Why Premillennialism?
March 16th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
This week has seen some good discussion here on Pulpit. It’s been vigorous, fun, and I hope profitable to all who have participated. Today we will wrap up the discussion (bringing an end to “the end”), closing the comment threads at 5:00 PM PST.
Why Premillennialism?
With all the theological garbage that parades itself under the name “dispensational premillennialism,” I think this is a fair question. (I for one certainly wouldn’t mind thinking up a new label.) So — why would anyone be a premillennialist? Is it because of the colorful charts? Or maybe the fast-paced novels? Maybe it’s the funky hair-dos on all those prophecy TV programs.
Actually… it’s not any of those. In fact, for me it’s not ultimately about eschatology at all. It’s about the clarity of Scripture and the irrevocable nature of God’s promises.
If I were asked to give a brief defense of why I am a premillennialist, I would say that it ultimately comes down to those two things. In other words —
(1) God cannot lie and He can communicate clearly — Thus, when I read the Old Testament, taking His promises at face-value, I come away a premillennialist. In the same way that the prophecies regarding Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally, so (I believe) the prophecies surrounding Christ’s second coming should be also taken at face value. The New Testament does not annull the OT promises (but rather affirms them — in passages like Acts 1:6-8; Romans 9-11; and Rev. 20:4-6). The burden of proof, then, falls on the amillennialist — to demonstrate that what God promised is (in actuality) somehow different than what He will bring to pass.
Amillennialists will perhaps reply that they are interpreting the Old Testament in the way the NT authors interpreted it. But this becomes very difficult in light of the fact that the NT authors do not approach the Old Testament in a consistent way, nor do they give us normative instruction to spiritualize the OT.
For that matter, if later revelation is to be read into earlier revelation (as amillennialism suggests), then why is Revelation 20:4-6 so quickly discounted? As Craig Blaising asks:
Considering that this book [Revelation] is a late revelation from the Lord himself to the churches (Rev. 1:1; 22:16), with the admonition that the words are “faithful and true” (22:6), we ask, is this wise [to discount it]? Should not one be open to what the Lord himself says about how (i.e., the manner and the time) he will fulfill those things that he has previously revealed, especially as it is the most detailed explanation given on the topic? (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, 151-52).
In any case, I’m trying to be brief… so I’ll move on to my second point:
(2) God’s unconditional covenants with the nation of Israel are irrevocable — This includes the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum demonstrates in this article, these unconditional promises necessitate a physical kingdom on this earth for the nation of Israel.
If the promises given in the Old Testament could not be taken at face value by those who received them, then what guarantee do I have when I take the New Testament promises at face value? This is an honest question that I would ask my amillennial brothers. Isn’t it possible that New Testament prophecy (like Old Testament prophecy) doesn’t really mean what it says? How much stock can I put in the literalness of 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3; or Revelation 21-22 if it’s possible that those prophecies were never intended as literal?
Well, anyway… those are honest questions. I don’t claim to have everything figured out on my own eschatological chart. Nor would I ever question the intelligence or sincerity of my amill and post-mill brethren. But, at the end of the day – without overwhelming evidence to the contrary — I’m left with no other choice than to believe that God will do exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He said He would do it.
As those who are soteriologically reformed, we take God’s promises very seriously. In fact, we stake our eternities on them. That’s why Dr. MacArthur titled his message, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist.” It wasn’t a dig, so much as a call to really consider the basis for premillennialism — the very promises of God. If those promises did not hold literally true for the nation of Israel, why would we expect them to hold literally true for us?
49 Responses to “Why Premillennialism?”
Nate,
Grateful am I for your consistency in pointing to the written Word so reasoning together is sure to involve so great our God. He’s illuminated graciously through your sharing.
:-)
Nate,
I appreciate your thoughts and your questions. I believe that they are necessary to consider for anyone. I know that I am just joining in on the conversation, but I have been reading multiple blogs and I am looking forward to my drive to San Diego on Saturday to listen Dr. MacArthur’s talk.
I have not come to settled conclusions about the eschaton, but I am researching all sides.
My question to you Nate is how much studying have you done in regards to the amill position, or postmill position? The whole situation seems to be clouded with men and women who have not study both sides of the issue. I do not understand how a person can make an informed decision about this issue without looking at both sides?
I am still studying the issues, please pray for me because I only want to honor God and His word!
I only have two questions that I wish you could answer:
“The second facet of Israel’s final restoration is the regathering of Israel from all over the world based upon the Land Covenant (Deuteronomy 29:1–30:20). The eternal and unconditional Land Covenant is distinct and different from the temporal and conditional Mosaic Covenant (29:1).” My question then is this: if this covenant is eternal(which I believe it is), then how does 1000yr reign with Christ on this land equal an eternal reign?
“Christ holds three offices: prophet, priest, and king. However, He does not function in all these offices simultaneously, but sequentially. During His First Advent, Christ functioned as a prophet. Since His death and resurrection, and until He returns, Christ functions as a priest. Jesus has never yet functioned as a king. For Him to reign as king requires the re-establishment of the Davidic throne. Starting at the Second Coming, Christ will sit upon this throne to rule as king over Israel and king of the world.”
1Cor 15:22-24 says that the end immediately follows the resurrection of Christ’s people at His coming. John 6:40 says this resurrection will occur on the “last day”. Jesus says(John 5:28-29; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; Dan 12:2) the resurrection of the wicked will be at the same time as His people. 1Cor. 15:26,54-55 says the resurrection is the defeat and destruction of the last enemy, death. Rev 20:11-14 says the destruction of death takes place at the Great White Throne judgement which follows the millennium which means no 1000yr span between the two. 1Cor 15:24 says that on the Last Day Christ gives the kingdom over to the Father which can only mean He has been reigning before the Last Day and therefore His is King right now. Your thoughts?
Lastly, I want to thank you for your time and for putting this on your blog…it has made me dig very deep into the word which is always profitable…2Tim. 3:16!
Nathan,
How do you view the relationship between the temple, Jerusalem and the Land from the old to the new covenant fulfillment?
In John 12 is it not the case that the lifting up of Jesus, the true temple, and the drawing of all men to himself was precisely what Isa. 2:2 was anticipating?
Is there room in your view for Jesus as the true Israel?
[…] Why Premillennialism? (Added 3/16/07) […]
Please excuse the double post.
Nathan on your first point I think that you are stretching things by claiming that you can come away from the OT as a premil. Taking the OT at face value you ought to expect the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God on an equal footing with believing Jews, the forgiveness of sins through the death and resurrection of the Servant, a new Israel/Servant who will redeem the old one and bring salvation to the Gentiles, a new temple (Christ), a new Exodus, a new covenant and a new creation.
These are some good questions. To answer at least some of them, we need to consider the phase, “The Day of the Lord.” Does that phase refer to a literal 24 hour day or could it encompass a longer time period? Just briefly, Joel 3:18-21 and Ezekiel 47:1-12 both describe a stream of water flowing out of temple/house of the Lord. Joel specifically describes it as taking place “in that day [Day of the Lord].” Based upon the other events describes in these two passages, as well as other Old Testament passages, it seems reasonable to infer that the Day of the Lord is not a 24 hour day, but rather a longer period of time. Most people would say that it is the 1,000 years described in Rev. 20. Working with a longer time period allows for the resurrections to both occur on that day, just one earlier in the period than the other. I looked at John 5:25-29 since you cited it specifically. Jesus does not say that the two occur simultaneously, but I will grant that you could take it that way if so inclined. I think that Jesus further revelation in Revelation 20 would indicate that what He said in John is not a simultaneous occurrence.
