Historic Premillennialism

http://www.SoloChristo.com/ ^ | 09/21/02 |  Fred G. Zaspel

[RnMomof7]

One of the more startling aspects of the NT message is its repeated announcement that in Jesus Christ the future has come to the present. Our Lord Himself, His forerunner John the Baptist, and His apostles all announce and extrapolate on this theme.

The Baptist's announcement was, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mat. 3:2; cf. Mk.1:14-15). For the apostle Paul, Christ came "when the fullness of time was come," or more simply, when time had become full (Gal.4:4). Moreover, in Christ, Paul declared, God had come good on all His ancient promises (2Cor.1:20). And this was no mere opinion of the significance of the Lord Jesus taken up solely by His enthusiastic followers; our Lord spoke of Himself in these very terms.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Mat. 5:17). "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them" (Lk.10:23-24). "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached" (Lk.16:16). ". . . the kingdom of God is come to you" (Mat.12:28).

Moreover, this is the very thing Jesus instructed His disciples to preach (Mat.10:7; cf. Mat.24:14; Lk. 10:9). Clearly, what had been the long hope of Israel had come in the Person of Jesus Christ. The promised realities of the eschaton have come. The kingdom of God is now.

This accounts for the eschatological nature of NT soteriology. For example, salvation is defined in such eschatological terms as "eternal life," "resurrection," and present entrance into the kingdom (e.g., Jn.5:24). In Paul the "justification" anticipated for the righteous as they would stand at the bar of God's judgment is in Christ a present reality, something enjoyed by faith ahead of time (e.g., Rom.5:1). The blessings of the New Covenant, which today's believer enjoys, are themselves (originally) cast in an eschatological context (cf. Jer.31:31ff; Ezek.36:22ff). Christ has already delivered us from "this present evil age" (Gal.1:4) and has placed us into His own kingdom (Col.1:13). We live even now "in the heavenlies" (Eph.2:6). In Christ the future is present; the eschatological kingdom is now.

But as with many areas of Biblical theology, eschatology is not that simple. A just as impressive list of NT statements indicate that the kingdom of God is not yet. We are instructed to pray, "Thy kingdom come" (Mat.6:10). Christ's kingdom is regularly associated with His second coming (Mat.25:34; Lk.19:11-15, etc.).¹ To see Christ one day as He comes in His kingdom is the object of the Christian's hope.

Plainly, then, the kingdom -- the eschaton -- is both now and not yet. It is present in its spiritual and "mystery" form (Mat.13:1-52), but it awaits the return of the King for its full manifestation (e.g., 2Tim.4:1).

Eschatological Differences

With this much most amillennialists and premillennialists would agree. There is both a present and a future aspect to Christ's kingdom, a present realization and a future manifestation. The point of disagreement concerns the way in which the fulfillment is brought about in the eschaton. Amillennialism sees in the eternal state the full manifestation of the promises; this is ushered in immediately upon the return of Jesus Christ. Premillennialists see the kingdom promises fulfilled in history upon the return of Jesus Christ; this "inter-regnum" period issues in to the eternal state. Both agree to the present realization of the kingdom; the difference lies in the understanding of its character in the eschaton.

More specifically, to state the issue in the form of a question, does the Scripture speak of the eschatological kingdom as fulfilled in history? Perhaps better: Does the eternal state follow directly upon the return of Jesus Christ? Or does a kingdom period intervene?

Approach

At the end of the discussion, the decision will have to rest not on hermeneutical presuppositions, an assumption which has for too long been the excuse for failure to complete the more difficult task of exegesis. We have already seen that our Lord has left us with a hermeneutic of considerable tension, and there have been interpretive errors made on both sides. There have been those who see virtually no fulfillment of the kingdom promises in this present age; for them, kingdom truth is wholly a concern of the future. Their's is an over-literalized eschatology. Others, however, ignoring the "not yet," have presented what we may rightly call an over-realized eschatology. For them, virtually all of prophecy is already fulfilled, and the Bible is all but silent on the future. But the hermeneutic which our Lord gave us is one of now and then.

The question of this further manifestation of the kingdom prior to the eternal state, however, is a question not of hermeneutics but of exegesis. The basic framework given by our Lord could feasibly allow for either. What must be examined specifically are those passages which provide a chronological framework for the future. What is offered here are some miscellaneous thoughts from these passages. Perhaps more details will be taken up at a later time.

