Christ's Second Coming
A What-Millennialist?
John E. Henderson, Ed.D.
July 27 - September 30, 2006
I have no hopes or intentions of resolving the debate about “pre-“, “a-“, and “post-“ millennialism. I am convinced there will be some who will bristle and never get past something I say that challenges their basic assumptions about this. I am sorry if that should be the case. May God bless them anyhow. Appeasement, however, is not something I can do here. I must be focused on approaching the truth no matter how unpopular that may be or makes me.
What I want to do is to raise some questions, hopefully without prejudice, about some of the claims that are especially put forth about the doctrines of premillennialism. Why I choose to focus on premillennialism is because I see it as a multi-doctrine that is held to resolutely by many in evangelical circles and who are absolutely convinced in their own minds that their views on the matter are completely scriptural. I am also baffled by the vast differences among them, each sub-group declaring themselves to be the holders of the truth about it all. This is why I refer to it as a multi-doctrine-there are vast differences under the same doctrinal canopy.
I am assuming that those who read this have a “working knowledge” of the three major doctrines about that which is called the millennial reign of Christ on earth.
All of the theorists are typically biblical in their thinking about who Christ is, His redemptive work on the Cross, His resurrection and ascension, His virgin birth, His sinless life, the fact He shall return a second time, and all else the Scriptures say about Him. There are other doctrinal differences that separate Christians into denominational groups, but this one crosses those boundaries and exists comfortably alongside many of the other differences. Some churches take a definite position on “millennialism” and others take no official position, meanwhile maintaining their doctrinal integrity in the matters of their denominations.
Frankly, I dislike the labels we give ourselves and others. It is as though we have to choose sides, raise our group’s flag, and head out to meet the opposition in other Christian camps. We use our preferred labels and the accompanying definitions to bolster our confidence and to look with disdain on the others. We have the labels, however, and they probably will not go away just because I do not like them. I sincerely think that we tend to let the labels limit how we define escatology.
The notions of “amillennialism” and “postmillennialism” (two of the labels) are more easily defined than is “premillennialism” (a third label). This is because of the various differences within the basic theory of premillennialism itself. Postmillennialism has some internal variations itself but the ideas among premillennialists are better known in modern theology.
I will not address premillennialism’s internal differences, except the dispensational aspects, but will more or less lump them together in the questions I raise because of the similarities of their core assumptions.
“Amillennialism” basically says there is no literal millennial reign of Christ on earth that covers an actual thousand years as measured in time. The amillennial interpretation is to see Christ’s millennial reign as figurative rather than literal, even to say that we are already in that reign. There is much more to their doctrine and it would be unfair to critique it if all the important points of the doctrine are not taken into consideration. One writer has said the following about the eschatology of amillennialism in outline form:
1. “Christ bound Satan and restrained him from seducing the nations at Calvary.
2. The Church presently reigns with Christ in the millennial kingdom of God, which currently exists in a spiritual sense.
3. At some future point Satan will be loosed for a three and a half year period of time, through which the church will be persecuted.
4. Upon completion of this time-period Christ will return.”
(From: THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TERMS CONCERNING THE "END OF DAYS")
Amillennialist scholars may not agree with that assessment. It does seem to be rather vague and incomplete. Outlines and brief statements never say it all.
Postmillennialism basically claims that the Second Coming of Christ occurs after the thousand-year reign of Christ. One writer says about it:
Postmillennialism sees Christ coming to set up his kingdom after the millennium when man has adequately prepared the world through faithful preaching of the gospel message as the church is empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Although some postmillennialists hold to a literal millennium of 1,000 years, most postmillennialists see the thousand years more as a figurative term for a long period of time (similar in that respect to amillennialism). Among those holding to a non-literal "millennium" it is usually understood to have already begun.
This eschatological view looks for a great revival in the church, swelling numerical growth and spiritual vitality leading up to the Second Coming.
[Taken off-line from “Jeremiah Project”]
That aspect is open to question in view of all the Scriptures say about His coming, but I will not address that point here.
All three of the Millennium doctrines are taken largely from their interpretations of Revelation 20. I am not convinced the millennial reign of Christ has been defined by anyone in such a way as to be in complete agreement with what the Bible is telling us. I am left at this time with making an effort at examining the view that the millennial reign of Christ is an actual one thousand years on earth. Even then, I will not be able to fully critique that view at this time, and that could turn out to be unfair to it.
I have researched all three theories and their variations as best I can and have read pro and con material about them. I paid attention to the objective or else favorable reports because I felt they provided the best information. Those who were highly judgmental, sometimes condemning, of the others struck me as arrogant and unduly opinionated. I ignored their comments when I came across that aspect. They put me in mind of the introductory verse (Luke 18:9) to Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the publican who went to the Temple to pray: “And he spake this parable unto certain that trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” The idea of am academic arrogance ensconced in a presumption of personal spirituality does not set well with me.
This aspect particularly concerns me because I repeatedly observe a pattern of serving one’s own interests in holding to a chosen opinion. It is true in politics when politicians jump onto an issue and define everything through the colored glasses of their particular agendas. Unadulterated logic goes out the window if their pet purposes are not served by it. The same is true in many doctrinal debates with hardly a noticeable difference. Christians should be wiser than that but they are too often married to their own opinions to the point that logic, even if it is manipulated, must fit their notions. It is often a system of distorted logic that seeks to protect an un-provable opinion that is based in authentic reasoning.
