In this convo we will discuss the millennial reign of Christ.
The three classic views of the millennial reign of Christ are Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism. (premill, amill, postmill)
The primary scripture associated with this topic is the first part of Revelation 20, though all three positions would cite passages throughout the cannon of scripture to bolster their position.
To see what each position believes the wikipedia article is not too bad and can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
I'll let you do the research on the positions, and we can hash it out in the comments.
My Position: Amillennial. We currently live under the Lordship of Christ in His millennial reign. At the end of this age Satan will be loosed, a time of great wickedness will occur, then Christ will return. Immediately the White Throne Judgement will commence.
This may taking the discussion in a more broad direction, but in Matthew 28:20 when Jesus says "...and surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Do you think he is making a reference to the end times as in the end of the age of man (before the second coming) or the end of the age of Satan (after the new heavens and new earth)?
ReplyDeletemost commentators agree that this is meant to be an assurance from Christ that lasts until the end of the 'Church' age. Or until the second coming or eternity. At which point He will be obviously with us and we will need no assurance. I do not see that passage as putting a finite limit to his 'being with us'. In other words He is not saying I will be with you till the end of the age and no longer... instead it is a 'I am always going to be with you, all the way from now till the very end. When I will reign visibly and eternally.'
ReplyDeleteThat's my 2 cents.
So in Matthew 12:32 when it says, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." is "this age" referring to the age leading up to Christ's second coming and "the age to come" the age of Christ's reign on earth or the age of new heaven and new earth? If "this age" refers to the age leading up to Christ's second coming, then I think when Jesus says "I will be with you till the end of the age" he is alluding to their reception of the Holy Spirit. That through the Holy Spirit, he will be with us. Later, he will come down to earth, bind Satan, and reign for a thousand years.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great question, but I think you are making a connection that is not there.
ReplyDeleteChrist is speaking here of the tremendous gravity of speaking against the Holy Spirit (a topic I admittedly do not comprehend well). His purpose is to make clear the gravity of this sin, if you speak against the Holy Spirit you will not be forgiven now, nor in eternity, you are utterly lost. Trying to match up ages and such seems to go beyond Christ's intent with this teaching.
But you agree that when Jesus says "I will be with you until the end of the age" he is referring to the end of the age of the "church" as you put it. So you don't take the ages used in Matt 12:32 literally, but you do take the one used in Matt 28:20 literally?
ReplyDeleteYou’re wrong on your assessment of what I said. I do believe Jesus was saying that He would be with us till the end of the age, which is ‘time’, or the Church age, I also believe that it is a given (no need to state it) that he will be with us in eternity. If you notice in my previous comment I make it clear that He is not speaking as though he is only going to be with us a finite time. I think my interpretation is consistent. Possibly my usage of the term age is confusing, I merely see this ‘age’ as temporal, time, whatever, and the age to come is eternity. I consistently take that same approach to both passages you cited.
ReplyDeleteI also think my interpretation is both literal and reasonable. The premill position requires these ages to mean something more than time and eternity, but they must be fashioned into different dispensations in order to make their interpretation of Revelation fit. Again, I do not think plain reading of those two passages would lead anyone to a conclusion other than time and eternity as the two different ages. The premill person is always trying to figure out which age is being referred to each time ‘age’ is mentioned. They ask “Is this speaking of current church age, tribulation, millennium, eternity... or what?” We Amill don’t really wrestle with that question much at all. Jesus said He would be with us until the end of the age, there is nothing for me to figure out there... I know he is giving me assurance that He will remain with us until the end of time, no need to figure more out than that. When Jesus says that a sin will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come, I know that sin will not be forgiven currently, nor will it be forgiven in eternity, again nothing much to figure out. I imagine some people find the amill position to be too simplistic, in the same way I find the premill position to be too complex, and unnecessarily so.
You may want to look up the difference between dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist thinking. I am firmly non-dispensationalist but there are many strong scholars on both sides of this issue. There are not essential issues to salvation, but they are not trivial either by any means.
In my "research" of dispensational thinking...I found that most dispensationalists believe that the millenial kingdom will be theocratic in nature or that God will reign as a divine "civil ruler" whereas nondispens believe that the millenial kingdom will be more about God's salvation rather than his "civil rule". Is this what you believe?
ReplyDeletebschilling2-
ReplyDeleteI would indeed agree that it is more about God's salvation than Civil rule. I think the error of dispensational premilennial thinking is the same error the Jews made when they were waiting for a political ruler to come, and instead they got a baby in a feeding trough that died on a cross.
The error of the time of Christ was that unbelieving Israel were all awaiting their messiah and they missed the fact that He was present with them. The amill believer would say this is also the problem of the Church today. They await a reign that is already here.