Sarah’s last statement, “1 Cor 15:24 says that on the Last Day Christ gives the kingdom over to the Father which can only mean He has been reigning before the Last Day and therefore His is King right now”, is quite interesting to contemplate. I think that every believer would agree that God is sovereign over the universe. He is king. And while He is reigning right now, Revelation 19-20 and multiple passages in the Old Testament speak of a revealing/asserting of His authority and rule during the Day of the Lord. But some of those same Old Testament passages speak of Christ ruling as an everlasting rule. A difficult question for me is how Christ can have an everlasting rule when He gives the authority back to the Father? Perhaps, therein lies part of the mystery of the Trinity.
Nate,
You wrote, “If the promises given in the Old Testament could not be taken at face value by those who received them, then what guarantee do I have when I take the New Testament promises at face value? This is an honest question that I would ask my amillennial brothers. Isn’t it possible that New Testament prophecy (like Old Testament prophecy) doesn’t really mean what it says?”
Amils would say that prophecy really means what it says. The question is, “What does it say?”
Two prongs to answer the other question. First, the NT promises are couched in language we can understand similarly to the OT promises. Scripture is clear that what God has prepared for us has never entered into our hearts and no human mind has ever conceived it. I think it is important that we recognize that the glory to come is far beyond human comprehension and expression in a fallen condition. That is one reason why I think we wrestle with interpreting Revelation and find it so difficult. We’re dealing with expressions of things that are beyond human expression. That’s not to say that God is unable to express them, but that we would be unable to comprehend them if He did. That being said, there are events in history that show that what is said relates to reality and real events, like the resurrection. Since Christ is the first-fruits of the resurrection, and He rose bodily, we know that when the Bible speaks of our resurrection it means bodily resurrection. But what will our resurrection bodies be like? That is beyond our comprehension. To fully grasp this we need a whole-Bible hermeneutic where we let every text inform every other text rather than reading texts (like Gal 6:16) in isolation (which I would argue still results in translating kai as ‘even’ but that’s another issue).
The second prong relates to Paul’s reassurance of our security in God’s promises in Romans 9-11. The fact that what the OT appeared to promise didn’t come to pass because Israel rejected Christ (by and large) does not mean God’s Word has failed, but that it is important to understand the distinction between the children of the promise and the children of the flesh. God never promised to save every child of Israel (the man), or every child of Isaac, or every child of Abraham. Rather, it is those who are elect who are of the promise, not those who are of the flesh. If we are of faith we can be sure that we are of the promise, just like Jews who would see Christ for righteousness as the goal of the Law and seek righteousness through faith could be sure they were of the promise.
Faith, promise, and Christ. That is the message of the OT and NT, and Paul makes it plain that his message is not a new reading of the OT, but the correct reading of the OT which the Jews missed. The last thing I want to do is try to figure out how the Jews understood the OT and follow their lead because they missed it! The NT is a far more sure guide.
By the way, I contend that the Holy Spirit did use the OT consistently in the NT and properly interpreted His own words for us each time He quoted it.
Blessings,
Robb
Nate:
“Amillennialists will perhaps reply that they are interpreting the Old Testament in the way the NT authors interpreted it. But this becomes very difficult in light of the fact that the NT authors do not approach the Old Testament in a consistent way, nor do they give us normative instruction to spiritualize the OT.”
Not sure what you mean by the NT authors not being “consistent” in their approach. Perhaps clarify this?
Not sure what you mean by a standard of “normative instruction.” Sound hermeneutics demands that scripture interpret scripture, and if we see (as indeed we do) that the NT gives a higher interpretation to OT prophecies, that becomes “normative.”
In Rom 15:4 Paul says, “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction,” i.e., for the instruction of the church. This purpose was all-inclusive. “Whatever” is in the OT is for our benefit: history (1 Cor 10:1-6), poetry (see Rom 3:9-18), law (1 Cor 9:9-10), types (Heb 9:1-28), teaching (Rom 4:22-24), and especially prophecy.
Even the prophets through whom the prophecies came did not necessarily understand what they meant (1 Pet 1:10-11), but “it was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you,” i.e., you who live in the era of the gospel of Christ (1 Pet 1:12). “Yes, for our sake it was written,” says Paul (1 Cor 9:10). [above notes from Jack Cottrell]
Now, when the NT gives a higher meaning to OT prophecy, the Premil cannot say that is not “normative.” That is an imposition on Scripture that comes from an arbitrary standard. We have to take the NT as we find it.
In the very first OT prophecy God says to the serpent, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” (Gen 3:15). In the NT this serpent is clearly identified as Satan (Rev 12:9; 20:2), who is defeated in battle by the power of Jesus Christ (Rev 12:7-11; 20:1-3; see Matt 12:29; Luke 10:18-19), who then shares his victory with his people (Rom 16:20). The very last OT prophecy says, “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD” (Mal 4:5). In the NT this is interpreted as being fulfilled in John the Baptist: “And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come” (Matt 11:14).
Another example is the way the book of Hebrews interprets the prophetic types embodied in Old Covenant worship and ritual. The high priest was an incomplete forerunner of the perfect high priesthood of Jesus (Heb 7:23-28). The OT sacrifices foreshadowed the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus (Heb 8:3-5; 9:12-28; 10:1-18). The OT tabernacle or temple is “a mere copy of the true one” (Heb 9:24), which is the heavenly throneroom where Christ is presently seated at God’s right hand “in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man” (Heb 8:1-2).
It does not seem apt for anyone to claim of the above that God “did not communicate clearly.”
Further, Premils claim “literal” reading, but are forced to skip that when inconvenient verses arise (such as “memorializing” the atonement sacrifices of Ezekiel; or when the Bible Knowledge Commentary, a premil text from Dallas Th. Seminary, says in Rev. 20: “In Ezekiel 38 Gog was the ruler and Magog was the people, and both were in rebellion against God and were enemies of Israel. It may be that the terms have taken on a symbolic meaning much as one speaks of a person’s ‘Waterloo,’ which historically refers to the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo.”)
It appears that the claim “we are literal” both cannot be held consistently, nor does it adequately attend to how the NT consistently interprets the OT.
For this reason, I find the claim “we are literal” to be less than persuasive. It is an arbitrary and limiting standard that comes not from the text, but from adherence to a system. The presuppositional tail wagging the theological dog.
Another thing I find unconvincing is this idea that unless a piece of ground is given, then the OT land promise cannot be taken at “face value.” It’s BETTER than “face value.”
If someone is told he’s getting a check for $5 to fulfill a promise, then is handed one for $1,000, and told it’s all his, is he going to protest that it’s not “face value”? Is he going to say the promise was not “fulfilled”? That is exactly what the Premil position does to the great promises of God, and thus devalues them for the very people (the Jews) to whom they were first delivered.
Did not many Jews, when Jesus said John the Baptist was the Elijah to come, think, “That’s not a literal reading! That’s not face value!” Were they being true to the OT, or did they miss something?
For me, “at the end of the day,” I have had to reject Premil presuppositions. I am just not able to read the NT “at face value” and come away with the limiting hermeneutic I see being imposed, and then inconsistently applied, by my Premil friends.
The good news is we’ll have plenty of time to discuss this in eternity as we worship God together!
Those of us who reject premillennialism do so because, frankly, it is grounded more in presupposition than proper exegesis. It ignores or glosses over those biblical passages that clearly deviate from the premillennialist paradigm.
Take Joshua 21:43–45, for example: “Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.” Now, if the premillennialist really does take what he reads in scripture at face value, how can he insist that the land promises have NOT been fulfilled?
And, of course, there is the insistence that Joel’s prophecy concerning the pouring out of God’s Spirit “on all flesh” (Joel 2) is referring to the Millennium. However, Peter points out quite clearly in Acts 2 that the reference was to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost: “For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel…”
As for the charge that some of us tend to “spiritualize” the NT, it must be pointed out that Jesus himself did just that: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Is that not a spiritualization of the Law?
I could go on, but I will save that for a future post on my own blog. Eschatology is very important; it’s not one of those “let’s just agree to disagree” issues.
That being said, I harbor no ill-will toward my premil brothers and sisters in Christ. Some of my best friends are premillennialists!