Revelation 20

Perhaps we should begin with Rev.20, the crux interpretum and focus of the most heated debate. This passage presents a period of time, designated as a thousand years (hence, millennium), during which Satan is bound and cast into the abyss and thus unable to deceive the nations (vv.1-3). At the beginning of this period is a "resurrection" of the faithful (vv.4-5). Following the thousand years is the release of Satan and a final rebellion (vv.7-9), the final destruction of Satan (v.10), and the second resurrection (vv.5-6; 13). These are the basic facts with which we must work.

In the context (19:11ff) our Lord is portrayed as coming to earth in triumphal glory and taking vengeance upon His enemies. That John intends for us to understand this millennium to be following this return seems evident from his repeated use of the chronological kai ("and") used throughout (cf. 19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, etc.). Whatever details and meanings are involved in the symbolism which John employs, the stated order of events is,

1) Return of Christ in victory (19:11-21)
2) Destruction of the evil triumvirate (the beast, the false prophet, and Satan) in which Satan is deposed to the abyss (19:19-20:3)
3) First resurrection (20:4)
4) 1,000 year kingdom (ebasileusan . . . basileusousin, 20:4-6)
5) Release of Satan and a final rebellion (20:7-9)
7) Final destruction of Satan, who now is cast into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet have been (20:10)
8) Second resurrection & final judgment (20:11-15)

The entire passage, so it seems at first glance at least, reads as one continuous narrative. In modern theological jargon, Christ's return here is premillennial. He comes and personally brings His kingdom to its consummation.

Many, however, have understood the events of chapter 20 as a "recapitulation," describing events actually prior to our Lord's return. These interpreters often take refuge in the fact that much of the book of Revelation is symbolic and not to be taken literally. But whatever the significance of the symbolic language employed, the chronological framework of the passage -- Christ's coming, Christ's Kingdom, the eternal state -- leaves us with premillennialism. Moreover, explicit exegetical support for the recapitulation theory is sadly lacking; it is difficult to demonstrate any compelling reason which would make necessary such an inversion of the order of the events which John describes. It is a theological proposition, and it is one which at least appears to run against John's own chronological casting of the passage.² It is a hermeneutical consideration placed upon the text; it is not derived from the text itself. And there is exegetical necessity for saying so.

The Binding of Satan

First, the binding of Satan is said to have a specific purpose: "so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished" (v.3). That is, during this time Satan's activity is terminated. Now it has been suggested that this pictures this gospel age in which Christ's work proceeds more or less unhindered by the "strong man" who by Him is now "bound" (cf. Mat.12:28-29). Satan, so this theory goes, is not allowed today to successfully hinder the gospel. Further support is often gleaned from Rev.12:7ff where Satan is seen as "cast out" of heaven (v.9).

But the parallel is not as obvious as it might at first appear. Is the binding and fall of Satan in Mat.12 and Rev.12 the same as that of Rev.20? And how can we know? The text itself should provide some clues. Interestingly enough, a comparison of Rev.12 and Rev.20 demonstrates not a parallel but a contrast.

Most agree that Rev.12 speaks of this age, whether the church age as such or the tribulation period. Can Rev.20 be the same? Here is the data with which we must work toward our decision:

1) In Rev.12 Satan's time is "short" (v.12), but the time frame in Rev.20 is "a thousand years."
2) In Rev.12 he is cast from heaven to earth, but in Rev.20 he is cast from earth to the abyss.
3) In Rev.12 he frantically carries out a furious rampage over the earth, but in Rev.20 he is confined to the abyss.
4) Still more significantly, in Rev.12:9 Satan, on the loose, "deceives (planao) the whole world"; but in Rev.20:3 it is precisely this deception (planao) that is denied and disallowed (v.3).

Now plainly, if both passages speak of the same age, we have a contradiction. But if Rev.12 speaks of this age and Rev.20 speaks of the age to come, the tension is resolved. Indeed, chapter 20 is most easily seen as the happy answer and conclusion of the events described in chapter 12. There is obvious contrast, not identity.

Furthermore, when amillennialists ask us to equate the binding of Satan described in Rev.20 with descriptions of his defeat in places such as John 12:31 -- that is, that this be understood in a gospel sense, a work accomplished on the cross -- we must ask, Then in what sense will this binding be over at the end of the "thousand years"? The victory of Christ over Satan in His death and resurrection was final, once and for all. It is impossible to understand that as having only a thousand year duration, whatever may be symbolized by the numerical term.

Note again, the approach here does not rest on presuppositions, prior assumptions about literary genre, or the meanings of symbols in the passage. Nor does it import ideas from outside the text itself. Further, it must be admitted that if this observation is correct -- that Satan's inability to deceive the world in Rev.20 is a different time frame from that of his active deception in Rev.12 -- then we are left with premillennialism.