If you notice premill dispys are obsessed with politics... obsessed with what's going on in the middle east... and constantly trying to figure out who anti-christ is, and what each earthquake means, and whatever. Now from the Amill position we still believe in the return of Christ, we still believe in an end times falling away, judgement, an unleasing of satan upon the world, and so on. Those things are pretty universal beliefs of Amil, postmil and premil. However in the Amil position we do not have anxiety, or even intense interest in these political happenings around the world anymore than we have interest in the happenings down the street, because we are in the millennial reign and as believers we submit to Christ's *current* reign over us to influence whatever sphere we are in. The other stuff is distraction.
(When I say 'we amil' I am really just speaking my own perspective, I am not sure all other amil's agree with me on all of this.)
I really appreciate this dialog, it is helping me greatly to work through some of my beliefs, and I am very blessed to have you as a convo partner on this.
one caution though, I do not negate that Christ will physically reign on this earth after the white throne judgement, and after this current millennial reign. I'd ref rev 21 for that.
ReplyDeletedon't think that I do not believe at all in a physical reign of Christ, I do. I do not think it will look anything like a civil authority though.
I think Nate and Daniel need to jump in here, or better yet maybe you could get one of your bible teachers from TCS to jump in. I kinda feel like I am giving premill dispensationalism an unfair shake in this. Again, I affirm that there are men and women far more intelligent and Godly than I who hold the premill position, and they should be represented in this conversation.
ReplyDeleteBut doesn't the Bible say that there will be anti-Christ? when do you think the anti-Christ will come or has he already?
ReplyDeleteAlso when Jesus is talking to his disciples about "end times" he tells them things like "nation will rise up against nation" and before that he says not to believe those that will say "the time is near". Have these things already happened? or are these things that will still precede the second coming?
I agree...in both regards. this is really informative and i can honestly say im definitely reconsidering my millennial beliefs.
I think they're worried that you'll show them up on their beliefs...but I could be wrong. Or maybe they're just doing a whole bunch of research and they'll completely destroy your view...
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind having my view destroyed if it is wrong!
ReplyDeleteRegarding Anti-Christ:
Try to forget for a moment the idea of an end times individual leader called anti-christ and read the following passages regarding antichrist. Realize that in most of 'popular' Christianity an end times political leader antichrist is presupposed. So the following passages are read through the lens of that presupposition. However, if you take it out of the 'political' or 'civil' realm you will see an entirely different picture of antichrist. Also note that the passages below are the only passages that mention 'antichrist' by that term. Premil will associate the beast in revelation to be antichrist, but it is a mistake in terms.
Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.
(1 John 2:18 ESV)
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
(1 John 2:22 ESV)
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
(1 John 4:2-3 ESV)
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
(2 John 1:7 ESV)
If you look at 2 John 1:7 closely you will see something interesting. Contrast the first sentence of the verse with the second. Notice how it goes from plural to singular. The point is that antichrist is a singular spiritual force that is effective in many deceivers.
ReplyDeleteI would go on to say that this focus on a singular human being as the antichrist has rendered the church blind to the current effects of the spirit of antichrist active in deceivers all over the place.
Now with regard to the beast in revelation, I am not sure how to address that. I have not researched much on that, but even in the case of the beast it does not appear to be a temporal civil leader. I would question anyone who has found a way to take some literal hard stand on the beast in revelation as the language is so veiled in apocalyptic language.
The one thing we must take from revelation is that the entire vision throbs with the glory of God, the pureness of Christ, and the horror of sin. If we would take those things out of it we would be far better off than trying to fit it all into a neat end times scenario.
That is so true though...people seem to have a very narrow image of the antichrist as a very prominent individual. I don't think I've ever read those verses without "reading past" the antichrist part because I think I know what "he" is already. You know what I mean? This is really cool...I'm glad to have had a wrong impression.
ReplyDeleteI think I've always assumed that the beast talked about in revelation was referring to Satan...not the antichrist. Or maybe the beast is just a messenger for the devil??
I know exactly what you mean, when you say you are glad to be wrong. I have actually presupposed so many wrong things and assumed countless things to be the biblical literal positions, and later to have my mind changed altogether by actually reading the scripture without presupposing the typical understanding. I imagine I still have countless wrong ideas that will come to light where I will be glad to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteBe careful though, certain items are very personal to people and questioning them can get you in unnecessary debates over non-essentials. Grace is key.
I am thinking I am going to start a new thread on a different topic. I don't want to end this thread, but hope some other voices will jump in.