When what I say here is said, the surface will have hardly been scratched concerning all that could be said. I am convinced that those who know Christ and believe the Bible is His inerrant Word by divine inspiration are primarily interested in the scriptural truths, regardless of their opinions in terms of millennialism. Those of all three millennial opinions look for the return of Jesus as King and Judge. They disagree almost altogether on the sequence of the events and some of the nature of it all.
The assumptions of premillennialism that concern me most are those of their claims that are not clearly and forthrightly made plain by the Scriptures. I know, the same might be said of the other opinions but I cannot allow myself to go in all directions at once. A postmillennialist writer a few years ago correctly stated that the very same Scripture passages used by premillennialists can also be used by postmillennialists to make different assertions. This certainly underscores the need to be cautious when trying to superimpose one’s interpretation of a passage as if that interpretation is inarguable. When one takes this position, it might be said of him or her that a nincompoop is the only one who does not know he is a nincompoop.
I was at an ardent “pretribulation/premillennialist” for many years, but was never quite sure why. Every time I got it right, something in the Scriptures would pop up and raise more questions about my own assumptions. The overly-confident assertions I often heard from others in defense of my side of the issue started me to asking questions about it and expecting clear biblical answers that would support the explanations that they were not providing. I still cannot clearly “label” myself as clearly in any of the three camps, and am not sure I actually need to do so. That is because I currently see any of them as more of a club-like set of rules than an objective description of Scriptural revelation. This seems to more the case within the ideas of dispensational premillennialism.
I decided to look more deeply into the matter by reading Revelation as many times as it took to get some understanding of what it revealed. I decided to assume it was giving a futuristic report in a sequence of events.
That seemed to be a reasonable assumption. I know there is plenty of metaphor and symbolism and it may not necessarily be sequential in every instance, but there are repetitions of the phrase, “after this,” “and”, or something similar in describing many of the events that follow one another in the narrative as would be apparently sequential in my language. When taken this way, many of the theories of premillennialism did not hold up very well. They did not jibe clearly with all the carefully prepared charts that are so plentiful for our “understanding”. Those who made and used the charts seemed to be confident with them, but the charts only raised more questions in my mind. The preponderance of imagery and allegory does present a problem because we want to rush to assign meaning to it and I suspected that was what the charts did a lot of in trying to illustrate the points being made.
Revelation is not the only book to use figures of speech. Daniel is replete with it, but history has given meaning to much of Daniel whereas Revelation is still largely futuristic. Even Jesus’ parables were figures of speech but the meanings are immediately clear. It is easy enough, for instance, for one to interpret Daniel’s “four beasts coming out of the sea” (Daniel 7:2-8) as the Lion = Babylon, the Bear = Medo-Persia, the Leopard = Greece, and the Terrible Beast =Rome-if such is actually the case. This is because we who are around after the facts can see it in history. Even then, much of history itself has been misrepresented and embellished in the reporting.
It is not that easy to so specifically identify the objects of prophecy that have not yet happened. When we read those who put exact identifications on unfulfilled prophecy, it should be a red flag to us that they probably have no way of showing from Scriptures how they actually know that, but is very likely their own arbitrary application.
I believe it is a mistake to spiritualize the events and symbols in Revelation more than is intended by the Scriptures. That could be the theological dilemma-to know when we are going beyond the Scriptures. The known fulfillments of symbolisms in Daniel, for instance, were quite literal with spiritual significance according to the design of God. We can look back on many of Daniel’s prophecies, although some are yet to be seen fulfilled, but Revelation presents quite a different challenge. It is almost totally futuristic from where we stand.
One of the assertions of dispensational premillennialism is that the second coming of Christ is to be in two separate stages, separated by a seven-year period of tribulation. The first stage is called a secret coming wherein the believers, living and dead, are raptured into the air to meet Christ, the event itself unseen by those left behind. They supposedly notice the difference after the fact.
The word secret, or anything like it, never appears in the Scriptures when describing this event. Neither is the event of the resurrection described in the Scriptures in terms of its being a secret matter that goes unobserved by those who are being left behind. It is not even implied.
The word “dispensational” above is underlined to emphasize that there is also a form of premillennialism called historic premillennialism. The difference is that “dispensational” holds to the secret rapture whereas “historic” holds to the posttribulation rapture. Both, however, hold to its occurring before the literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth.
The problem with the “secret” suggestion is that the Scriptures seem to contradict it rather than support it. It has only been explained as secret by offering interpretations about the apparent contradictions to the theory in terms not specified in the Scriptures themselves.
The Bible is quite clear that Christ is coming in the air; that believers, alive and dead, will rise to meet Him in the air and that “every eye shall see Him” (Rev. 1:7). This is not contradicted by Paul’s statement in I Thessalonians 4:16 and 17, which also does not unequivocally, if at all, support the understanding of a “secret appearing” as it is asserted by the pretribulation rapture theory.
Jesus’ description in Matthew 24 and Luke 17 of two together and one taken while one is left does not positively support the idea of a two-phased appearing separated by a period of any number of years. Why I say that is because it is not so stated in the passages. Because it does not say so, it could more likely imply that the Judgment and all the events leading up to it is that which remains for those who are excluded from the first resurrection.