Still there is more to be said on this point. Whatever symbolism is involved, Satan "bound" with a "chain," "shut up" and "sealed" in the abyss does not speak of a mere curtailing of his activity; it plainly represents its cessation. Satan is incarcerated; he is not on parole. It has often been said in jest that if Satan is bound now, he is on an awfully long chain! But plainly, the text does not allow for a long chain. His activity is brought to a halt: he is bound, and he is caged.

Satan's four titles are mentioned to emphasize this further: "He laid hold of the dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" (v.2). That is to say, all the activities which these names imply will then be suppressed.

However, the NT everywhere pictures Satan in this present day as on a rampage, as does Rev.12:9 (above). He "walks about seeking whom he may devour" (1Pet.5:8). He "takes men captive at his will" (2Tim.2:26). Satan is the "god of this world" who "blinds the minds" of those who are lost (2Cor.4:4). Paul's own gospel enterprise was hindered by Satanic opposition (1Th.2:18). In this "mystery" stage of the kingdom Satan is permitted to snatch away the gospel seed that is sown, as a bird taking seed from the wayside (Mt.13:4, 19). It is a strange hermeneutic which allows statements such as these to fit within the picture presented in Rev.20:1-3. And it is fair to say in criticism that it does not appear that the motivation behind it is an exegetical one.

The Resurrections

Then there is the issue of the resurrections (Rev.20:4-5). Amillennialists suggest that the first is spiritual (regeneration) and only the second is physical. But how can we know? Spiritual resurrection is clearly a reality for all who are Christ's (e.g., Jn.5:25). The question, however, is what the language of this passage (Rev.20:4-5) requires. Again we are at a loss to find any indication in the text itself that this "first resurrection" is a spiritual one. The Greek term here for "resurrection" (anastasis, vv.5-6) is never used in a spiritual sense anywhere in the NT. Nor is there any interpretive clue, such as the "now is" in Jn.5:25, which would indicate spiritual resurrection. Nor is there definition given which would point us in this direction. To the contrary, these who are raised to life are "those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands" (v.4). The stated contrast is physical death, and the very obvious indication is that the resurrection is a physical one also. It is equated with the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" (v.5), which all sides admit is physical. There is exactly no evidence within the text itself which would indicate a change in the meaning of words, no hint at all that the two resurrections spoken of are of a different nature. Much to the contrary, to shift in mid-stream without express warrant from the text is exegetical chaos. Further, the term ezesan (v.4, "they lived, they came to life," ingressive aorist) elsewhere in the book of Revelation refers only to bodily resurrection (2:8; 13:14), and never is it used in a spiritualized sense. Moreover, the resurrection of these in verse 4 is said to follow, not precede, their faithfulness -- a consideration which allows only a physical resurrection. Once again, the amillennial interpretation, here, rests on presuppositions imported to the passage and that against the most natural reading of the text; it is not grounded in exegesis. And again, if it is wrong at this point, we are left with premillennialism.

Reigning

Then there is the matter of "reigning" and the consideration that this period has a specific time of duration -- one thousand years. Premillennialists assert that the "reigning" of those of the first resurrection is one that involves rule over the lost. It is an authority exercised over rebellious men. This fits well with Rev.2:25-27, where a "rod of iron" is promised to the faithful when Christ returns (cf. 19:15). An iron rod is necessary only in a world of sin. For the amillennialist, on the other hand, the reigning is a spiritual one only, in either of two senses: 1) in the sense of a heavenly vindication of some kind in the intermediate state, or 2) in the sense of the believer's spiritual reigning "in Christ." Neither idea, however, is allowed by the text. 1) The term translated "they came to life" (ezesan) is nowhere in the NT used to describe the continued life of the soul in heaven after the death of the body. Never. It speaks of life after death only in resurrection. It indicates the final state, not the intermediate. Furthermore, the picture presented in Rev.6:9-11 of the saints in heaven during the intermediate state is far from that of "reigning": they are crying out to the Lord for vengeance to be executed upon their oppressors still on earth. In response they are told to "rest" and be patient until the number of martyrs is complete. The situation in chapter 20, however, is the answer to this: when Christ comes in His kingdom, only then will they be raised to reign with Him. Finally, now, their time of vindication has come. And 2) while the term is used outside of the book of Revelation in a spiritual sense (e.g., Jn.5:25), we must ask, In what sense can spiritual reigning be said to last only a thousand years? Will that kind of reign not continue forever? And is it not so that we should expect suffering today and reigning only tomorrow (2Tim.2:12)? Again, the amillennialist suggestion seems neither to rise from nor fit the demands of the passage.