“This includes the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum demonstrates in this article, these unconditional promises necessitate a physical kingdom on this earth for the nation of Israel.”
The promise to Abram Gen. 12:1-3, says in him all the families of the earth will be blessed.
And then in Ge. 17:4-14 God changes his name to Abraham, which means father of many nations. And this includes Canaan of course. But the promise also includes circumcising. And yet circumcision is no longer an everlasting sign of the promise.
But the promise to the Seed seems to be the key here. And I just can’t seem tp grasp it with my mind. But if circumcision hasn’t the emphasis it had, why not the same thing for a small portion of land to now include the whole world.
Just thinking out loud.
I have enjoyed the discussion here.
Martin (not Downes),
Thanks for comment. It’s great to hear that you are studying out the issue in Scripture. Ultimately, we must all take our views back to the Word of God — the final standard of all interpretation.
The best defense that I have read of amillennialism is Robert Strimple’s presentation in Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond (edited by Bock). Kenneth Gentry also presents the postmillennial view in that book.
I have also interacted with amill guys like Alger, Kromminga, Hokema, Masselink, Grenz, Hamilton, and Cox on this issue. (I have interacted with a few postmil guys too, like Gentry and Matthison). Online, men like Kim Riddlebarger and the guys at Fide-o also continually produce articles from an amillennial perspective.
Strimple’s argument is that the true Israel is Christ. Where the nation failed, Christ succeeded. What the nation could not do, Christ did. Therefore, the promises of the OT do not go to the nation, but to Christ (and those who are “in Christ”).
The premillennial response to this would be, as Blaising wrote, that we “agree with Strimple that the New Testament presents Christ as Israel, but not in a way that ‘transcends’ or removes the idea of corporate, ethnic, national Israel.”
Blaising gives several reasons to support this, including:
(1) the structure of the covenants
(2) the oracles of Isaiah (which present the “Servant of Yahweh” as both the nation and as the Messiah — showing that the individual will bring salvation to the nation)
(3) the NT presentation of Christ as the King of Israel, who promises to restore the kingdom to Israel at His return (cf. Acts 1:3, 6-7; 3:19-21)
(4) the fact that the term Israel in the NT is consistently used to refer to the ethnic, national body of Israel
(5) the fact that Paul says that there will be a future salvation of ethnic Jews in Romans 9-11
(6) the fact Revelation 20:4-6 teaches a future millennium
For more on Blaising’s critique of Strimple’s position, see pp. 143-53 in Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond.
Hope that helps. Thanks for your comment.
- NB
Lee Shelton: Those of us who reject premillennialism do so because, frankly, it is grounded more in presupposition than proper exegesis.
In one sense this is true, and this is why I rejected it, but we should also realize that presuppositions and elementary assumptions are inescapable. Covenant theology and dispensationalism are two different hermeneutical frameworks and the differences come out in exegesis. This is why eschatological discussions often go nowhere because the presuppositional conflict is not acknowledged or dealt with.
In the same way that the prophecies regarding Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally, so (I believe) the prophecies surrounding Christ’s second coming should be also taken at face value.
Actually, some of the prophecies were symbolically given and (nonetheless truly) fulfilled.
For instance, Jesus interprets Himself as the stone and cornerstone of Ps. 118 in Mk. 11:10-11 and shows that He, not David, is the true Lord of Ps. 110.
Another interesting thing to point out is John 19:36-37:
For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”
The prophecy which John says was fulfilled is contained in Zech. 12:10, which premills often cite as future. Futher examination of Zech. 13 in the context of Messiah’s fulfillment is also an interesting study.
Also, James in Acts 15:16-17 describes Christ’s ingathering of the Gentiles into the new Israel of God as rebuilding David’s tabernacle.
Regarding covenants, Hebrews 10:16-17 says that the New Covenant is now available to Jews, hence the typical sacrifices are no longer necessary, because they are fulfilled in Christ, and apart from Him there is no salvation.
Regarding the kingdom, we see (vv. 12-13) that Christ is now at God’s right hand, waiting for His enemies to be defeated. Compare this with 1 Cor. 15 and and relevant OT passages (Ps. 2, 72, 110, etc.) declared as fulfilled by Christ and you will see that the kingdom is delivered (therefore present now-which is why Christ tells us to pray for it to come on earth) after all authority is under Christ, then death will be defeated through resurrection and the end will come.
Sarah,
You wrote: If this covenant is eternal (which I believe it is), then how does 1000yr reign with Christ on this land equal an eternal reign?
Please see Massimo’s response to you in yesterday’s thread.
You wrote: 1Cor 15:22-24 says that the end immediately follows the resurrection of Christ’s people at His coming.
Actually, verses 23 and 24 list three great events in history in logical order. First, there is Christ’s resurrection. Then, there is the resurrection of believers. Then there comes the end.
The word “then” in verse 24 does not mean “immediately following in a temporal sense,” but rather, “the next logical event in sequence.” In the same way that there has been a long gap of time between the first event (Christ’s resurrection) and the second event (the resurrection of believers), we expect that there will be a long gap of time between the second event and the end.
This allows for a millennial kingdom. And this kingdom is what is detailed by Paul in verses 24–27.
Even amillennialists (such as Strimple) admit that the grammatical terms here (for “then”) can refer to a sequence of long intervals. This passage does not negate a millennial kingdom.
You wrote: John 6:40 says this resurrection will occur on the “last day”. Jesus says (John 5:28-29; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; Dan 12:2) the resurrection of the wicked will be at the same time as His people.
I believe we responded to this in the comment thread on Wednesday’s post. These texts do not say that these resurrections will occur simultaneously. Rather, they simply make the point that there are two distinct resurrections – the first is a resurrection to life, the second a resurrection to death. The additional information that we receive from the book of Revelation helps us understand the timing of these two resurrections.
1Cor. 15:26,54-55 says the resurrection is the defeat and destruction of the last enemy, death. Rev 20:11-14 says the destruction of death takes place at the Great White Throne judgment which follows the millennium which means no 1000yr span between the two.
So Revelation 20:11–14 is literal but Revelation 20:4–6 is not?
Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:54 – 56, let me cite Blaising again:
*****
The language of victory over death at the resurrection of believers in 1 Corinthians 15:54 – 56 does not preclude a subsequent resurrection for unbelievers since this language is applicable to each stage of resurrection (as 2 Tim. 1:10 shows us in the case of Christ’s own resurrection). [An amillennialist like] Strimple does not see this because he is misled by Berkouwer into overlooking the logical and structural significance of ‘but each in his own turn” in verse 23 — stages of resurrection are a point of emphasis in this text. (Three Views, 151)
*****
You wrote: 1Cor 15:24 says that on the Last Day Christ gives the kingdom over to the Father which can only mean He has been reigning before the Last Day and therefore His is King right now. Your thoughts?
If the third great event (of vv. 22 – 24), “the end,” is separated by a long period of time (just like the first and second events are separated), then the kingdom can refer to the period of time between the resurrection of believers and the end. Further revelation, specifically in the book of Revelation, indicates that this period of time will last 1,000 years.
I should note that progressive dispensationalists, like Bock and Blaising, believe there is a sense in which Christ reigns now (seated at the right hand of the Father). However, this does not preclude or replace the fact that He will return to physically reign over Israel at some point in the future.
*****
You wrote: Lastly, I want to thank you for your time and for putting this on your blog…it has made me dig very deep into the word which is always profitable…2Tim. 3:16!
Sarah, thank you for your participation. We hope that this entire discussion will cause us all to dig deeper into God’s Word – and to worship Him all the more as a result.
By His grace and for His glory,
NB
Martin Downes,
Thanks for your interaction.
You wrote: I think that you are stretching things by claiming that you can come away from the OT as a premil.
I realize that those from an amill perspective will argue that I am biased, and that I am reading my own presuppositions into the text.