That is to say, it more likely speaks of the Second Coming of Christ as a single event to set in motion the events leading to the Final Judgment and to return His rule to its pre-creation status. The “first resurrection” would, therefore, be at His coming and the “second resurrection” would be when the grave and hell give up its dead and they, along with the still-living lost ones will enter into final judgment. While many of the theories of a classical premillennial coming are better supported by exegetical interpretation of Scripture, the two-phased, pre-tribulation second coming of Christ lacks any direct scriptural support. However, there are those who will still use excessive explanation and theorizing to make it seem the Scriptures support it.
I am also concerned that Antichrist is presumed to be a despot in charge of the entire world throughout the tribulation period. That could be true for a short while if he is “the beast” of Revelation 13:7, but Revelation also describes him (presumably the same person) as the head of an alliance of ten nations and this whole devilish alliance will be attacked by other nations at some point.
The world contains many times more than ten nations. Even the European Union, which some previously thought could be that ten-nation alliance in its earlier years now has a membership of around thirty nations. Premillennialists and postmillennialists alike have made the mistake of identifying various groups as the alliance, or some person of history as Antichrist. I am expecting someone to suggest that the ten-nation alliance will be a coalition of Islamic countries. Maybe we should leave that alone and stay focused on what the Bible is telling us. We will know what we need to know or we will probably recognize it when it happens.
This brings us to the Tribulation. The Church is thought by dispensational pretribulationists to be spared a horrific tribulation under the Antichrist. So far, the Church has a long history of persecutions that can make one’s skin crawl. Being under persecution is part of what the Christian has faced all through history. It is part of our heritage, so to speak (“. . . in the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world”-John 16:33). It is still happening in several parts of the world and will continue until the end of the age. Any period of tribulation of any intensity, of its own nature, will not cut a swathe through the Church. Do we not have the promise of Romans 8:38, 39, and others like it, that nothing earthly or unearthly can take us out of the hand of God? Someone might answer that the Tribulation period is a special judgment or revenge on the ungodly and that is what the Church is spared. That may sound plausible, but the Scriptures do not say that it is. God’s judgment on the ungodly is clearly described in His Word, so such speculation is inaccurate and outside the Scriptures.
Another one might say it is a time when the Holy Spirit is withdrawn. If that is true, then the Left Behind series of books are completely misleading. The Scriptures say that no one can come to the Son except the Father who sent Christ draw him (John 6:44). The Father’s Agent is the Holy Spirit. If He is withdrawn, no person can possibly be saved during such a period.
Obviously, any Christian living in one of the ten nations under Antichrist, or throughout the world, will not fare well just as they do not fare well now in such places as China, certain parts of Africa, and under Islamic rule in the Mid-East. Even in the United States and Europe, Christians are under constant attack from various sources. It isn’t going to stop. If anything, it will intensify.
One explanation that has total non-support from the Scriptures is the idea there will be conversions after the “secret coming” of Christ. This has been set forth rather arbitrarily in an effort to “explain” the apparent contradiction of believers as being in the world under Antichrist. The idea is drawn from Revelation 13:16, 17 concerning the mark of the beast. This is an illogical stretch and is a theme of the popular Left Behind series of books. It just ain’t so. The “explanation” only shuns giving credence to the postmillennial and classic premillennial theories that Christ’s one and only second coming is at some point after the end of the period of tribulation.
We are encouraged by the Holy Spirit to “endure until the end,” not until we are rescued by a rapture in advance. We are promised to be kept from the effects of tribulation, not necessarily from tribulation itself.
A little Greek lesson here from one who is not a Greek scholar. Revelation 3:10 has the promise: “…I… will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” [KJV]. The confusion centers about the word that is translated “keep”.
It is translated from a word that means to guard from loss or injury by keeping a close eye upon the guarded person or people. The word does not itself mean that we are withdrawn or fortified, such as by rapture. There is another word would have been used had that been the intended meaning.
Even if we should be so raptured at that time, this verse does not say that, although in the next verse we hear Jesus promise to come quickly. In an effort to keep the theory intact, the two verses are confusingly combined to make it seem Jesus is saying we will be withdrawn from the “hour of temptation that shall come upon the entire world” instead of being kept through it, which is what the original word means.
The Scriptures do not say that there is some great tribulation in which Christ might not be able to get us through. It does say, however, that He will keep us spiritually intact in any situation.
We are given but one mission: to go into the entire world and preach Christ to every creature. Our mission is not to fret about the what-ifs of a coming tribulation or to fear an anti-Christ ruler. Christ Jesus is more than sufficient in our lives no matter how fiercely the enemy rages against His Church.
Brief history of the pretribulation rapture theory. The pretribulation rapture theory has a young history The concept as such was non-existent in the Church until around 1830, despite claims that it is more ancient.
Margaret MacDonald, a young Scottish woman, had declared that she had received a “revelation” of a rapture to take place before the Tribulation. No Scriptures were alluded to in an effort to authenticate her claim.
Another woman, Mrs. J. D. Cardale, had echoed the same “revelation” as if it was somehow independent of MacDonald’s “revelation.” Again, no Scriptures were used to support the “revelation”. The idea was picked up by a London Presbyterian minister, Edward Irving, who had been expelled from the Presbyterian ministry for writing that Christ’s human nature was sinful. He carried on independently.