John's Use of the OT

Finally, there is the observation which concerns John's use of the OT. It is often alleged that premillennialists derive their doctrine from the OT and not the NT, and that the NT writers treat the OT kingdom prophecies only in a spiritual way. Yet John's description of the kingdom here is clearly informed by the prophet Ezekiel. And his treatment of the older prophet is not at all a spiritualized one; it is, rather, strikingly parallel. In Ezek.36-37 there is the resurrection of Israel and her restoration to the land under the leadership of the Davidic king (cf. Rev.20:4-6). In chapters 38-39 there is the rebellion of Gog and Magog (cf. Rev.20:7-9). And in chapters 40-48 there is the new Jerusalem dwelling safely and enjoying its restored temple (cf. Rev.21-22). John's handling of the Ezekiel passage is remarkably literal.

So also is his treatment of Dan.7. The multiplicity of "thrones" given to the saints, "seated" thereupon in "judgment" and sharing in the rule of the Son of Man (Dan.7:9, 10, 22) are for John matters of very real expectation.³

Conclusion

The famous admonition of Henry Alford concerning arbitrary interpretation in Rev.20 merits repeating here:

As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatments of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain psychai ezesan ["souls came to life"] at the first, and the rest of the nekroi ezesan ["dead came to life"] only at the end of a specified period after the first, -- if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; -- then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything.⁴

Alford's criticism is a valid one. It is demonstrably evident that the interpreter who admits no inter-regnum period prior to the eternal state in Rev.20 approaches the passage with preconceived notions and leaves with the same; he gains from the text "neither the exact sense nor the value."⁵

First Corinthians 15:20-28

1 Cor.15:20-28 is another passage which provides a chronological framework for the end times. Here Paul asserts that Christ's resurrection is the first of the escathological resurrections. This is more of our now/not yet hermeneutic: Christ's resurrection is part and parcel of the resurrection of the last day, the "firstfruits" (vv.20, 23). His resurrection is not a mere resuscitation to mortal life; it is the resurrection that is yet to come.

Analysis

But it is the order of subsequent events that is significant for our question. There is an "order" to the resurrections: "Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming" (v.23). That is, first there is the resurrection of Christ, then there is the resurrection of the just when Christ returns. So far the parallel to Rev.19-20 is exact.

Verse 24 continues: "Then comes the end." At this point many amillennialists have pronounced the matter settled. "Christ comes, then the end! That's it." But we must insist that Paul does not end his sentence at this point. He continues,

Then (eita) comes the end when (hotan) he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when (hotan) He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. . . . Now when (hotan) all things are made subject to Him, then (tote) the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all" (vv.24-28, italics added).

Paul's language here is not difficult, although it is complex. And we must be careful to understand the meanings of the terms as he used them. The first word of eschatological significance and which provides a chronological indicator is the word which in verse 24 is translated "then" (eita). Interestingly, in Paul's usage this word does not speak in terms of immediate succession (cf. tote, "at that time"). This is evident from its use in verses 5 and 7, as well as the use of the related term, epeita, in verses 6, 7, and 23; a simple examination of any standard Greek concordance will bear this out further. The word is sometimes translated "afterward." It implies an intervening period of time. It speaks to the next in an order of specified events but does not specify the issue of lapses of time between. Nineteen hundred years have already elapsed between the resurrection of Christ and His return (epeita, "afterward," v.23), but this is the elasticity of the term -- a common phenomenon in the prophetic Scriptures. So three distinct stages are put forward: 1) the resurrection of Christ; after that (epeita, how long after?) 2) the resurrection of the just at Christ's return; and after that (eita; how long after? A thousand years, perhaps?) 3) the end.

Further, the apostle outlines an order of coming events. Christ's kingdom, Paul specifies (v.24), is subsequent to His return (v.23). Moreover, this "rule" will involve some period of time (basileuein, present tense; "until," v.25) -- a time marked by the systematic destruction of His enemies.⁶ The "end" (telos) will come only "when" (hotan, "whenever") Christ personally brings His kingdom to its full consummation. Plainly put, Christ's "reign" or "kingdom" will be marked by the gradual destruction of His enemies. This, in turn, is specifically said to follow His return and precede the consummation. This is premillennialism.