BUT…
Here’s the thing… amillennial and postmillennial scholars have historically admitted that if you take the OT at face value, you come out a premillennialist.
As Hamilton (an amillennialist) has written:
Or in the words of Masselink (also amill):
In admitting this, amillennialists are in keeping with the historic Jewish understanding of the Old Testament. The Jews have always held the belief in a future messianic kingdom.
So, it’s not just premillennialists who concur that the face value reading of the OT leads to premillennialism. This has always been the Jewish understanding of the OT, and it is also recognized as the most natural understanding of the OT by many amillennialists.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum gives a helpful overview of premillinnialsim in the OT in this article.
You wrote: Taking the OT at face value you ought to expect the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God on an equal footing with believing Jews…
Really? Then why are the apostles surprised when Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 11)? And why does Paul call this a mystery in Ephesians 3:1-7?
I realize I have presuppositions that undergird how I read the text. I will readily admit those. As Josh noted in his comment, everyone does.
But (as a for instance) when God tells Israel that they have broken His covenant (Ezekiel 16:59), and then says, “Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. … And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the LORD” (vv. 60, 62) –> how else are we to take that, except that God will make good on His unconditional covenants to Israel?
Isn’t that the face value understanding of that text?
Thanks again for your interaction. May the Lord bless your efforts for His sake over in the UK.
- NB
Nathan, I’ve been posting related audio sermon series and lectures on my blog from the likes of Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Dwight Pentecost and soon to post S. Lewis Johnson. Some of your readers may find them helpful.
http://faithbyhearing.wordpress.com
Thanks
Nathan,
I can’t properly respond to your comment at the moment but wanted to dash of a reply to say thanks. I will try and reply later this evening.
I appreciate the Pulpit Magazine a lot.
Martin
Nate B: So, it’s not just premillennialists who concur that the face value reading of the OT leads to premillennialism. This has always been the Jewish understanding of the OT…
I don’t disagree that we should consider the Jewish reading of the OT, however, modern Jews (1st C Jews, for that matter) don’t see Messiah in the OT, even though He said every word spoke of Him. So if a “Jewish understanding” is prime, then you will end up rejecting Christ as Messiah. Remember, Jesus often had to correct incorrect Jewish assumptions and readings of the OT (not because the OT wasn’t clear, but because they misread it) regarding the law, the kingdom, etc.
So to say that a Jewish reading of the OT will result in premill is to beg the question and to assume that a ethnocentric reading of the OT is always correct. Besides, whose Jewish reading? Steve Schlissel, Richard Ganz and others are ethnic Jews who are postmillennial.
Your quote of Masselink is interesting: If all prophecy must be interpreted in a literal way, the Chilastic views are correct…
But that is exactly the point under dispute. All prophecy, which is often poetic and symbolic and given in visions, is not to be always interpreted “literally,” and the apostles’ interpretation confirms this.
Robb,
Thanks for your comments. Your tone throughout has been exceptionally gracious and exemplary. Thank you for modeling for all how a discussion like this should take place.
Allow me to respond to a few of your comments:
You wrote: Amils would say that prophecy really means what it says. The question is, “What does it say?”
By what does it say I assume you mean what does it mean when it says what it says. (Perhaps that will sound like semantics, but I believe it is an imporant distinction.) There are hundreds of OT verses that speak of a future messianic kingdom. They speak of temples, sacrifices, rivers, land, nations, food, and so on. The question is what these verses mean when they speak of such things?
If you just take what they say, it sounds like they are talking about a future physical kingdom for national Israel on this earth. Whether or not that is actually what they mean, is at the crux of this issue.
As I noted to Martin Downes, above, many amillennialists have historically admitted that if you take the verses at face value (just accepting what they say, and what their original audience would have understood them to say), it naturally leads to premillennialism. This is, in fact, how the Jews themselves have historically understood these passages.
So I think it’s a little dishonest (not intentionally, of course) for amillennialists to contend that they are the ones actually taking the OT prophecies at face value. Historically speaking, that is just not defensible.
You wrote: That is one reason why I think we wrestle with interpreting Revelation and find it so difficult. We’re dealing with expressions of things that are beyond human expression.
I would have several questions here: If the book of Revelation is beyond us, then why did Jesus command us to read, hear, and keep the things that are written in it (1:3; 22:7)? Why was His purpose “to show His servants things which must shortly take place” (1:1) if those things were beyond those to whom He was writing? Or perhaps more to the point, why can’t “a thousand years” mean exactly that?
I think it is interesting to note, also, that the disciples of the apostle John, who wrote Revelation (men like Polycarp and Papias), were premillennialists.
As Grenz (an amillennialist) has noted:
***
The church father Papias, for example, a contemporary of Polycarp of Smyrna who tradition claims was a disciple of John, set forth as a teaching derived from apostolic times “that there will be a certain period of a thousand years after the resurrection from the dead when the kingdom of Christ must be set up in a material order on this earth” [as cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39]. Papias poured into this thousand-year period mentioned in the book of Revelation certain features of the expectations for the messianic era articulated by Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets: “all the animals, feeding only on the produce of the earth, shall live in peaceful harmony together, and in perfect subjection to man” (The Millennial Maze, p. 39).
***
If Papias correctly understood his teacher, then John himself apparently took the thousand years literally.
You wrote: To fully grasp this we need a whole-Bible hermeneutic where we let every text inform every other text rather than reading texts (like Gal 6:16) in isolation….
We agree. Scripture will never contradict Scripture. Thus, if the Old Testament promised a physical, earthly kingdom for national Israel then the New Testament will not contradict that promise. And in fact, it does not (Acts 1:6–7; Rom. 11:26–27; etc).
Moreover, if we allow the most explicit New Testament text regarding the millennial kingdom (Rev. 20:4–6) to inform earlier revelation, then the premillennial case seems quite strong.
You wrote: By the way, I contend that the Holy Spirit did use the OT consistently in the NT and properly interpreted His own words for us each time He quoted it.
Fruchtenbaum has demonstrated that there are at least four ways that the New Testament uses the Old Testament. This article by Thomas Ice discusses Fruchtenbaum’s approach as a subset of the “Dispensational Hermeneutic.”
Robb, let me reiterate how much I appreciate your interaction in all of this. I do wish you were here so we could just go have lunch and talk it all over.
- NB
Josh,
Actually, the Jews did see the Messiah in the Old Testament. Granted, they did not fully understand that He had to come first as the suffering Servant before He could come as the conquering King. But to argue that “Jews don’t see the Messiah in the OT” is simply not correct.
McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict relies quite heavily on Jewish Targums to make the case that OT prophesies fulfilled in Jesus Christ were recognized by the Jews as Messianic prophecies.
McDowell gives many examples. For example, regarding Isaiah 53, he writes:
****
Further confirmation of the predictive nature of Isaiah 53 is that it was common for Jewish interpreters before the time of Christ to teach that here Isaiah spoke of the Jewish Messiah (see S.R. Driver, et.al., trans., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters). Only after early Christians began using the text apologetically with great force did it become in rabbinical teaching an expression of the suffering Jewish nation. (p. 188)
****
Hope this helps clarify.
- NB
I’ve heard it asked by a few “Which promises have not been fulfilled yet?” I want to encourage you to make sure you don’t overlook the article Nate linked to in his original post this morning on “Israelology” by Fruchtenbaum. I’ve just scanned through it, and it is saturated with Scripture for our consideration. It answers this question well.
It reminds me that, whether we agree with the article or not, we must vigorously pursue an understanding of the OT texts just as we do the NT texts dealing with the church, Israel, and the future. Our beliefs should be shaped by an ever increasing understanding of the entirety of God’s word.
On that note, as a premill, I would be interested in reading an amill and postmill assessment of Ezekiel 36-37. Can any of you point me to a resource?
Nate, you’ve had a busy week!! Thanks for all the hard work you’ve put in to serve us!!