I appreciate the invitation to this blog. I don't know you yet Jay, but my name is Dennis Rabb and I teach English and Bible at TCS. I would have to say that for the most part I wholeheartedly affirm your amil approach. I think that by starting in Matthew 24 the premil position faces some immediate problems. The disciples comment on the wonders of the Temple, their focal point for God's revelation, and Jesus tells them that it would be destroyed. What follows in Matthew 24 and 25 is in my mind referring to two separate events: the destruction of Jerusalem. . .specific events of destruction and turmoil; and the Second Coming of Christ. . .it would be unexpected, no one knowing the day or time. It would come suddenly and without warning, just like in the days of Noah. Matthew 25 is a continuation of the Second Coming scenario, I think. Those virgins who are not ready do not experience the unexpected and sudden coming of the Bridegroom.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing, Jesus says concerning the the first event, that "this generation would not pass before all these things come to pass." This literally took place in 70 A.D.. All of this would have been incredibly confusing for the disciples, who expected the Messiah to come in glory in the Temple.
On another note, I would be curious as to how you view the 70 weeks of Daniel, and how it might fit into the amil approach to the end times.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to interact.
Mr Rabb, Im glad you joined. I would be interested to know what other teachers in our school would believe. I would've just assumed that most everyone in our school would be premil just because of the influence of the media and its effect on peoples theology, but obviously thats not the case.
ReplyDeleteI think that you would be correct. We had a meeting of the current high school Bible teachers the other day, and all of the them are basically premil/ dipensational. I would say the Mr. Dressel might be a bit more open to another view, like the amil. One big issue concerning the differences which hasn't been mentioned between the two views--amil and dipensational premil--is the notion of one or two covenants. Most amils believe that there is one covenant, period. This is with anyone who would receive Jesus as Lord. . . today this is includes those in the Church. The dispensational view sees Israel and their restoration as crucial to end times theology. Most amils would contend that the fact Israel being reformed as a nation is interesting, but not an essential component of God's end times plan, since most of them already rejected their Messiah. The Old Covenant is just that, and as it says in Hebrews, why would we return to a "shadow" when we have the real in Christ. This view would probably not be very popular among most teachers at TCS.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance I would agree with the amil position concerning the covenants. To be very blunt I think the time of Israel as God's chosen people has come and gone...not saying he doesn't love them...but rather that, like you said, their reformation isn't neccessary to end times.
ReplyDeleteI'm also wondering if other teachers would be able to defend premil/dispen simply for the sake of discussion. As you can tell I would be interested in hearing what they have to say...especially someone as "matter-of-fact" as Mr Dressel or Mr Sheets.
this is a great thread guys. I am glad that Mr Rabb (should I call you Dennis?) mentioned the one covenant implications, as this is one of the most important implications, there are many others as well. In fact if we get into discussing dispensationalism we really open a whole new can of worms.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Ben, it would be appropriate to get one or two Premill folks in this convo, b/c it is easy to dismiss something when nobody is representing it. I could bring in a few from the twitter world, but I'd rather they be people we actually know and see from time to time.
Ben, you should be able to grant Mr. Rabb admin priveleges that would allow him to invite others. Also, you do not have to be a member of this site to post in the comments, only to create new topics. Currently we have commenting set for all to be able to. We can change that at any time if it becomes necessary.
Ben- what makes you think Israel's time has come and gone? I do agree with you, but what informs that position?
ReplyDeleteWell I just think that throughout most of the Old Testament and into some of the New Testament God's chosen people were the Israelites. That all changed when Jesus came came along with the Holy Spirit to "give rise to Christians" persay...the curtain to the holy of holies tearing was a big indication of the no longer existant inability to communicate with God outside of the temple. God made a new covenant with those who believe in his Son and accept him as their Lord and Savior.
ReplyDeleteMr Rabb, if you would like to invite other teachers who might like to contribute their opinions you are very welcome to and are now able to.
ReplyDelete"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days."
ReplyDeleteThis is Daniel 12:11-12
i just read this recently and wondered if anyone had any comments on it
Nathan, I am not convinced that these passages pertain to events in the future, but I cannot give you a solid explanation for them without doing some research.
ReplyDeleteI would offer this caution though when thinking of 'end times' things. We know in Acts 2:16 onward, after Pentecost Peter quotes from Joel assuring that Pentecost ushered in what the OT prophets called the 'last days'. So when we deal with eschatology (last days) we are dealing with the time of Christ's ascension and giving of the Holy Spirit all the way until the new heavens and new earth. In other words, we have been in the end times for the last 2000 years. In fact I think Acts 2:16-21 should cause a lot of hyper end-timers (Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsay... etc...) to start to question themselves a little.
With Acts 2:16-21, the OT prophecies in Daniel, and even the prophecies in the Gospels themselves take on different time frame options than what we are accustomed to in contemporary theology.
What I mean is this, if 2000 years ago was the last days, and tomorrow is also the last days, there is the strong possibility that many 'last days' prophecies were already fulfilled. Last Days encompasses both the past 2000 years, and however many years are to come.