The grammar is still more compelling. The aorist subjunctive (katargese, "puts an end, destroys," v.24) is the functional equivalent of a future perfect: "when He shall have put an end." Used as it is with the second hotan ("when") places Christ's destruction of all opposition prior to His "delivering the kingdom to God the Father" in the first hotan clause. We could even translate, "Then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to God and the Father, after having put an end to all rule and all authority and power." The "end" does not come immediately upon the return of Christ. It comes at some time after (eita) His return, "when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when he shall have put an end to all rule and all authority and all power."

This is made even more plain by Paul's explanatory (gar) assertion that after Christ returns "He must reign until (achri) He has put all enemies under His feet" (v.25). Christ's reign is said to follow his return, and it is said to be in order to put down opposition. And this, he says, will take time.

More completely, Paul's picture of the future is as follows:

More completely, Paul's picture of the future is as follows:

1) The resurrection of Christ (v.23a)
2) Christ's return, at which time the dead in Christ are raised (v.23b)
3) Christ's kingdom (vv.24-25, ten basileian . . . basileuein)
4) Christ's destruction of death (v.26 = second resurrection?)
5) The consummation / eternal state (vv.24a, 28)

It is significant, further, that the word for "then" which does indicate concurrent events (tote) is used by Paul in this passage only in verse 28. There he points out that at some time following Jesus' return (v.23), "when all things are made subject to Him, then (tote) the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." That is to say, the eternal state follows immediately not when Christ returns but when after His return He has brought His kingdom to its consummation. Again, it is the terminology itself which leaves us with premillennialism.

Further, Paul specifically states that all the dead will be raised, but "each one in his own order" (v.23). The word translated "order" is tagma, which is a sort of military term and means something like "detachment" or "division." That is, the dead will be raised selectively, according to some kind of rank or regiment. He then specifies that order: 1) the resurrection of Christ, 2) the resurrection of the just. This leaves only, 3) the resurrection of the unjust (cf. v.26). The plain statement is that the dead in Christ are raised separate from the rest (cf. Rev.20:4-6). The final "destruction of death" (v.26) implies 1) the rescue of all men from the domain of death. Death's prey must be loosed; hence, the universal resurrection of all men. And 2) Death will be rendered powerless, unable to again take new victims.⁷

Conclusion

So Rev.20 is not unique. It alone specifies the thousand years, but the basic framework is shared in common with Paul. The resurrection of the dead is in two stages, that of the righteous at His return and that of the wicked at the consummation of His rule. Christ returns in order to bring His kingdom to fruition by systematically destroying each and every enemy. And only then will He present His kingdom to the Father as finally accomplished. All this rules out the postmillennial scheme, which sees Christ as coming after this period of kingly rule. It also rules out the amillennial scheme, which sees Christ coming in order to immediately usher in the eternal state. But it describes the premillennial scheme exactly, which sees Christ as coming to bring His kingdom to consummation and then to usher in the eternal state.

Miscellany

Here are some other passages which provide some chronological data for us to consider.

Luke 19:11-27

Luke offers the interpretive clue to this familiar "parable of the pounds" at the outset. Jesus spoke it "because they thought the kingdom of God would immediately appear" (v.11). To correct such misguided thinking concerning the timing of the kingdom, Jesus tells them about a nobleman who went to another country far away in order to receive for himself a kingdom and then to return with his official power to reign. The reference to Archelaus, who had several years earlier travelled to Rome to receive his official power is unmistakable. But it is this that Jesus likens to His own return. Yes, there is a spiritual aspect to the kingdom; and this is precisely what these people had overlooked. We must "occupy

[PresbyRev]

For the fulfillment of Zech. 12:10 you might want to visit the second chapter of Acts, the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation among other loci in the NT and consider the textual and historical evidences for first century fulfillment. However, since the Church and the NT are plan B for dispies and you would rather be knee-deep in sheep blood living under the Law, you may want to avoid it.

[nate4one]

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts, and saying Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation (2Pe.3:3-4) Just as the Jews gave up looking for the Messiah in the 1st Advent, so the church has given up looking for Him in the 2nd (Titus 2:13)

Many of the fulfillments you claim PresbyRev and I to be a part of, already happened and are already quoted in scripture.
1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
1 John 2:18-19 18 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. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.
Jude 1:4 For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for THIS condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ...8 Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. 11 Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion. 12 These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever. 14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own passions, loud-mouthed boasters, flattering people to gain advantage. 17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 they said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." 19 It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit;

Funny, this is a literal and quoted fulfillment of your verse almost word for word and it was in the first century.
Peter was written before 1 John or Jude!

That does not mean we are not to fulfill our responsibility to be good citizens (vote, jury duty, military) but we know that things are going to get worse not better, espically when the church is removed from the scene.