On Ezekiel 36-37 and its connection to the new covenant try O. Palmer Robertson’s “The Christ of the Covenants” and Carson’s comments on John 3:5
Nate,
Just to provide some further comment, Eusebius wrote concerning Papias, “But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.”
Wainwright notes, “No statements by Papias about the millennium survive” (Mysterious Apocalypse 23). According to Philip Schaff, Papias’ (and by extension Irenaeus’) view of the millennium is heavily influenced by the pseudepigraphal book of 2 Baruch (History of the Christian Church 2:616). Other claims from the period by Caius, an anti-chiliast, say that chiliasm initially was taught by the heretic Cerinthus, and was therefore condemned by many synods in Asia Minor during the ante-nicene period. (Schaff 2:618).
There’s a lot that could be said about this time period in history, but a reading of Wainwright’s book and Keith Mathison’s volume Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope would help demonstrate that no eschatological view has a strong claim based on the first 300 years of church history. Probably if any one view did have that claim it would be historical premillennialism since the church fathers almost universally regarded the church as the true Israel (Schaff 2:615).
One major difference between historic premillennialism and the early fathers is that the early fathers believed in soulsleep and thought the millennium was a training ground for the eternal state and often based their understanding of it based on something other than Revelation 20. Here’s a quote from Mathison’s book to wrap this up:
“Charles Hill explains, ‘In the Christian chiliasm of Irenaeus this doctrine of an intermediate state under the earth kept man from overstepping the purpose of the millennium-it was the task of the millennium to supply the necessary further training for the entrance into God’s spatial presence. To allow that the saints could already be enjoying the celestial life would be to eliminate the need for a future, earthly millennium.’ Hill adds that in the first three centuries of the church, virtually every identifiable chiliast shared Irenaeus’ view of the intermediate state, in which believers do not go immediately into the presence of God at death. And those who taught that believers went immediately into the presence of God were almost all opponents of chiliasm” (Mathison 27, emphasis mine).
Thanks for the good interaction. It’s been thought-provoking and enjoyable.
Blessings,
Robb
JSB,
Thanks for your lengthy comment. I think if we printed all this stuff off (from Monday), we’d have quite a tome.
I appreciate your responses. This has been a healthy, lively discussion — but I trust it is perceived by all in the spirit of Christian grace.
Allow me to respond to some of your points…
You wrote: Not sure what you mean by the NT authors not being “consistent” in their approach. Perhaps clarify this?
Please see the article by Thomas Ice noted in my response above to Robb.
You wrote: Sound hermeneutics demands that scripture interpret scripture, and if we see (as indeed we do) that the NT gives a higher interpretation to OT prophecies, that becomes “normative.”
Yes, Scripture interprets Scripture. But later revelation also never contradicts earlier revelation. See my comments to Robb in this regard.
You wrote: In Rom 15:4 Paul says, “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction,” i.e., for the instruction of the church. This purpose was all-inclusive. “Whatever” is in the OT is for our benefit: history (1 Cor 10:1-6), poetry (see Rom 3:9-18), law (1 Cor 9:9-10), types (Heb 9:1-28), teaching (Rom 4:22-24), and especially prophecy.
I’m not sure how an appeal to Romans 15:4 undermines the premillennial position, especially since it is in the context of weaker/stronger brothers. In any case, we would agree that OT prophecy is for our benefit, just as the rest of the OT (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
You wrote: Even the prophets through whom the prophecies came did not necessarily understand what they meant (1 Pet 1:10-11), but “it was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you,” i.e., you who live in the era of the gospel of Christ (1 Pet 1:12). “Yes, for our sake it was written,” says Paul (1 Cor 9:10).
1 Cor. 9:10 does not refer to the whole OT, but only to the application of one particular, non-prophetic verse.
1 Peter 1:10–12 underscores the fact that the OT prophets anxiously awaited the coming of the Messiah whom they predicted – realizing that their prophecies benefited not themselves but those on the other side of Messiah’s coming. But what prophecies is Peter specifically addressing in these verses? He tells us: those that relate to “salvation” (v. 10), the sufferings of Christ and His subsequent glorification (v. 11). To say that Peter is applying all of OT prophecy to the church in these verse seems a bit forced.
You wrote: We have to take the NT as we find it.
Would this include passages like Acts 1:3–7; Romans 11:25–26; and Revelation 20:4–6?
You wrote: In the very first OT prophecy God says to the serpent, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” (Gen 3:15). In the NT this serpent is clearly identified as Satan (Rev 12:9; 20:2), who is defeated in battle by the power of Jesus Christ (Rev 12:7-11; 20:1-3; see Matt 12:29; Luke 10:18-19), who then shares his victory with his people (Rom 16:20).
According to McDowell, even the OT Targums understood this in a Messianic sense. The serpent was Satan. The “seed” was a future descendant of Eve (namely, Christ). So I do not see the problem here for a premillennial interpretation.
You wrote: The very last OT prophecy says, “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD” (Mal 4:5). In the NT this is interpreted as being fulfilled in John the Baptist: “And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come” (Matt 11:14).
See this article for a typical premillennial response. If Matthew 11:14 is understood as the final fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, the amill must explain why John the Baptist denied that he was Elijah in John 1:21.
Note also that Jesus made John’s identity as Elijah contingent on the Jews’ reception of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 11:12). As MacArthur writes in his commentary on this verse, “Because Israel did not accept the message of John the Baptist, John could not be Elijah and the kingdom could not be established. Another prophet like Elijah is therefore still yet to come, perhaps as one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11:1–19.”
You wrote: Another example is the way the book of Hebrews interprets the prophetic types….
We would agree with all of this (about the message of Hebrews). But, again, I’m not sure how this rules out a future literal fulfillment of the Old Testament eschatological prophecies.
You wrote: It does not seem apt for anyone to claim of the above that God ‘did not communicate clearly.’
I did not say that God did not communicate clearly. My point was that God does communicate clearly, and did so in the Old Testament just like He did in the New. That’s why I am a premillennialist.
Further, Premils claim “literal” reading, but are forced to skip that when inconvenient verses arise…
The same could of course be said about amillennialism’s convenient “spiritualizing” of any verse that does not fit the amillennial system.
In any case, regarding the sacrifices in Ezekiel, we talked about this at length in yesterday’s comments section. The “atonement” of those sacrifices does not provide forgiveness for sins, since no animal sacrifice ever could (Heb. 10:4, 11).
Regarding Gog and Magog, I am not familiar with the discrepancy you claim is in the premill interpretation. But I will try to go back later and examine it.
I would be quick to add that, as a premillennialist, I do not claim to have the future all figured out. There are aspects that I do not fully understand. And there are places in which I see potential discrepancies. The Jews of the OT had similar discussions about whether or not Messiah was coming to suffer or to reign (some even suggesting that there would be two Messiahs). I think premillennialists can err when they get too confident in their interpretation of certain passages (like calling Hitler the antichrist).
But the point here is not about the details on the eschatological chart. It is about whether or not we can take God’s promises at face value. In my opinion, that presents a much bigger problem for the amillennial system than any minor discrepancy that can be pointed out in the details premillennial eschatology.
There is an element in which we simply say, we believe what God has said, and we are confident that He will bring it to pass (even if now we don’t totally understand how or in what way).
For this reason, I find the claim “we are literal” to be less than persuasive. It is an arbitrary and limiting standard that comes not from the text, but from adherence to a system. The presuppositional tail wagging the theological dog.
Please see my earlier comments to Robb and Martin Downes.
Another thing I find unconvincing is this idea that unless a piece of ground is given, then the OT land promise cannot be taken at “face value.” It’s BETTER than “face value.”
In the Old Testament, God promises the nation of Israel that they will possess the land of their forefathers, having a physical kingdom on this earth. Messiah will reign in Jerusalem during a golden age in which the law will be written on their hearts.
According to amillennialism, what God actually gives them is a spiritual kingdom in heaven primarily composed of Gentiles. As for the nation, they are dispersed and suffer, perhaps more than any other ethnic group.