Nathan, I have actually been reading that very passage recently. First, you may already know this, the abomination that causes desolation, also mentioned by jesus in mark 13, is sometimes said to be the antichrist or man of lawlessness as described in 2 thessalonians. the abomination could also be nero, who after "the daily sacrifice" was abolished (jesus death and resurrection), destroyed jerusalem. the days are interesting too...in a few verses before that, the man clothed in linen says it will be "a time, times, and half a time" until the things daniel saw were to be fulfilled. a time, times, and half a time is 3.5 years and interestingly enough when you divide 1290 or 1335 by 365 you get about 3.5 years...correlation? i dont know, but i doubt anything of any significance.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it and the more I read, the more I start to take the side of postmil or amil. Especially now that I've been trying not to assume when i read, I've been finding that a lot of the things we read concerning end times could have and may have already happened.
welcome to the dark side ben.
ReplyDeleteI'll admit that I am not sure between postmill and amill. Postmill gets confusing when dealing with the time between pentecost and 70ad, it also requires a little bit different take on Paul as he speaks about Israel. It is almost as if the time of Pentecost to 70ad destruction of the temple and dispersion of Israel is a segue time, or an overlap of the old and new covenant. (That is in postmill). Which means as Paul is addressing issues surrounding Israel he is working them through this segue. Again, I am not too sharp on postmill yet, but it is to compelling to just dismiss altogether.
NT Wright's work "The New Perspective on Paul" is supposed to be a great work dealing with this very thing (the transition between covenants). I have not read it, I have heard postmill people rave over it, I have heard others call it heresy.
Postmill seems to me to actually take the 'dual covenant' stance that premill takes, except postmill only allows for the dual covenant until the 70ad destruction, at which point the covenant ends. So postmill would take a somewhat similar stance on some of the 'dual covenant' language in Romans for instance, except that postmill would affirm that Paul doing His writing in the midst of the covenant overlap and was explaining the very present (at the time of his writings) passing away of the old covenant.
ReplyDeletePostmill and Amill are indeed fairly similar, we can talk more later on postmill.
Btw, I have invited Michelle Davidson to the convo, she is bright and well studied in the scriptures and I think she has much to offer this and the other convos. I also am pretty sure she is premill, pretrib which could give us a better perspective of that position being as Nathan and Daniel refuse to speak up :)
I actually just finished that evening of eschatology video, Jay. The postmill guy was talking about the overlapping covenants and I was a bit confused. I mean I understood what he was saying I just had never heard that view or seen it referenced in scriptures.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that I still can't get away from with the whole premill perspective is the "reigned with Christ a thousand years" thing. I understand that there is a lot of symbolism that is used throughout the book but I dont understand why, for instance, in Revelation 11:15 john uses the words "reign for ever and ever". That seems pretty clear to me...I dont think he meant anything but what he wrote there. Everything else that amill and postmill brings up I have come to realize and, for the most part, agree with.
postmill does believe in a literal 1000 year tangible reign... after the Gospel has gone out to all the nations and the world becomes largely Christian and living in obedience to the Gospel.
ReplyDeleteObviously (from a postmill perspective) we are not yet at the brink of the millenial reign, but maybe a few hundred or thousand years from now the world will be gospel saturated and fit for the Christ to reign. Not sure where I am at with all of that.
I still roll amill, non literal 1000 years.
Just for the record, I made a slight mistake on what I said about postmill. Postmill believes in a literal 1000 years where the Gospel is the obvious authority and Christ clearly reigns supreme (but not physically / visibly.) After that literal 1000 years he then returns. Thus he returns post millenially. Sorry for any confusion I may cause.
ReplyDeleteI guess with that description I would agree with postmill more. I think the 1000 years should be literal and I have thought before that Christ would return when the Gospel has been spread throughout the world and now I see it as a legitimate view among believers - postmill that is.
ReplyDeleteI am certainly still open to post-mill as well, but it is difficult to stomach the idea that things are all constantly getting 'better' until the Gospel is dominate when we seem to see regression all around us. Our experience seems to speak against postmill, but I would also say that we ought not think of our experience as authoritative by any means.
ReplyDeleteI want postmill to be true! That is the eschatology I most desire, but... is it scriptural?
You've peaked my interest yet again, so I will continue to look at post-mill. I think I am pretty firmly not premill, but certainly open to postmill.
Listen to this from Jonathan Edwards, He was postmill... excuse the computer reading.
Take your time with it, it's a little odd at first, but maybe worth the listen. He takes a lot of scripture and claims that they are yet to be fulfilled. Makes a very strong case for post mill. I am nearly convinced.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=26091147262