Irving taught the “pretribulation rapture” theory in “prophetic meetings” and John Darby, who had organized the Plymouth Brethren, was influenced by Irving’s teachings. Later, C. I. Scofield was also influenced by the teaching. Plymouth Brethren scholars eventually rejected the pretribulation rapture theory espoused by Darby and Darby himself backpedaled. Scofield popularized it in his Scofield Bible. Schofield’s editorials in his Bible were used to spread the concept in evangelical circles.
I am tremendously influenced in my thinking by this bit of history. I am especially concerned that it emerged suddenly as a “special revelation” by two women who may have been suffering from histrionic personality dysfunction, and who made no reference of any sort to the Bible in making their assertions. I am also concerned that Scriptures were sought out by others-after the fact as it were-to lend support to the notion. That is, they took the theory and sought to find support for it in the Scriptures by eisegesic applications.
===============================================================================================
“Eisegesic application” comes from a term for this kind of approach that means starting with an assumption independently of the Scriptures and reading the ideas into the Scriptures so they appear to support the theory. It is called eisegesis and is a form of explanation or application in an effort to support a pre-conception.
Whether this is done intentionally or motivated by undisciplined enthusiasm, it is still a distortion and is the diametric opposite of exegesis. Exegesis is a method of seeking meaning from what the Scriptures actually say without attempting to impose presuppositions into the interpretation.
Doctrines have emerged from time to time. Some, like Wesley’s teachings on entire sanctification, have come as the light of the unfolding of scriptural truth that was always there; or of Martin Luther who revived the truth of salvation by faith. Such reviving has never superimposed a preconception over the Scriptures but have always found the truth staring them in the face from out of the Scriptures.
Others like this one, however, are so typically tainted with questionable codes of belief that are so out of the ordinary they need to be defined and explained in such ways that the explanations themselves become the proof instead of plain Scriptures, especially with “proof-texting” and eisegesic formulations.
It behooves an honest and truth-seeking heart to move with prayerful caution, closely examining the Scriptures for what they actually say, and not be carried about by every wind of doctrine that happens to blow by, no matter how pleasant seems to be the breeze and no matter how impressive is the one doing the blowing.
===============================================================================================
I have probably done too much interpreting here, myself. When one tries to study Revelation, it seems that more questions than answers pop up. I am no expert in eschatology but I doubt that not many others can figure it out much better.
I settle for this. We look for a heavenly home wherein righteousness dwells. What transpires in the world where we started out is scheduled for a certain, irrevocable conclusion. When it is done, we who are Christ’s shall forever be where there is no night and shall reign forever with Him, no matter how we tried to figure it out in this life.
I do not want or seek to un-christianize or belittle anyone of any frame of thinking on Christ’s Second Coming. I only expect of them that they recognize there will be the return of Christ as promised in the Scriptures and as promised by the angel after Christ ascended. All three major theories embrace the essentials as mentioned in the beginning and look for a heavenly country that never fades away. Christ as the coming King is honored and recognized for Who He is. We will still be discussing this matter when He comes and we will understand it perfectly in His presence then.
Summary of My Position. If I summarize my position at this point in time, I would describe it as believing (subject to correction by a better understanding of the Scriptures):
1. If Christians are present at all during the seven-year tribulation, then Christ’s Second Coming will be either during (mid-point) or after that period and is only in one phase, not two;
2. The Antichrist is probably an actual person but could be a system, much like the false prophet could be a system of false religion. If it is a system, it is probably represented by actual human beings who are under total control by Satan and may be a bodily possessed of Satan as a counterfeit of the incarnation of Christ. The Scriptures do say he is a man who's name is coded as "666".
3. The millennial reign of Christ is probably literal in view of such passages that refer to the lion’s lying down with the lamb, etc., indicating an unusual period of peace and tranquility on earth with physical life as we know it;
4. Since there is a statement that that the thousand years expire (chapter 20, verse 7), logic tells me that the thousand years is probably literal in terms of actual time as we know time, and not figurative as is often clearly the case in Daniel’s prophecies concerning “weeks”;
5. The “second resurrection” mentioned by Jesus is clearly that of the unsaved who will resurrect after the millennium and go directly to the Judgment, and from there into the lake of fire;
6. The “place” of existence of the post-judgment saints is wherever God is and is not limited to the earth as we know it now. It will be in what is called the new heavens and new earth, an existence that is not limited by space or location except as regards the lake of fire which will be inaccessible to the redeemed. The old song, “where Jesus is, ‘tis heaven there,” illustrates that truth very well. His eternal presence makes Heaven what it is.
My major concern is that I have overlooked so much that I might have caused more confusion that enlightenment. All that can be said on the subject is impossible in this space, even if I knew it all to write about. My best hope is that I may have raised some honest questions that can be pursued for answers in the Scriptures. I have never been willing to accept a basic assumption on its own merits and the Scriptures in these matters is the only irrefutable answer. Even then, I know there are those who will insist their answers are Scriptural, but that insistence might be just another form of unfounded assumptions.
If scientific research is considered reliable only when the results hold up under repetitious experimentations under identical conditions, the Scriptures will always stand true when approached time and again by prayer and seeking to know what God wants us to know. It is difficult to lay aside our prejudices in doing this, but it can eventually be done to some extent by repetitive and objective searching in a prayerful mode. Even then, we will not all come to the same conclusions because we will never be completely willing to shed ourselves of our own biases. For me, it means nothing more nor less than:
“I know not when my Lord may come,
At night or noonday fair;
Nor if I’ll walk the vale with Him,
Or meet Him in the air.