There is honestly no disconnect there for you?
I am just not able to read the NT “at face value” and come away with the limiting hermeneutic [of] my Premil friends.
So we can take Revelation 20:4–6 at face value? Right?
The good news is we’ll have plenty of time to discuss this in eternity as we worship God together!
Absolutely. For that matter, I kind of doubt we’ll care so much when we’re worshipping around the throne. To Christ be the glory, now and forever. Amen.
Thanks again for the discussion.
- NB
Lee,
I will try to keep my responses a bit shorter (after my multi-volume response to JSB).
Thank you, though, for your thoughts. It is a joy to discuss, and seek to understand, God’s revelation to us.
You wrote: Those of us who reject premillennialism do so because, frankly, it is grounded more in presupposition than proper exegesis.
In this particular instance, I believe you are poisoning the well with an over-generalized ad hominem.
Regarding Joshua 21:43–45
We discussed this in Tuesday’s article. Please note the anachronistic nature of what you are claiming.
Regarding Joel’s prophecy
Were the cosmic signs of Joel’s prophecy literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost? If not, then it follows that Joel’s prophecy was not entirely fulfilled in Acts 2.
Regarding Matt. 5:28
Jesus did not deny the literal understanding of that passage (which is that adultery is forbidden). He made extended application of it Law to His audience. I hardly see how Matthew 5:28 supports a spiritual hermeneutic by modern interpreters.
Thanks again for your thoughts. Like you, I harbor no ill-will toward those with whom I disagree on this issue. May the Lord be honored by all of our labors on His behalf.
-NB
Robb,
Thanks for those quotes. I suppose we could go back and forth all day about the early church fathers. (I actually thoroughly enjoy the church fathers — and am studying them for my ThD.) I don’t know that either one of us would be convinced.
To be sure, not all the church fathers were premillennialists. But, it is generally recognized that premillennialism was a major (if not the predominant) view of the earliest fathers. The wikipedia article on this (yes, I know it’s a non-scholarly open-source encyclopedia) is helpful in overviewing some of this. (I’m happy to provide a list of more authoritative sources if you feel it would be helpful.)
As far as what some of the early church fathers wrote regarding the millennium, I will simply quote from an earlier article we put up on Pulpit.
*****
Eusebius (c. 275–339) regarding Papias (c. 60–c. 135): Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. . . . Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.
Justin Martyr (c. 100–165): But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
Lactantius (c. 240–c. 320): Therefore peace being made, and every evil suppressed, that righteous King and Conqueror will institute a great judgment on the earth respecting the living and the dead, and will deliver all the nations into subjection to the righteous who are alive, and will raise the righteous dead to eternal life, and will Himself reign with them on the earth, and will build the holy city, and this kingdom of the righteous shall be for a thousand years.
*****
Whether or not one sees premillennialism as biblical, he must at least acknowledge the fact that it was present in the early church.
Thanks,
NB
If Christ returns to rule over a millenial kingdom, doesn’t that remove the necessity of faith? Since unbelievers will know that Jesus is indeed who He said He was and that the Bible is true, etc.? Does it not make more sense that when Christ returns–that is the end? Please elaborate…..thanks!
Nate:
Thanks again for the spirited debate. Good sharpening. One note on something you wrote above:
“Whether or not one sees premillennialism as biblical, he must at least acknowledge the fact that it was present in the early church.”
Yes, but remember that this was not the dispensational variety. Those who did talk of a literal 1000 year kingdom did not include ethnic Israel in it. They considered the church the fulfillment of the promise to the nation. (I provided some quotes in previous discussions)
The dispensational idea of the two tracks (Israel/Church) did not arise until the 1830’s; it is thus not a teaching present in the church until then.
Nate, let’s take up this point:
You wrote: “According to amillennialism, what God actually gives them is a spiritual kingdom in heaven primarily composed of Gentiles. As for the nation, they are dispersed and suffer, perhaps more than any other ethnic group. There is honestly no disconnect there for you?”
Are you really claiming that an earthly inheritance is better than a heavenly inheritance? Hebrews makes it clear that “Abraham’s descendants” (2:16) have NOT come to a “mountain that can be touched” (12:18). They have come, rather, to “Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God.” (12:22)
Here is a helpful comment:
“In the closing chapters of the Bible this ‘rest’ is portrayed in terms which recall the description of the Garden of Eden; the people of God again take up residence in God’s presence, a residence described in terms of both a new city and a new heaven and earth. At the centre of this new cosmic order is the Lord Jesus Christ. The theology of land provides the conceptual background for the description of life with Christ in this new environment, in which all restrictions on believers’ intimacy with him are taken away and they see him face to face. This inheritance is anticipated by the theology of land. The inheritance in Christ is no doubt different from the land received and lost by Israel, but it is GREATER, NOT LESS, than that land.” [New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, IVP, my emphasis]
JSB,
Thanks for your response, and for your continued graciousness.
Two things… earlier you made an analogy about how…
If someone is told he’s getting a check for $5 to fulfill a promise, then is handed one for $1,000, and told it’s all his, is he going to protest that it’s not “face value”? Is he going to say the promise was not “fulfilled”? That is exactly what the Premil position does to the great promises of God, and thus devalues them for the very people (the Jews) to whom they were first delivered.
I thought Matt Waymeyer had an excellent response to this in his “Am I a Dispensationalist?” paper. Matt noted that:
****
In response to the kind of argumentation I’ve set forth here, one covenantalist asks the question, “If God promises someone $5 and gives him $5,000 instead, does that mean He is unfaithful?” The problem with this analogy, however, is that it breaks down at just the critical point.
In this scenario, even though God gives an unexpected blessing of an additional $4,995, this does not negate the fact that He is faithful to give the $5 He originally promised. Put another way, if God promises to give A to person #1, and He gives A to person #1 as promised, and then, as an added bonus, also gives B, C, and D to person #1 as well, has He been faithful to keep His original promise? Yes, of course. He promised A and He delivered A. On the other hand, if He promises to give A to person #1 but gives B to person #2 instead, that is something entirely different.
As Jelinek writes, “God can do more than He has promised, but He will not do less” (Jelinek, “The Dispersion and Restoration,” 232). To promise an earthly land to Israel and to fail to deliver this land is to do less.
****
Regarding the patristic version of premillennialism — it is true that they were not dispensationalists of the Darby/Scofield variety.
But we must be careful not to assume that everyone in the early church rejected the Jewish character of the millennial promises.
Kromminga (an amill) in The Millennium in the Church suggests that Barnabas is actually the father of amillennial thought. According to Kromminga, the epistle of Barnabas is decidely anti-Jewish in its tone. Kromminga believes that, at least in part, Barnabas wrote his epistle to squelch the idea (primarily among Jewish Christians) that the millennial promises would extend to ethnic Israel.
According to Kromminga, the fact that Barnabas responded the way he did indicates that, at least some of the early Christians, regarded the millennium as retaining its Jewish character.
Of course, by 70 A.D. (and again in 135 A.D.), Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews dispersed. As Michael Vlach notes in his dissertation, “These two destructions, especially the one in A.D. 135 caused many in the church to believe that God had permanently rejected Israel and that the church was the new Israel.”
Israel’s destruction became an apologetic used by the church to demonstrate that God had judged Israel for rejecting the Messiah. This, combined with Origen’s allegorical hermeneutic, paved the way for supersessionism (through Augustine) into the medieval period.
Anyway, sorry for the long historical detour,
- NB
Nate,
(
Massimo’s statement didn’t make any sense to me. If the everlasting only means a specific amount of time, then how long is that time and maybe that time was fulfilled in the OT… who’s to say it wasn’t since we don’t have a specific time frame. Also, the other problem I have with his statement is that God said His reign would be everlasting…I don’t think anyone believes we will reign for a small amount of time and then just not do anything. Massimo was not real sure it meant just a specific amount of time that it could mean endless. With that uncertainty, wouldn’t it be wise for prmill’s to translate literally as they do and say it means everlasting? The rest of your response I’ll just say I simply disagree with for other reasons…my vacation is over and it’s off to work I go!