So you would really believe Christ would have you waste your time?
The world IS NOT getting worse.
1. Do the Indians still sacrifice their children?
2. Are there more saved today that ever in history?
3. Are wars as common and as brutal or are they just more visible with the invention of media?
4. Can you prove natural disasters are more common even though weather has only about a 150 years worth of documantation over the 4-6000 year history of the world?
5. Doesn't civilization, for the majority, improve life, limit disease and starvation, and improve the prospect of peacful living?
6. Would the world BE this civilized without the gospel?

"For God SO LOVED THE WORLD that He gave His only Son, that who would believe in Him would not die, but live forever!"
Um, this, along with the promise to Noah, etc, shows Gods love for THIS world. And you think that he would destroy it?

God created a New Covenant with man New Heavens and Earth) and because of that, He will NEVER destroy this world that HE SO LOVES!!

Your doomsdayism, to anyone with common sense, shows you believe Christ gave you a worthless and futile mission. Which makes Him a fool in the eyes of the world.

But we know the truth about your teaching.

[fortheDeclaration]

The world IS NOT getting worse.

The world is not getting worse?

Now that is funny!

This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof (1Tim.3:1-4)

That is the state of our world today.

If the world is becoming better, leave your house door unlocked or the keys in your car!

[fortheDeclaration]

1. Do the Indians still sacrifice their children?

No, but we do! (abortion, child slavery, molestion)

In fact, it was recently reported that the Hindus sacrificed 125 children.

The Chinese still murder female children and any child over the 'limit'

2. Are there more saved today that ever in history?

Are you kidding?

Who preaches the correct, unwatered down Gospel anymore? (Acts.16:31,1Cor.15:3-5)

3. Are wars as common and as brutal or are they just more visible with the invention of media?

We have had more wars in this century then in any other time in history and they are far more bloody.

When the church is gone, things will really get hot, with nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons being used in a vast level.

4. Can you prove natural disasters are more common even though weather has only about a 150 years worth of documantation over the 4-6000 year history of the world?

All the evidence points to that, espically with more earthquakes in all areas of the world.

5. Doesn't civilization, for the majority, improve life, limit disease and starvation, and improve the prospect of peacful living?

It doesn't change the heart which is wicked and will not change until Christ Himself comes and rules 'with a rod of iron' (Ps.2)

6. Would the world BE this civilized without the gospel?

In a far worse state, but most of the world rejects the Gospel as does even the US today.

Europe is a pagan as the rest of the world.

When the 'salt' is removed from the scene the World will move quickly to be ruled under the Anti-Christ, they do not want the God of heaven with His absolute Holiness, they want the 'form of Godliness' not the standards that it demands.

[fortheDeclaration]

For the fulfillment of Zech. 12:10 you might want to visit the second chapter of Acts, the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation among other loci in the NT and consider the textual and historical evidences for first century fulfillment. However, since the Church and the NT are plan B for dispies and you would rather be knee-deep in sheep blood living under the Law, you may want to avoid it.

Gee, it says that Christ destroys all the nations that come against Jerusalem in the verse before it,(vs.9) and that happened in Acts?

I thought the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus was the completion of prophecy, yet, Christ states He is going to save it!

You guys are in a state of self-delusion!

[fortheDeclaration]

"Any Premillennialist who thinks he is going to change anything has in practice rejected Premill." How consistent. But, why then hang around FR? If you are going to be consistent then you ought to sit passively until your rapture, unconcerned with politics, cultural battles and so on. You and other premills are living on borrowed currency from historic amill/postmill thinking.

Premill. do not care about 'culture' wars, we care about souls being saved and the truth being proclaimed.

I thank you for your post. You have illustrated for me very well that wild-eyed KJV only, dispensational premill. position that is in steep decline.

Ofcourse it is in decline, it was predicted that it would be (2Pet.3:3)

If you are really interested in the answers to your questions, you need to go to http://www.swrb.com/ and visit Still Waters Revival Books and get ahold of some classic works on Zechariah and Revelation. Or, http://www.postmillennialism.com/ which has a number of excellent articles and books. I am quite sure you won't, but that is of course because your exegesis is faulty and fragile and liable to be destroyed with a little light from God's Word.

Well, if the 'answers' that the amills have put forth on these threads are any indication of what those books contain, you are right, I will not waste my time with them (2Pet.3:16)

My hope is built on nothing less Than Scofield notes and Moody Press

My hope is built on the literal reading of prophecy which clearly states that Christ is coming back to set up a literal, physical kingdom.

That was the hope of the Church for the first two centuries, until they got in bed with the World and sold their birthright for a mess of pottage.