But ‘I know whom I have believed,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.’”
John E. Henderson, Ed.D.
July 27 - September 30, 2006
I have no hopes or intentions of resolving the debate about “pre-“, “a-“, and “post-“ millennialism. I am convinced there will be some who will bristle and never get past something I say that challenges their basic assumptions about this. I am sorry if that should be the case. May God bless them anyhow. Appeasement, however, is not something I can do here. I must be focused on approaching the truth no matter how unpopular that may be or makes me.
What I want to do is to raise some questions, hopefully without prejudice, about some of the claims that are especially put forth about the doctrines of premillennialism. Why I choose to focus on premillennialism is because I see it as a multi-doctrine that is held to resolutely by many in evangelical circles and who are absolutely convinced in their own minds that their views on the matter are completely scriptural. I am also baffled by the vast differences among them, each sub-group declaring themselves to be the holders of the truth about it all. This is why I refer to it as a multi-doctrine-there are vast differences under the same doctrinal canopy.
I am assuming that those who read this have a “working knowledge” of the three major doctrines about that which is called the millennial reign of Christ on earth.
All of the theorists are typically biblical in their thinking about who Christ is, His redemptive work on the Cross, His resurrection and ascension, His virgin birth, His sinless life, the fact He shall return a second time, and all else the Scriptures say about Him. There are other doctrinal differences that separate Christians into denominational groups, but this one crosses those boundaries and exists comfortably alongside many of the other differences. Some churches take a definite position on “millennialism” and others take no official position, meanwhile maintaining their doctrinal integrity in the matters of their denominations.
Frankly, I dislike the labels we give ourselves and others. It is as though we have to choose sides, raise our group’s flag, and head out to meet the opposition in other Christian camps. We use our preferred labels and the accompanying definitions to bolster our confidence and to look with disdain on the others. We have the labels, however, and they probably will not go away just because I do not like them. I sincerely think that we tend to let the labels limit how we define escatology.
The notions of “amillennialism” and “postmillennialism” (two of the labels) are more easily defined than is “premillennialism” (a third label). This is because of the various differences within the basic theory of premillennialism itself. Postmillennialism has some internal variations itself but the ideas among premillennialists are better known in modern theology.
I will not address premillennialism’s internal differences, except the dispensational aspects, but will more or less lump them together in the questions I raise because of the similarities of their core assumptions.
“Amillennialism” basically says there is no literal millennial reign of Christ on earth that covers an actual thousand years as measured in time. The amillennial interpretation is to see Christ’s millennial reign as figurative rather than literal, even to say that we are already in that reign. There is much more to their doctrine and it would be unfair to critique it if all the important points of the doctrine are not taken into consideration. One writer has said the following about the eschatology of amillennialism in outline form:
1. “Christ bound Satan and restrained him from seducing the nations at Calvary.
2. The Church presently reigns with Christ in the millennial kingdom of God, which currently exists in a spiritual sense.
3. At some future point Satan will be loosed for a three and a half year period of time, through which the church will be persecuted.
4. Upon completion of this time-period Christ will return.”
(From: THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TERMS CONCERNING THE "END OF DAYS")
Amillennialist scholars may not agree with that assessment. It does seem to be rather vague and incomplete. Outlines and brief statements never say it all.
Postmillennialism basically claims that the Second Coming of Christ occurs after the thousand-year reign of Christ. One writer says about it:
Postmillennialism sees Christ coming to set up his kingdom after the millennium when man has adequately prepared the world through faithful preaching of the gospel message as the church is empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Although some postmillennialists hold to a literal millennium of 1,000 years, most postmillennialists see the thousand years more as a figurative term for a long period of time (similar in that respect to amillennialism). Among those holding to a non-literal "millennium" it is usually understood to have already begun.
This eschatological view looks for a great revival in the church, swelling numerical growth and spiritual vitality leading up to the Second Coming.
[Taken off-line from “Jeremiah Project”]
That aspect is open to question in view of all the Scriptures say about His coming, but I will not address that point here.
All three of the Millennium doctrines are taken largely from their interpretations of Revelation 20. I am not convinced the millennial reign of Christ has been defined by anyone in such a way as to be in complete agreement with what the Bible is telling us. I am left at this time with making an effort at examining the view that the millennial reign of Christ is an actual one thousand years on earth. Even then, I will not be able to fully critique that view at this time, and that could turn out to be unfair to it.
I have researched all three theories and their variations as best I can and have read pro and con material about them. I paid attention to the objective or else favorable reports because I felt they provided the best information. Those who were highly judgmental, sometimes condemning, of the others struck me as arrogant and unduly opinionated. I ignored their comments when I came across that aspect. They put me in mind of the introductory verse (Luke 18:9) to Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the publican who went to the Temple to pray: “And he spake this parable unto certain that trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” The idea of am academic arrogance ensconced in a presumption of personal spirituality does not set well with me.
This aspect particularly concerns me because I repeatedly observe a pattern of serving one’s own interests in holding to a chosen opinion. It is true in politics when politicians jump onto an issue and define everything through the colored glasses of their particular agendas. Unadulterated logic goes out the window if their pet purposes are not served by it. The same is true in many doctrinal debates with hardly a noticeable difference. Christians should be wiser than that but they are too often married to their own opinions to the point that logic, even if it is manipulated, must fit their notions. It is often a system of distorted logic that seeks to protect an un-provable opinion that is based in authentic reasoning.
