|
This is a non-WLC article. When using resources from outside authors, we only publish the content that is 100% in harmony with the Bible and WLC current biblical beliefs. So such articles can be treated as if coming directly from WLC. We have been greatly blessed by the ministry of many servants of Yahuwah. But we do not advise our members to explore other works by these authors. Such works, we have excluded from publications because they contain errors. Sadly, we have yet to find a ministry that is error-free. If you are shocked by some non-WLC published content [articles/episodes], keep in mind Proverbs 4:18. Our understanding of His truth is evolving, as more light is shed on our pathway. We cherish truth more than life, and seek it wherever it may be found. |
In my book Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, I conclude by describing what I call a cumulative case for amillennialism. This “cumulative case” entails 30 reasons why amillennialism is the most cogent, convincing, and biblical of all eschatological systems. In this article, I will set forth those 30 reasons.
(1) Amillennialism best accounts for the many texts in which Israel’s OT prophetic hope is portrayed as being fulfilled in the person and work of Yahushua Christ and the believing remnant, his body, the Church. Contrary to all forms of dispensationalism and much of premillennialism, the fulfillment of the OT covenant promises is not to be found in the restoration of national, ethnic Israel, in a literal 1,000-year earthly kingdom, but in the King himself and his new covenant people, the Church, the faithful Israel of Yahuwah. The “promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. . . . who is Christ. . . . And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:16, 29).
(2) Amillennialism best accounts for how the OT prophets spoke of the future in terms of images and concepts borrowed from the social and cultural world with which they and their readers were familiar. In other words, they communicated the realistic future glory of Yahuwah’s eschatological purposes in the hyperbolic or exaggerated terms of an ideal present. That realistic future glory will be consummated, not in a semi-golden age intervening between the second coming of Christ and the eternal state, but in the latter alone, on a New Earth where righteousness dwells.
(3) Amillennialism best accounts for the presence of typology in Scripture, according to which OT persons and events and institutions find a deeper and intensified expression and consummation in the antitype. This is especially seen in the way Yahushua is portrayed as the antitypical fulfillment of the many OT types and shadows.
(4) When the OT speaks of the consummation of Yahuwah’s renewal of creation it knows nothing of a 1,000-year period preceding the eternal state. Rather its focus is on the New Heavens and New Earth (Isa. 65:17-22; 66:22), consistent with what we read in the NT as well (Revelation 21-22). This, of course, is precisely what amillennialism argues for.
(5) Amillennialism provides a superior and more cogent explanation of the seventy-weeks prophecy of Daniel 9, which we saw is designed to evoke a theological image, namely, that in the person and work of Yahushua Yahuwah will act to bring about the final jubilee of redemptive history. The 10-jubilee framework (i.e., the 490 years or 70 weeks) is thus symbolic of the divine work of redemption, at the conclusion of which the eternal and perfected jubilee will appear: the New Heavens and the New Earth.
(6) I also find amillennialism to be a superior scheme for understanding redemptive history insofar as it alone is consistent with the NT testimony concerning the termination of physical death at the time of the Second Coming of Christ. Premillennialism falls short in that it necessarily entails the perpetuation of death beyond the return of Christ, beyond that point when death is “swallowed up in victory” (Isa. 25:7-9; 1 Cor. 15:52). Paul is quite clear and to the point in telling us that the end of all physical suffering and human mortality occurs at the time of the return of Christ and the resurrection of the body. At that time, says Paul, Isaiah 25:7-9 will be fulfilled. At the Second Coming of Christ, says the apostle, “Death will be swallowed up in victory.” No physical death can occur after the Second Coming. If it could, Paul would be wrong in saying that death is swallowed up in victory, in fulfillment of Isaiah 25, at the moment of the Second Coming.