[nate4one]

Thank you for commenting on only the "objective" and unprovable opinion portion of my response.
Showing yourselves for the typical pessemists you are.

You clearly have no argument as to the pre AD 70 fulfillment of your passage used as a personal attack on PresbyRev.
Nor a good understanding of the basic intent as to John 3:16.

[nate4one]

I thought the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus was the completion of prophecy, yet, Christ states He is going to save it!
You guys are in a state of self-delusion!

Do not pretend to know our position and then try to prove it false on false pretenses.
The Church is the New Jerusalem and it was being attacked by those who could hurt it most. Those who FIRST had a Covenant with the Lord which He had since changed due to their rejection of His Son.
Mt 21:43 - Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it."

They were trying to decieve many into returning to Judaism based on the first covenant
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

The rest of Galatians defends the Gospel vs returning to Judaism. 1 John and Jude, which still have escaped your proper attention, confirm the goings on of this type or spiritual warfare.

[nate4one]

It is the preterist, the postmillennialist, the optimistic amillennialist who are preparing for the future

Funny how we see this yet the majority of post/amill's see us as the enemy as well.
I am convinced the preterist position, even with it's minor internal disagreements, is the only way for unity in the body.

How can unity come from a false understanding of our mission and purpose on this earth?

[marbren]

Do you like Arafat?

[fortheDeclaration]

I thought the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus was the completion of prophecy, yet, Christ states He is going to save it! You guys are in a state of self-delusion! Do not pretend to know our position and then try to prove it false on false pretenses. The Church is the New Jerusalem and it was being attacked by those who could hurt it most. Those who FIRST had a Covenant with the Lord which He had since changed due to their rejection of His Son.

You all do not have a position, you have a mishmash of utter nonsense!

And I will pour upon the house of David (Zech.12:10)

No one sane (or honest) could twist and distort clear scripture like you are doing!

Zechariah is speaking about racial/national Israel, not the Church!

Mt 21:43 - Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it."

And do you know what the kingdom of God is? It is a spiritual kingdom(Rom.14:17) while the Kingdom of Heaven (only mentioned in the book of Matthew) is a literal, physical Kingdom (Daniel 2:37,44)

They were trying to decieve many into returning to Judaism based on the first covenant Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

And when the Church is removed another Gospel will be preached by an Angel, and that Angel is not condemned for doing so (Rev.14:6) The rest of Galatians defends the Gospel vs returning to Judaism. 1 John and Jude, which still have escaped your proper attention, confirm the goings on of this type or spiritual warfare.

[maestro]

Your# 51)...........................Amen,....and,....AMEN!...................BTTT

[ksen]

I've got little time for passively accepting insults upon my honor and integrity.

Jesus Christ did.

[ksen]

- The ground zero of dispensational premillennialism in the 20th Century was, arguably, Dallas Theol. Sem. DTS has virtually abandoned every distinctive of classical dispensationalism....

Dr. Steve, is this true?

[ksen]

Thanks for the article Mom, it looks like nobody wants to tackle the meat of it though.

[drstevej]

***DTS has virtually abandoned every distinctive of classical dispensationalism....***

Dallas Seminary's doctrinal statement contradicts this assertion. Read articles 5, 8 & 18-21.

We believe that all who are united to the risen and ascended Son of God are members of the church which is the body and bride of Christ, which began at Pentecost and is completely distinct from Israel. Art. VIII

We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive. Art. V

We believe that the translation of the church will be followed by the fulfillment of Israel’s seventieth week (Dan. 9:27; Rev. 6:1–19:21) during which the church, the body of Christ, will be in heaven. The whole period of Israel’s seventieth week will be a time of judgment on the whole earth, at the end of which the times of the Gentiles will be brought to a close. Article XIX.

++++++++

This doctrinal statement, to my knowledge, has not changed since I was a student [1972-1976].

I would ask PresbyRev, asuming this was his statement, to substantiate it in light of the officially stated doctrinal statement. Define and illustrate "abandon" and "distinctive" in the statement, PresbyRev.

[drstevej]

***They hold to radically modified 'progressive dispensationalism' ***

Darrell Bock and whom else on the faculty? Craig Blaising is now at SWBTS.

Why don't you email Lanier Burns, Chair and Senior Professor of Systematic Theology who has taught there for 20 years if your statement is true. I can provide the email address if you like.

[ksen]

Thanks Dr. Steve.

