed his mind from:
“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power…
… But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:6-8)
On ascension day they had forgotten that 42 days earlier, Jesus had said:
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (Mat 24:14).
Not only the Jews but also the nations had to be given a chance to first hear the gospel:
“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” (Rom 11:25).
We have some facts (among many, many others):
1. Jesus told Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world “nun” (“of present time”).
2. Heaven must receive Jesus, said Peter after the day of Pentecost , “until” the time of the restoration/restitution of all things.
3. The Holy city would be tread underfoot by Gentiles following the scattering of Israel among the nations, said Jesus, “until” the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled (Luk.21: 24).
Zechariah prophesied that the Messiah would save Israel and judge the nations during the time of the re-gathering of Jews back into the land following their world-wide dispersion, and only when they look on Him whom they had pierced and mourn for Him in repentance (Zech.12: 9-10), and the prophecy was written after the restoration from Babylonian exile (Zech chs.12-14).
At that time, according to Zechariah, He would set His feet on the Mount of Olives and fight against the nations which had gathered against Jerusalem (Zech ch.14). This did not happen when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem – but that’s not all – the apostles were standing with Jesus on the Mount of Olives when they asked Him, “… Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Act 1:6).
And what did Jesus say in reply? He said,
“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:7-8)
Then He was taken up into heaven before their eyes, and days later (after the day of Pentecost), Peter told the Jews that heaven has received Jesus until the time of the restoration/restitution of all things, and that the sooner they repent of their unbelief, the sooner God shall send Jesus whom heaven had received until that time:
“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Act 3:19-21).
The words “shall” and “until” in these verses say it all, and it really does not seem like any of the apostles had in mind a non-literal “millenial” Messianic rule on earth following Christ’s return:
“And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”
(Rev 12:5)
It seems like all the apostles had a very literal interpretation of Psalm 2:
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psa 2:1-12).
Zechariah said that the LORD would set His feet on the Mount of Olives and fight against the nations which would have gathered against Jerusalem – it never happened when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.
“Abraham believed in (the Word of) God, and it was credited to Him for righteousness”
What did Abraham believe concerning God’s promises? And what did Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets and the apostles of Jesus believe concerning the Word of God?
“When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”
“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Act 1:6, 3:19-21).
Andre from South Africa
Thank you for the post Tim. As is often the case, Mr. Nathan White like many amillennialists presents a very weak and unconvincing case for his viewpoint based on non-literal interpretations, something which commenced about two centuries after Jesus since church history teaches us that christians were almost entirely pre-millennial until then. This in itself says a lot for me. It was in fact the strong influence of Greek thinking and the rise of christianity as a prominent faith when Constantine was around that instigated this new idea of amillenialism and a non physical 1000 reign of Christ, which of course later led to postmillennialism.
Hi. I’d like to throw in my tuppence worth (two cents). I’ve been reading Revelation on and off over the yeas. I’ve read Ladd, Hoekema and more recent commentaries like Koester and Smalley etc. Just very recently my studies in Revelation have taken me to the millennium. I’ll confine my remarks to amillennialism and premillennialism.
The amillennialists I have read now all seem to see the ‘resurrection’ in Ch 20 as the reign of deceased saints in heaven presently. Let me say at the outset that the great strength of amillennialism lies just here. If the millennium is ‘now’ then the NT texts which seem to locate the triumph of Christ at the Second Coming make sense. The problem with premillennialism is that it posits the triumph of Christ at the Second Coming yet sin, death, and rebellion are still active beyond the Second Coming. On the face of things this is a hard pill to swallow.
Yet amillennialism’s strength is also its (fatal) weakness. It posits a spiritual resurrection (either of regeneration or dead saints reigning) and a spiritual resurrection is highly unlikely. Resurrection unless otherwise signalled is bodily resurrection. We read ‘they came to life’ of both the martyrs and those who ‘come to life’ later. It is on this question of resurrection that amillennialism exegetically flounders. Some many concede this but privilege other texts which seem to locate salvation fully at the Second Coming (i.e. 2 Pet 3). I’m attracted to that position. Can we build a future millennium on a few verses in an admittedly symbolic book?
Yet is it only Rev 20 on which premillennialism rests? There are other Scriptures too. I suspect the more we read the OT the more reluctant we will be to be over dogmatically amillennial. Some great OT scholars of course are. VanGemeren for example. However, what are we to make of Gog and Magog attacking Israel when she lives in peace in unwalled villages. This is cited in Rev 20. It is a passage that looks suspiciously like a premillennial reading of Rev 20. Or what about Isaiah 65 which looks to an idyllic time in the future yet sin and death seem both to be present. Or what do we make of Zech 14. Some passages require a fair bit of spiritualising to get them to fit an amillennial schema.
Do not phrases like ‘this age and the age to come’ suggest a period of time that is not eternal?
Finally on the binding of Satan. I think the imagery must be decided within the framework of Revelation. In Rev 12 we are told Satan is cast out of heaven to earth (most amillennialists see this happening at the cross though I don’t). He is the deceiver of the whole world (Ch 12). He is cast out of heaven and persecutes God’s people but he is not chained and locked up in a bottomless pit. In Ch 20 he is chained and locked up to prevent him doing what he does in Ch 12 – deceiving the world. In Revelation ‘deceiving’ is not simply curtailing the spread of the gospel it involves raising the nations to attack God’s people.
These are a few of the issues as I see them. I am an amillennialist until I read Rev 20 (and perhaps some OT texts) and then I become a premillennialist.