(7) Yet another affirmation of amillennialism is found in the fulfillment of Isaiah 25:8, where we are told that Yahuwah will one day “wipe away all tears,” a prophecy that according to Revelation 21:1-4 comes to fruition when the New Heavens and New Earth are created. What makes this an argument for amillennialism is that Paul says Isaiah 25:7-9 will be fulfilled at the time of the Second Coming (1 Cor. 15:50-55). The point, simply, is that the New Heavens and New Earth “come” when Christ does, at the end of history, not some 1,000 years later.
(8) A related point is that amillennialism alone is consistent with the NT teaching that the natural creation will be delivered from the curse and experience its “redemption,” in conjunction with the “redemption” of our bodies, at the time of the Second Coming of Christ (Rom. 8:18-23). Premillennialism again fails insofar as it requires that the earth continue to be ravaged by war and sin and death. Premillennialists must necessarily believe that the renewal of the natural creation and its being set free from bondage to corruption does not occur, at least in its consummate expression, until 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return.
(9) Amillennialism is more consistent with the NT teaching (2 Pet. 3:8-13) that the New Heavens and New Earth will be inaugurated at the time of Christ’s second coming, not 1,000 years thereafter. Believers in the present age are “waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of Yahuwah,” which is to say they “are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:12-13). This is the focus of our expectations, not a 1,000-year period within history in which unrighteousness dwells.
(10) Amillennialism is superior to premillennialism insofar as the latter view requires that one believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return. Amillennialism alone affirms the NT truth that all hope for salvation terminates with the Second Coming of Christ. The opportunity for eternal life is now, in the present church age, before Christ comes, not later, in some millennial age, after Christ comes.
(11) Amillennialism alone is consistent with the NT teaching that the resurrection of unbelievers will occur at the time of the Second Coming of Christ, not 1,000 years later following an earthly millennial reign. Thus, amillennialism more clearly accounts for John 5:28-29 where Yahushua declared that “an hour” is coming when there will be a single and universal bodily resurrection of both believers and non-believers. Premillennialism must posit a gap of 1,000 years between the two.
(12) Related to the previous point is that premillennialism necessarily entails the belief that unbelievers will not be finally judged to suffer eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ. Yet 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 asserts that “those who do not know Yahuwah” and “who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Yahushua . . . will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction . . . when he [Christ Yahushua] comes on that day to be glorified in his saints and to be marveled at among all who have believed” (2 Thess. 1:8-10a; emphasis mine; see also Matt. 25:31-46).
(13) Amillennialism alone can account for Paul’s declaration that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Yahuwah” (1 Cor. 15:50-57). Premillennialism again fails because it posits the existence, in a supposed post-parousia earthly millennial reign, of both unbelievers and believers who remain in their natural, “flesh and blood” bodies.
(14) The superiority of amillennialism to premillennialism is also seen in the fact that the former, unlike the latter, does not have to solve the problem of what happens to those believers who experience physical death during the course of this purported earthly millennial reign. Amillennialism does not have to posit the improbable (if not bizarre) scenario in which there are thousands and thousands of individual resurrections occurring subsequent to Christ’s second coming, or, should that be rejected, the notion that those who die in Christ somehow exist in an immaterial state in some undefined proximity to their Savior while he and those believers who are resurrected live and reign on the earth. Is it really the case that the Bible teaches an earthly reign of Christ in which potentially hundreds of thousands (millions?) of physically dead believers hover in his presence, strangely mingling with physically alive unregenerate people, as well as physically alive but unglorified regenerate people, as well as resurrected and glorified people? As noted above, for the premillennialist, the alternative is to assert, without the slightest hint in the Scriptures, that untold multitudes of individual bodily resurrections occur during the millennial age as believers die physically, one after another.
(15) Amillennialism is more consistent than any other view with the teaching of the NT that the prophesied restoration of Israel is fulfilled in the Church, the true Israel of Yahuwah (I have in mind such texts as Matt. 8:10-12; 24:31; Rom. 9:25-26; Rev. 2:17; 3:9; 7:15; and 21:14). Although many historic premillennialists also affirm this truth, they are then hard-pressed to provide a cogent explanation or rationale for why there would even be a post-parousia millennial kingdom.