When what I say here is said, the surface will have hardly been scratched concerning all that could be said. I am convinced that those who know Christ and believe the Bible is His inerrant Word by divine inspiration are primarily interested in the scriptural truths, regardless of their opinions in terms of millennialism. Those of all three millennial opinions look for the return of Jesus as King and Judge. They disagree almost altogether on the sequence of the events and some of the nature of it all.
The assumptions of premillennialism that concern me most are those of their claims that are not clearly and forthrightly made plain by the Scriptures. I know, the same might be said of the other opinions but I cannot allow myself to go in all directions at once. A postmillennialist writer a few years ago correctly stated that the very same Scripture passages used by premillennialists can also be used by postmillennialists to make different assertions. This certainly underscores the need to be cautious when trying to superimpose one’s interpretation of a passage as if that interpretation is inarguable. When one takes this position, it might be said of him or her that a nincompoop is the only one who does not know he is a nincompoop.
I was at an ardent “pretribulation/premillennialist” for many years, but was never quite sure why. Every time I got it right, something in the Scriptures would pop up and raise more questions about my own assumptions. The overly-confident assertions I often heard from others in defense of my side of the issue started me to asking questions about it and expecting clear biblical answers that would support the explanations that they were not providing. I still cannot clearly “label” myself as clearly in any of the three camps, and am not sure I actually need to do so. That is because I currently see any of them as more of a club-like set of rules than an objective description of Scriptural revelation. This seems to more the case within the ideas of dispensational premillennialism.
I decided to look more deeply into the matter by reading Revelation as many times as it took to get some understanding of what it revealed. I decided to assume it was giving a futuristic report in a sequence of events.
That seemed to be a reasonable assumption. I know there is plenty of metaphor and symbolism and it may not necessarily be sequential in every instance, but there are repetitions of the phrase, “after this,” “and”, or something similar in describing many of the events that follow one another in the narrative as would be apparently sequential in my language. When taken this way, many of the theories of premillennialism did not hold up very well. They did not jibe clearly with all the carefully prepared charts that are so plentiful for our “understanding”. Those who made and used the charts seemed to be confident with them, but the charts only raised more questions in my mind. The preponderance of imagery and allegory does present a problem because we want to rush to assign meaning to it and I suspected that was what the charts did a lot of in trying to illustrate the points being made.
Revelation is not the only book to use figures of speech. Daniel is replete with it, but history has given meaning to much of Daniel whereas Revelation is still largely futuristic. Even Jesus’ parables were figures of speech but the meanings are immediately clear. It is easy enough, for instance, for one to interpret Daniel’s “four beasts coming out of the sea” (Daniel 7:2-8) as the Lion = Babylon, the Bear = Medo-Persia, the Leopard = Greece, and the Terrible Beast =Rome-if such is actually the case. This is because we who are around after the facts can see it in history. Even then, much of history itself has been misrepresented and embellished in the reporting.
It is not that easy to so specifically identify the objects of prophecy that have not yet happened. When we read those who put exact identifications on unfulfilled prophecy, it should be a red flag to us that they probably have no way of showing from Scriptures how they actually know that, but is very likely their own arbitrary application.
I believe it is a mistake to spiritualize the events and symbols in Revelation more than is intended by the Scriptures. That could be the theological dilemma-to know when we are going beyond the Scriptures. The known fulfillments of symbolisms in Daniel, for instance, were quite literal with spiritual significance according to the design of God. We can look back on many of Daniel’s prophecies, although some are yet to be seen fulfilled, but Revelation presents quite a different challenge. It is almost totally futuristic from where we stand.
One of the assertions of dispensational premillennialism is that the second coming of Christ is to be in two separate stages, separated by a seven-year period of tribulation. The first stage is called a secret coming wherein the believers, living and dead, are raptured into the air to meet Christ, the event itself unseen by those left behind. They supposedly notice the difference after the fact.
The word secret, or anything like it, never appears in the Scriptures when describing this event. Neither is the event of the resurrection described in the Scriptures in terms of its being a secret matter that goes unobserved by those who are being left behind. It is not even implied.
The word “dispensational” above is underlined to emphasize that there is also a form of premillennialism called historic premillennialism. The difference is that “dispensational” holds to the secret rapture whereas “historic” holds to the posttribulation rapture. Both, however, hold to its occurring before the literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth.
The problem with the “secret” suggestion is that the Scriptures seem to contradict it rather than support it. It has only been explained as secret by offering interpretations about the apparent contradictions to the theory in terms not specified in the Scriptures themselves.
The Bible is quite clear that Christ is coming in the air; that believers, alive and dead, will rise to meet Him in the air and that “every eye shall see Him” (Rev. 1:7). This is not contradicted by Paul’s statement in I Thessalonians 4:16 and 17, which also does not unequivocally, if at all, support the understanding of a “secret appearing” as it is asserted by the pretribulation rapture theory.
Jesus’ description in Matthew 24 and Luke 17 of two together and one taken while one is left does not positively support the idea of a two-phased appearing separated by a period of any number of years. Why I say that is because it is not so stated in the passages. Because it does not say so, it could more likely imply that the Judgment and all the events leading up to it is that which remains for those who are excluded from the first resurrection.