[nate4one]

And do you know what the kingdom of God is? It is a spiritual kingdom(Rom.14:17) while the Kingdom of Heaven (only mentioned in the book of Matthew) is a literal, physical Kingdom (Daniel 2:37,44)

Oh yea. I forgot Christ made the distinguishment between the two? It couldn't possibly be that Matthews audience (Hebrews) understood "Kingdom of God" as being the "Kingdom of heaven."
Nope, there must be a difference even though the SCRIPTURE does not declare one!!!

Your dispensationalism has you holding to physical hopes which will disappoint.
The Jews could not see the spiritual applications and truth of their messiah, and you cannot see them of His promises.
When you die disappointed, ask Him why He did not come back before you died.
He will tell you He did!

[PresbyRev]

A quick response: You may try reading the Zondervan published 'Four Views of Revelation' books which presents both the 'Classical' and 'Progressive' Dispie views and the authors admit in the text that times they are a'changing at Dallas and elsewhere. Irregardless of what the statement of faith may or may not say, faculty, professors and students can subscribe to such with crossed fingers. What Dallas is producing today are not more Walvoords and Ryries. Further, for more documentation on the collapse of classical dispensationalism at DTS and elsewhere, you may wish to purchase or download (for free) "House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology" by Bahnsen and Gentry. You can get the print friendly PDF version at http://www.freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/21e_47e.htm. I apologize for any delay in my response, phone lines in our part of WV are not the best and I've been offline for about 20 hours.

Below see the description of the text. In it you will find some of the rubber-meets-the-road abandonment of old style dispensationalism by its most vocal adherents and various refs. to the changes that have happened and are afoot at DTS.

New Hope For Christians Who Are Ready For A Change

The year 2001 will bring a new millennium: the seventh after the creation and the third after the birth of Jesus Christ. This is the greatest opportunity for evangelism in world history. In less than a dozen years, the world will change drastically. Will it be for the better or the worse? Dispensationalist automatically answer: "Worse!" But their system is in deep trouble. The year 1988 marked the beginning of dispensationalism's "great tribulation": the Rapture did not take place. It was supposed to (actually, it should have taken place in 1981: 1988 - 7 = 1981). The nation of Israel was founded in May of 1948. Forty years constitutes one generation in the Bible, and 1988 was supposed to complete "the generation of the fig tree." Mr. Whisenant's book gave the world 88 reasons why the Rapture would take place in September, 1988, and (he says) over four million copies were printed. People believed!

I didn't happen. Fooled again. And a lot of Christians vowed: Never again! (How about you?).

Meanwhile, the intellectual movement known as Christian Reconstruction was spreading rapidly in dispensational circles. Spokesmen for the dispensational camp in 1988 concluded that dispensationlism's forty-year tactic of the academic black-out could no longer work. They would have to respond publicly to the Reconstructionists' detailed published criticisms of the dispensationalist system. They would have to refute the Reconstructionists' claim that God's Old Testament civil laws are still valid for society and that there is a bright future ahead for Christianity before Jesus returns.

Four dispensational authors responded as an unofficial team. Their three books appeared in rapid succession: Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice; Whatever Happened to Heaven?, by Dave Hunt; and The Road to Holocaust, by Hal Lindsey. The arguments of all three books are answered in detail by House Divided. What House Divided demonstrates is that dispensational theology has now been shattered by its own defenders. They are not willing to defend the original system and their drastic modifications have left it a broken shell. They are also deeply divided among themselves on the crucial questions of biblical interpretation and social activism. In short, today's defenders of dispensationalism "destroyed the system in order to save it." No one has attempted to put this shattered theological system back together. No one will even outline its main points.

If House Divided is correct, then by then year 2001, we could see a very different church in the United States and on the world mission field. The question of the hour is: What kind of church? An optimistic, victorious church on the march for Jesus, or one huddled in a corner, not knowing what it believes any more?

Which church do you believe in? If you are tired of being in the corner, tired of waiting around for the Rapture that doesn't come, read House Divided. It offers new hope to Christians...if they are ready to get out of the corner and get to work.

Inside Flap

Catalog Description

In 1988 and 1989, three books were published that criticized the theology of Christian Reconstructionism, and also the theology of the entire historic Christian faith, by attacking the idea of Christian social reform. They were Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice: Whatever Happened to Heaven?, by Dave Hunt; and The Road to Holocaust, by Hal Lindsey. The arguments of all three books are answered in detail by House Divided, with Greg Bahnsen taking up the question of biblical law, and Kenneth Gentry taking up the question of biblical eschatology. What this book demonstrates is that dispensational theology has now been shattered by its own defenders. They are no longer willing to defend the original system, and their drastic modifications have left it a broken shell.