(16) A careful reading of Acts 15 also reinforces the truth of amillennialism. In this text we see that the rebuilding of the tent (or tabernacle) of David refers not to a restoration of ethnic or national Israel in a post-parousia millennial earth, but rather to the resurrection and exaltation of Yahushua to the throne of David and the ingathering of souls, in this present church age, from among the Gentiles.
(17) Amillennialism makes the best sense of Hebrews 11. There Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are said to have persevered in faith, “having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth” (Heb. 11:13), all the while they looked forward to “the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is Yahuwah” (11:10; cf. 11:16). That city, of course, is the New Jerusalem. They lived in expectation that the promise would be fulfilled in “a better country, that is, a heavenly one”, which must be a reference to the New Earth. Clearly, then, even Abraham and his fellow patriarchs understood that the OT promise of a land would not be fulfilled in a this-earthly-territory but in the New Earth, the “heavenly” country which Yahuwah had prepared for them.
(18) Amillennialism also makes more sense of the structure of the book of Revelation. There we find the principle of recapitulation, or progressive parallelism, in which the same period of time (the church age, spanning the two advents of Christ) is described from different but complementary perspectives. If the principle of recapitulation is applicable here, as I believe it is, much of the rationale for reading Revelation in a strictly futurist manner is undermined. Indeed, if this principle is true, Revelation 20:1-10 should be interpreted as a recapitulation of the present church age rather than as following in historical sequence upon the second coming of Christ as described in Revelation 19.
(19) Amillennialism also makes most sense of the literary genre of Revelation and the highly symbolic nature of the language in chapter twenty. The premillennial attempt to read this passage in a woodenly literal way wreaks havoc on an obviously figurative portrayal of the binding of Satan.
(20) Amillennialism is better suited to explain the restriction placed on Satan in Revelation 20:1-3. Contrary to the claims of premillennialism, Satan’s binding is not universal, as if during the span of the “1,000 years” he is prevented from doing everything. Rather, he is prevented from perpetuating the spiritual blindness of the nations and keeping them in gospel darkness. He is also prevented from provoking a premature global assault on the church which we know to be the battle of Armageddon.
(21) Amillennialism alone can account for why Satan must be bound in the first place. According to premillennialism, Satan is allegedly prevented from deceiving the very nations who at the close of Revelation 19 have already been defeated and destroyed at Christ’s return. In other words, it makes no sense to speak of protecting the nations from deception by Satan in 20:1-3 after they have just been both deceived by Satan (16:13-16; cf. 19:19-20) and destroyed by Christ at his return (19:11-21; cf. 16:15a, 19).
(22) The amillennial reading of Revelation alone makes sense of the obvious parallel between the war of Revelation 19 and 20. They are clearly not two different battles separated by 1,000 years of millennial history.
(23) Amillennialism best explains Hebrews 12:26-28 where there is only one coming cosmic dissolution (associated with Christ’s second coming, the judgment of the nations, and the creation of a New Heavens and New Earth), not two (as is required by premillennialism; one at the time of the second coming and yet another at the close of a millennial kingdom).
(24) Amillennialism makes more sense of the symbolic nature of the number “1,000” in Revelation 20. In other texts “one thousand” rarely if ever is meant to be taken with arithmetical precision. This is true whether the context is non-temporal (Ps. 50:10; Song of Solomon 4:4; Josh. 23:10; Isa. 60:22; Deut. 1:11; Job 9:3; Eccles. 7:28), in which case the usage is always figurative, indeed hyperbolical, or temporal (Deut. 7:9; 1 Chron. 16:15; Pss. 84:10; 90:4; 105:8; 2 Pet. 3:8).
(25) Amillennialism recognizes the obvious parallel between Revelation 20:1-6 and Revelation 6:9-11. The latter text unmistakably describes the experience of the martyrs who have been beheaded because of the word of their testimony on behalf of Christ. So, too, Revelation 20 portrays the experience of “souls” beheaded for the sake of their testimony concerning Christ.