That is to say, it more likely speaks of the Second Coming of Christ as a single event to set in motion the events leading to the Final Judgment and to return His rule to its pre-creation status. The “first resurrection” would, therefore, be at His coming and the “second resurrection” would be when the grave and hell give up its dead and they, along with the still-living lost ones will enter into final judgment. While many of the theories of a classical premillennial coming are better supported by exegetical interpretation of Scripture, the two-phased, pre-tribulation second coming of Christ lacks any direct scriptural support. However, there are those who will still use excessive explanation and theorizing to make it seem the Scriptures support it.
I am also concerned that Antichrist is presumed to be a despot in charge of the entire world throughout the tribulation period. That could be true for a short while if he is “the beast” of Revelation 13:7, but Revelation also describes him (presumably the same person) as the head of an alliance of ten nations and this whole devilish alliance will be attacked by other nations at some point.
The world contains many times more than ten nations. Even the European Union, which some previously thought could be that ten-nation alliance in its earlier years now has a membership of around thirty nations. Premillennialists and postmillennialists alike have made the mistake of identifying various groups as the alliance, or some person of history as Antichrist. I am expecting someone to suggest that the ten-nation alliance will be a coalition of Islamic countries. Maybe we should leave that alone and stay focused on what the Bible is telling us. We will know what we need to know or we will probably recognize it when it happens.
This brings us to the Tribulation. The Church is thought by dispensational pretribulationists to be spared a horrific tribulation under the Antichrist. So far, the Church has a long history of persecutions that can make one’s skin crawl. Being under persecution is part of what the Christian has faced all through history. It is part of our heritage, so to speak (“. . . in the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world”-John 16:33). It is still happening in several parts of the world and will continue until the end of the age. Any period of tribulation of any intensity, of its own nature, will not cut a swathe through the Church. Do we not have the promise of Romans 8:38, 39, and others like it, that nothing earthly or unearthly can take us out of the hand of God? Someone might answer that the Tribulation period is a special judgment or revenge on the ungodly and that is what the Church is spared. That may sound plausible, but the Scriptures do not say that it is. God’s judgment on the ungodly is clearly described in His Word, so such speculation is inaccurate and outside the Scriptures.
Another one might say it is a time when the Holy Spirit is withdrawn. If that is true, then the Left Behind series of books are completely misleading. The Scriptures say that no one can come to the Son except the Father who sent Christ draw him (John 6:44). The Father’s Agent is the Holy Spirit. If He is withdrawn, no person can possibly be saved during such a period.
Obviously, any Christian living in one of the ten nations under Antichrist, or throughout the world, will not fare well just as they do not fare well now in such places as China, certain parts of Africa, and under Islamic rule in the Mid-East. Even in the United States and Europe, Christians are under constant attack from various sources. It isn’t going to stop. If anything, it will intensify.
One explanation that has total non-support from the Scriptures is the idea there will be conversions after the “secret coming” of Christ. This has been set forth rather arbitrarily in an effort to “explain” the apparent contradiction of believers as being in the world under Antichrist. The idea is drawn from Revelation 13:16, 17 concerning the mark of the beast. This is an illogical stretch and is a theme of the popular Left Behind series of books. It just ain’t so. The “explanation” only shuns giving credence to the postmillennial and classic premillennial theories that Christ’s one and only second coming is at some point after the end of the period of tribulation.
We are encouraged by the Holy Spirit to “endure until the end,” not until we are rescued by a rapture in advance. We are promised to be kept from the effects of tribulation, not necessarily from tribulation itself.
A little Greek lesson here from one who is not a Greek scholar. Revelation 3:10 has the promise: “…I… will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” [KJV]. The confusion centers about the word that is translated “keep”.
It is translated from a word that means to guard from loss or injury by keeping a close eye upon the guarded person or people. The word does not itself mean that we are withdrawn or fortified, such as by rapture. There is another word would have been used had that been the intended meaning.
Even if we should be so raptured at that time, this verse does not say that, although in the next verse we hear Jesus promise to come quickly. In an effort to keep the theory intact, the two verses are confusingly combined to make it seem Jesus is saying we will be withdrawn from the “hour of temptation that shall come upon the entire world” instead of being kept through it, which is what the original word means.
The Scriptures do not say that there is some great tribulation in which Christ might not be able to get us through. It does say, however, that He will keep us spiritually intact in any situation.
We are given but one mission: to go into the entire world and preach Christ to every creature. Our mission is not to fret about the what-ifs of a coming tribulation or to fear an anti-Christ ruler. Christ Jesus is more than sufficient in our lives no matter how fiercely the enemy rages against His Church.
Brief history of the pretribulation rapture theory. The pretribulation rapture theory has a young history The concept as such was non-existent in the Church until around 1830, despite claims that it is more ancient.
Margaret MacDonald, a young Scottish woman, had declared that she had received a “revelation” of a rapture to take place before the Tribulation. No Scriptures were alluded to in an effort to authenticate her claim.
Another woman, Mrs. J. D. Cardale, had echoed the same “revelation” as if it was somehow independent of MacDonald’s “revelation.” Again, no Scriptures were used to support the “revelation”. The idea was picked up by a London Presbyterian minister, Edward Irving, who had been expelled from the Presbyterian ministry for writing that Christ’s human nature was sinful. He carried on independently.
Irving taught the “pretribulation rapture” theory in “prophetic meetings” and John Darby, who had organized the Plymouth Brethren, was influenced by Irving’s teachings. Later, C. I. Scofield was also influenced by the teaching. Plymouth Brethren scholars eventually rejected the pretribulation rapture theory espoused by Darby and Darby himself backpedaled. Scofield popularized it in his Scofield Bible. Schofield’s editorials in his Bible were used to spread the concept in evangelical circles.