Sarah,
Thanks for your comments. I certainly hope you didn’t spend all of your vacation time here at Pulpit.
Anyway, I’m not sure I see your beef with Massimo’s explanation (which comes straight of of TWOT). I do find it a bit ironic that you want to take one possible definition of the Hebrew word olam literally, but you are unwilling to take the land promises themselves literally.
In any case, the premillennialist can take both literally, if he allows the context to limit the duration intended by the word olam.
Anyway, thanks for the interaction. Have fun at work.
- NB
Nate,
I want to thank you for taking the time to answer all questions posted at the conference and here in the blog. It has been a tremendous blessing. I also want to thank you for the wealth of information you posted by way of links and articles to facilitate the discussion and help give some a better understanding of why premil believe premil (although I get the impression by the many times you have had to repeat yourself or point out an article more than once, not many have headed the recommendation to read something before asking a question).
Thanks again and it would be great to see this discussion pick up at a later date (prayerfully after all the shared information has been read). I know I have a few months worth of reading
I started the articles from the TMSJ on the covenants last evening (highly recommend).
Last but not least, thank you for showing (at least me) how to handle a discussion where there is disagreement without resorting to personal attacks, name calling or condescending speech. It was an example I needed at this time.
Robert Morris,
If Christ returns to rule over a millenial kingdom, doesn’t that remove the necessity of faith? Since unbelievers will know that Jesus is indeed who He said He was and that the Bible is true, etc.? Does it not make more sense that when Christ returns–that is the end? Please elaborate…..thanks!
We must be careful not to make our own common “sense” the determiner of whether or not we will take biblical prophecy at face value.
The Jews today use a similar argument against Christianity. “If the Jesus had really been the Messiah, our ancestors would have never rejected Him.”
He did astonishing miracles, preached with divine authority, and even rose from the dead — how could they miss it? It’s inconceivable. Or is it?
Premillennialists believe that, at the beginning all who go into the millennium will be true believers. But as those people have children, some of their descendants will not love Christ. They will give external adherence to Him, but will remain rebellious in their hearts. When Satan is released at the end of the millennium, he will lead them in one final rebellion against Christ (cf. Rev. 20:7-9).
Does the millennium remove the need for faith? Absolutely not. Those who are born during the millennium will be saved by faith just like all believers throughout all of salvation history.
Hope that helps.
- NB
Let’s not forget God transcends ‘time’ as a boundary or limitation, unlike us, and while there was roughly 4,000 years before Christ, 2,000 years since, and a 1,000 year millenial kingdom to come here on Earth (before the final rebellion), it is only then, after that 1,000 year millenial kingdom, that the new heavens & new earth are created and we truly enter “eternity” (stepping beyond the boundary of time to the realm of God beyond).
To me it is interesting that world history also makes a nice parallel to Creation (6 days of toil, 1 day of rest. 6,000 years of toil, 1,000 years of rest).
[And also that a day and a thousand years are alike to God because He is not bound by time.]
All this to say: The logic of how God lays things out with sovereign consistancy and numerical order is just one more reason to expect the millenial kingdom to be a literal 1,000 years.
I wanted to add one point into the discussion, as I am curious as to how my amill brothers would respond.
What do we do with modern-day Israel?
The premillennial position asserts that, in keeping with OT prophecy, God will bring the nation of Israel back to her land. Though the nation will be established in unbelief, she will one day return to embrace her Messiah.
If this position is correct, we would expect to see such events unfold in history. And in fact, we do see the nation restored to her land (although still in unbelief).
How does this factor into the amillennial perspective? Is it simply coincidence? Or is there some other way that amillennialists handle God’s providential regathering of ethnic Jews into the historic Promised Land?
Thanks,
NB
If someone is told he’s getting a check for $5 to fulfill a promise, then is handed one for $1,000, and told it’s all his, is he going to protest that it’s not “face value”? Is he going to say the promise was not “fulfilled”? That is exactly what the Premil position does to the great promises of God, and thus devalues them for the very people (the Jews) to whom they were first delivered.
That’s a deceptive analogy because that is not quite what amillenialists are doing. It’s not simply getting “more”, it’s getting something entirely different. The greater gift you claim by your interpretation does not include the originally promised gift.
A more accurate analogy would be if I take you to a hill in Montana and show you a wonderful valley of land there and say, see all this? I covenant that it will be yours for eternity (figure out you own wording for how I say it, that’s irrelevant to the point). But then instead of giving you that land, I give you Mars’ moon Phobos. Let’s say it’s a really nice place - even better than the valley in Montana. Guess what, I’ve still failed to keep my promise to you. All I’ve managed to demonstrate is inconsistency, inability, and a lack of trustworthiness. That’s not the God I know and that’s not how He has shown Himself to be. Throughout Scripture He has shown Himself to be One Who fulfills his promises literally and consistently, not figuratively and haphazardly.
Nate, what passage says the nation will be established in unbelief? From my memory, it seems that the prophets always connected repentance with the restoration of Israel. My memory is not perfect, and my knowledge of the prophets is far from great, so I’m wondering if you could point out which passages you mean.
Clearly everyone who is in any sense Reformed must admit God’s providence is why the Jews are living in Palestine today. I would uncomfortable taking it any further than that, especially since they are in unbelief and, to my memory, restoration occurs with repentance in the OT (although you might persuade me otherwise if you offer a few texts). I lean toward Reformed Amillennialism, which sees a future for ethnic Israel, which future consists of entering into the true Israel, the Church, through faith, and being saved in Christ before Christ’s coming. Kim Riddlebarger does an excellent job with Romans 11 from a Reformed Amillennial perspective. Anyways, the point is that it would be more noticeable and drastic to see an entire political nation come to faith than a bunch of scattered people, and perhaps that is what God is doing. But perhaps not.
I think we do the same thing with modern Israel as with any other people group: we evangelize them. We tell them they are NOT the people of God because they are outside His covenant because they are not of faith. We tell them they are cut off from Christ, that they have not obtained righteousness because Christ’s obedience is the only righteousness God accepts and they have rejected Him, and that they call themselves Jews but are in reality a synagogue of Satan. One thing that alarms me about dispensationalism (contrary to Dr. MacArthur’s claim at the end of his lecture) is how it makes evangelism of Jews nearly impossible because it tells Jews they are God’s people when the reality is that they are cut off from Christ and they are not His people just because they are according to the flesh descended from Abraham.
Phil 3:2-3: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”
This comment thread will close before I can check it again, so farewell to everyone who has contibuted to this engaging discussion, and Maranatha!
Blessings,
Robb
From my memory, it seems that the prophets always connected repentance with the restoration of Israel.
Erm, not at all. Take careful note of God’s declarations in Ezekiel, chapter 36 in particular. He will restore them to the land NOT because of some action on their part (e.g. repentence) but because His Holy Name requires He show Himself faithful to keep his promises. He will act to demonstrate his holiness to the nations, not because Israel does something to earn it.
Nate (or someone else) can give you the Biblical passages that relate to your larger question of restoration to the land before spiritual revival. I’m pretty sure it is related to the dry bones that are in the valley before they are brought to life, but I’m not entirely sure without reviewing it all.
I’m just starting a session mp3 called “Thy Kingdom Come” by Bill Barrick from Shepherds’ Conference 2007. It might be helpful to the discussion of OT proof of a future kingdom, but as I’m just starting it now and it will probably end after this comments thread is closed, I can only let you know that it MIGHT be helpful, hehe. =)
Robb,
Thanks for your interaction — and for a helpful answer to my question about Israel.
As far as Israel returning in unbelief, I would direct you to this article by Thomas Ice.