(26) Amillennialism alone does justice to the obvious parallel between Revelation 20:1-6 and Revelation 2:10-11. The latter is an encouragement given to prospective martyrs. They are to be faithful unto death and Christ will give them the “crown of life.” Likewise, in Revelation 20 those who die for the sake of their witness are granted “life” with their Lord. Reinforcement of this parallel is found in the fact that only here in chapter 2 and again in chapter 20 is reference made to “the second death,” from which the faithful martyrs are promised deliverance.
(27) Related to the above is the fact that in Revelation 3:21 those who persevere under persecution and “conquer” or “overcome” are said to sit and reign with Christ on this throne. This is precisely what is said of the martyrs in Revelation 20. They come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years.
(28) Amillennialism alone accounts for the use of the word “thrones” in Revelation 20:4. This word, both inside Revelation and elsewhere in the NT, consistently refers to heavenly thrones, not earthly ones.
(29) Amillennialism alone explains the significance of the ordinal “first” as a modifier of “resurrection.” Closer study reveals that whatever is first or old pertains to the present world, that is to say, to the world that is transient, temporary, and incomplete. Conversely, whatever is second or new pertains to the future world, to the world that is permanent, complete, and is associated with the eternal consummation of all things. The term first is therefore not an ordinal in a process of counting objects that are identical in kind. Rather, whenever first is used in conjunction with second or new the idea is of a qualitative contrast (not a mere numerical sequence). To be first is to be associated with this present, temporary, transient world. Whatever is first does not participate in the quality of finality and permanence which is distinctive of the age to come. Thus the “first resurrection” is descriptive of life prior to the consummation.
(30) Finally, the hermeneutical principle known as the Analogy of Faith is best honored within an amillennial system. When asked for an explicit and unmistakable biblical affirmation of a post-parousia millennial kingdom, premillennialists typically point to Revelation 20, and only Revelation 20. But as we have seen, Revelation 20 is neither explicit nor unmistakable in teaching an earthly millennial kingdom. Furthermore, no single passage in an admittedly symbolic and comparatively difficult context should be allowed to overturn (or trump) the witness of a multiplicity of passages in admittedly didactic and comparatively straightforward contexts. To put this same point in the form of a question: Do the statements in other New Testament books concerning end-time chronology necessarily and logically preclude the notion of a post-parousia millennial age in Revelation 20? I am convinced that this must be answered affirmatively.
My contention is not that the passages in the Pauline, Johannine, and Petrine corpus simply omit reference to a post-Parousia millennial age. If that were the case it is conceivable that we might harmonize Revelation 20 with them, making room, as it were, for the former in the latter. But the texts are not such as may be conflated with the notion of a future millennial kingdom. These passages clearly appear logically to preclude the existence of such a kingdom. My argument throughout Kingdom Come has been that a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 actually contradicts the clear and unequivocal assertions in such texts as John 5, 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8, 2 Thessalonians 1, Hebrews 11, and 2 Peter 3.
Rather than reading these texts through the grid of Revelation 20, the latter should be read in the clear light of the former. Sound hermeneutical procedure would call on us to interpret the singular and obscure in the light of the plural and explicit. To make the rest of the New Testament (not to mention the Old Testament) bend to the standard of one text in the most controversial, symbolic, and by scholarly consensus most difficult book in the Bible, is hardly commendable hermeneutical method. We simply must not allow a singular apocalyptic tail to wag the entire epistolary dog! We must not force the whole of Scripture to dance to the tune of Revelation 20.
This is a non-WLC article by Sam Storms.
We have taken out from the original article all pagan names and titles of the Father and Son, and have replaced them with the original given names. Furthermore, we have restored in the Scriptures quoted the names of the Father and Son, as they were originally written by the inspired authors of the Bible. -WLC Team