I am tremendously influenced in my thinking by this bit of history. I am especially concerned that it emerged suddenly as a “special revelation” by two women who may have been suffering from histrionic personality dysfunction, and who made no reference of any sort to the Bible in making their assertions. I am also concerned that Scriptures were sought out by others-after the fact as it were-to lend support to the notion. That is, they took the theory and sought to find support for it in the Scriptures by eisegesic applications.
===============================================================================================
“Eisegesic application” comes from a term for this kind of approach that means starting with an assumption independently of the Scriptures and reading the ideas into the Scriptures so they appear to support the theory. It is called eisegesis and is a form of explanation or application in an effort to support a pre-conception.
Whether this is done intentionally or motivated by undisciplined enthusiasm, it is still a distortion and is the diametric opposite of exegesis. Exegesis is a method of seeking meaning from what the Scriptures actually say without attempting to impose presuppositions into the interpretation.
Doctrines have emerged from time to time. Some, like Wesley’s teachings on entire sanctification, have come as the light of the unfolding of scriptural truth that was always there; or of Martin Luther who revived the truth of salvation by faith. Such reviving has never superimposed a preconception over the Scriptures but have always found the truth staring them in the face from out of the Scriptures.
Others like this one, however, are so typically tainted with questionable codes of belief that are so out of the ordinary they need to be defined and explained in such ways that the explanations themselves become the proof instead of plain Scriptures, especially with “proof-texting” and eisegesic formulations.
It behooves an honest and truth-seeking heart to move with prayerful caution, closely examining the Scriptures for what they actually say, and not be carried about by every wind of doctrine that happens to blow by, no matter how pleasant seems to be the breeze and no matter how impressive is the one doing the blowing.
===============================================================================================
I have probably done too much interpreting here, myself. When one tries to study Revelation, it seems that more questions than answers pop up. I am no expert in eschatology but I doubt that not many others can figure it out much better.
I settle for this. We look for a heavenly home wherein righteousness dwells. What transpires in the world where we started out is scheduled for a certain, irrevocable conclusion. When it is done, we who are Christ’s shall forever be where there is no night and shall reign forever with Him, no matter how we tried to figure it out in this life.
I do not want or seek to un-christianize or belittle anyone of any frame of thinking on Christ’s Second Coming. I only expect of them that they recognize there will be the return of Christ as promised in the Scriptures and as promised by the angel after Christ ascended. All three major theories embrace the essentials as mentioned in the beginning and look for a heavenly country that never fades away. Christ as the coming King is honored and recognized for Who He is. We will still be discussing this matter when He comes and we will understand it perfectly in His presence then.
Summary of My Position. If I summarize my position at this point in time, I would describe it as believing (subject to correction by a better understanding of the Scriptures):
1. If Christians are present at all during the seven-year tribulation, then Christ’s Second Coming will be either during (mid-point) or after that period and is only in one phase, not two;
2. The Antichrist is probably an actual person but could be a system, much like the false prophet could be a system of false religion. If it is a system, it is probably represented by actual human beings who are under total control by Satan and may be a bodily possessed of Satan as a counterfeit of the incarnation of Christ. The Scriptures do say he is a man who's name is coded as "666".
3. The millennial reign of Christ is probably literal in view of such passages that refer to the lion’s lying down with the lamb, etc., indicating an unusual period of peace and tranquility on earth with physical life as we know it;
4. Since there is a statement that that the thousand years expire (chapter 20, verse 7), logic tells me that the thousand years is probably literal in terms of actual time as we know time, and not figurative as is often clearly the case in Daniel’s prophecies concerning “weeks”;
5. The “second resurrection” mentioned by Jesus is clearly that of the unsaved who will resurrect after the millennium and go directly to the Judgment, and from there into the lake of fire;
6. The “place” of existence of the post-judgment saints is wherever God is and is not limited to the earth as we know it now. It will be in what is called the new heavens and new earth, an existence that is not limited by space or location except as regards the lake of fire which will be inaccessible to the redeemed. The old song, “where Jesus is, ‘tis heaven there,” illustrates that truth very well. His eternal presence makes Heaven what it is.
My major concern is that I have overlooked so much that I might have caused more confusion that enlightenment. All that can be said on the subject is impossible in this space, even if I knew it all to write about. My best hope is that I may have raised some honest questions that can be pursued for answers in the Scriptures. I have never been willing to accept a basic assumption on its own merits and the Scriptures in these matters is the only irrefutable answer. Even then, I know there are those who will insist their answers are Scriptural, but that insistence might be just another form of unfounded assumptions.
If scientific research is considered reliable only when the results hold up under repetitious experimentations under identical conditions, the Scriptures will always stand true when approached time and again by prayer and seeking to know what God wants us to know. It is difficult to lay aside our prejudices in doing this, but it can eventually be done to some extent by repetitive and objective searching in a prayerful mode. Even then, we will not all come to the same conclusions because we will never be completely willing to shed ourselves of our own biases. For me, it means nothing more nor less than:
“I know not when my Lord may come,
At night or noonday fair;
Nor if I’ll walk the vale with Him,
Or meet Him in the air.
But ‘I know whom I have believed,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.’”