As far as needing to evangelize modern Jews, we would totally agree. They are in need of Jesus Christ as much as any unsaved Gentile.
Thanks again for your interaction over the past week. I believe it’s been a profitable discussion.
May the Lord bless your ministry as you continue to serve Him faithfully.
- NB
Btw, 30-35 minutes in, Mr. Barrick does address the claim that the promise of the land was fulfilled in Joshua’s time.
A miscellanous thought:
Should the NT use of the OT be our hermeneutical key?
I do not think such can be maintained for at least five reasons.
First, certain passages in the New Testament point to a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (cf. Rom 11:26-29; Rev 20:1-6).
Second, the New Testament does not provide a consistent pattern for how to interpret the Old Testament (as was noted earlier).
Third, the New Testament authors were inspired, while modern day interpreters work only under illumination.
Fourth, no New Testament writer ever explicitly states that an Old Testament promise has been abrogated or should be interpreted in a spiritual manner.
And, finally, a spiritual approach to hermeneutics reduces objectivity while multiplying interpretations.
In light of earlier comments with JSB and Robb, I thought this might be helpful to the discussion.
Thanks,
NB
–> You can also see Matt Waymeyer’s helpful article here.
Thanks, Nate, but I don’t think Matt understood the analogy, or at least doesn’t deal with it directly. Seems to be working too hard to avoid it, which is what a lot of Premil-presuppositional argumentation feels like. If you look at the analogy and arguments again, #1 gets A, but in a higher and better form.
You see, they ARE getting the LAND, the REST (which is what was truly BEHIND the land. See Heb. 4). All this is fulfilled on the New Earth. And where do you think the New Earth comes from? (Hint: It is not the moon Phobos). Premils want to LIMIT the promises to an old earth. But limitation of any kind is a very strange thing to want to do with God.
I’ve read the epistle of Barnabas and don’t come to the same conclusion as Kromminga. It’s always difficult to posit conclusions about evidence that doesn’t exist (such as Jewish land based thinking in the early church, of which there is none).
If we argue in this fashion, what I find astonishing is the lack of land promise reiteration in the NT. If this is truly God’s plan, why didn’t it get picked up by the Apostles? Whenever “inheritance” is used, it’s for the church.
JSB,
Robb and I discussed this a bit yesterday in the thread. Are you implying that the “new earth” is simply a revision of this earth? That seems unlikely in light of 2 Peter 3.
As I told Robb yesterday (the phrases in quotes come from one of Robb’s comments):
If the “new earth” is a different earth than “this earth” (which will be destroyed by fire according to 2 Peter 3:7, 10), then how can the OT prophecies be taken “quite literally” when they refer to a different planet altogether? Even if “it will be greater and more glorious,” it is still different. It is not “this earth.”
I am not trying to be trite or play word games. But it is difficult for me to understand how God’s promises could be “literally” fulfilled in a way that is different than what He said.
After all, if God wanted to fulfill His millennial promises in heavenly kingdom (on the new earth), He could have communicated that in a way that was straightforward. He could have simply said, “Your ancestors possessed this land, but you will possess a different land far greater than this.” But that is not what He said. What He said is, “You will possess the very land that your ancestors possessed” (my paraphrase, of course).
As premillennialists, we are not trying to limit God’s promises. We are trying to take them seriously — expecting that God will do exactly what He promised His people He would do.
If the plain sense makes sense, why would we want to spiritualize it to mean something different?
Again, thank you for your thoughts. It has been a pleasure to interact.
- NB
Sarah,
Thanks for responding. I’m not sure I can add to what Nate said, but I’ll see if I can be a bit more clear for you.
The issue is not do premills take “everlasting” as literal or not. The issue is which meaning of the Hebrew word “olam” (translated as “everlasting” in Gen 17:8) is intended by the author because the word has a range of meanings?
As stated, the word itself does not mean endless, and to assign it that meaning apart from context is fallacious. If you want to assign the meaning of “neverending possession” (eternal, everlasting), then what in the context is driving you to do so?
I am saying that the “everlasting possession” of land is qualified by the earlier statement “the land of your sojournings,” and therefore “endlessness” is not the best sense of “olam” in this context. To repeat, I am saying in this context it does not mean “endless” or “eternal.” The best sense to understand it in, given the context is indefinite continuance into the very distant future—no definite time intended by the author. In retrospect, having further revelation from God beyond just Genesis (now we have the whole Bible), that land will be destroyed prior to the creation of the new heavens and new earth, thus bringing an end to the existence of that land following the 1000 year reign of Messiah. This is in perfect harmony with the understanding of “olam” that I am advocating, and fully supportable in context of Gen 17. For further explanation on the Abrahamic Covenant and a brief discussion related to our comments here, reference the article at http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj10n.pdf
So your question, “how long is that time and maybe that time was fulfilled in the OT… who’s to say it wasn’t since we don’t have a specific time frame.”
This is a fair question. I think I understand what you’re saying. Because there is not a definite time assigned to the word “olam”, then how do we know it wasn’t fulfilled? I’d say more if I had time, but since 5pm is coming soon, I’ll leave you with a reference to Dr. Barrick’s “Thy Kingdom Come” seminar at Shepherds Conference 2007 as he deals more in depth with these issues of at least the land.
JSB,
Regarding the Epistle of Barnabas, I was simply citing an amillennial scholar (who has studied the epistle of Barnabas at length) to show that we must be careful when making absolute statements about the patristic age.
Whether the church fathers were dispensationalists or not, we are still left with the fact that premillennialism existed in the early church. This, in my opinion, is something that amillennialists still need to deal with seriously.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
NB
My closing thoughts on this discussion:
First, I would very much like to thank our amillennial and postmillennial brothers for joining in this discussion – and for doing so in a gracious and cordial way. I believe the love of Christ is put on display, and Christ Himself is honored, when we discuss our disagreements (over secondary issues) in a way that preserves our Christian testimony. As has been noted numerous times throughout this discussion, we will all spend eternity together worshipping the Risen Lamb.
Second, I would like to emphasize the many points of agreement that we share. Obviously, we are united on the gospel. It is this foundational level that allows us to fellowship together and to stand united for the truth. But even in eschatology, we share much in common. We all cling tenaciously to the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:11–14). We all look forward to our future resurrection, based on the historic resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15). We all anticipate the heavenly reward we will receive for our faithfulness on earth (cf. 2 Tim. 4:6-8). We all await our heavenly rest (Heb. 4), and the wonders of heavenly worship (Rev. 4–5), when we will see our Savior face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). The essence and foundation of our hope does not differ, even if our eschatological timelines might.
This is not to say, of course, that eschatology is unimportant. Nor does it gives us the right to give up on the topic – and join the ranks of “pan-millennialism” (where it all “pans out” in the end). We recognize that there are things “hard to understand” (as Peter wrote of Paul’s letters — 2 Pet 3:16), yet we continue to diligently apply ourselves to the task of study and application. We believe, as Christ promised, that if we apply ourselves to understanding even the prophetic portions of Scripture, we will be blessed (Rev. 1:3; 22:7).
But why make such a big deal about eschatology? I like Darrell Bock’s answer: “At stake are God’s promises and the trustworthiness of His Word in commitment to Israel about a land and a kingdom” (Coming Millennial Kingdom, 190). For me this is (and remains) the issue. God proved His faithfulness by literally fulfilling prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming (cf. Matt 2:5-6; John 7:42), and we are confident that He will literally fulfill His promises to the church. So why would OT promises regarding Christ’s second coming be any different? We don’t believe that they are. We believe that God keeps His Word to the letter, having made His promises in a straight-forward manner. Hence, we are premillennialists.
For those interested in studying the premillennial perspective in more depth, please see the links we posted at the beginning of this series (on Monday) and throughout. For those who want a good laugh at the expense of dispensationalists, please see this link.
May the Lord be honored with us all, as we pursue Him in faithfulness and eagerly wait for His return. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.
- NB