Left Behind—or Left Bedazzled? (Part II)
An examination of Dispensational premillennialism (Part II)
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the November issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]
Revelation 13
.jpg)
A second passage that is used to support the notion of an “Antichrist”
is Revelation 13:1-10. Several points regarding the context of the book
of Revelation and its proper interpretation lead to the understanding
that the seven-headed sea beast was a symbol for the then
monstrous emperor of Rome who was responsible for unleashing horrible
atrocities upon Christians of Asia Minor in the latter years of the
first century A.D. (Summers, 1951, pp. 173-178). The two-horned land
beast (Revelation 13:11-18), who enforced worship of the sea beast,
refers to the official governmental organization known as the Roman
Concilia that was responsible for supporting and regulating all details
relative to emperor worship (Summers, pp. 178-179; Swete, 1911, pp.
xci-xciii,168ff.). This evil legal entity was authorized to instigate
economic sanctions against those who refused to appropriate the “mark”
of the beast, “mark” being a symbol for the tokens of proof of their
submission to Caesar worship (vs. 17). With this understanding of
Revelation 13, it is unscriptural and unbiblical to identify the sea
beast in Revelation 13 with some revived Roman dictator or “future
fuehrer” (Lindsey, 1970, pp. 87ff.) known as the “Antichrist.”
2 Thessalonians 2
A third passage used to foster belief in an “Antichrist” is 2
Thessalonians 2:1-12. Whatever interpretation is placed upon this
passage, its use to refer to a future personage is doomed to failure
since Paul explicitly stated that he was referring to a person who would
be the product of the circumstances of his own day,
i.e., “already at work” (vs. 7). How could Paul have had in mind a
future dictator that still has not arisen, though 2,000 years have
transpired? One need go no further to know that 2 Thessalonians 2 does
not refer to a future Antichrist.
History is replete with a variety of interpretations of this passage,
the most prominent one likely being the view that the papacy is under
consideration (see Workman, 1988, pp. 428-434; Eadie, 1877, pp. 340ff.).
Another possibility is that the “falling away” (vs. 3), or apostasy,
referred to the Jewish rejection of the “new and living way” of approach
to God (Hebrews 10:20). The Jews were the single most adamant opponents
to Christ and the infant church (John 8:37-44; Acts 7:51-53; 13:45-50;
Romans 10:20-21; 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). This rebellion, or
falling away, would not reach its “full” (Matthew 23:32) climax until
the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the resulting dispersal of
the Jewish people. Paul had already alluded to this Jewish apostasy in 1
Thessalonians 2:15-16. The pouring out of God’s wrath was the logical
consequence of the first-century Israelite failure to make the
transition to Christianity.
According to this viewpoint, the “man of sin” or “son of perdition”
(vs. 3) would have referred to the personification of Roman imperialism,
and would have been equated with “the abomination of desolation” that
Jesus, quoting Daniel 9, alluded to in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20.
Verse 4 would refer to the Roman general who introduced his idolatrous
insignia into the Holy of Holies in A.D. 70 (cf. Swete, p. xci).
That which was “withholding” (vs. 6), or restraining, this man of sin,
at the time Paul was writing 2 Thessalonians in approximately A.D. 53,
would have been the presence of the Jewish state. The ingenious design
of God was that Christianity would appear to the hostile Roman
government to be nothing more than another sect of the Jews. Thus
Christianity was shielded for the moment (i.e., A.D.
30-70) from the fury of the persecuting forces of Rome, while it
developed, spread, and gave the Jews ample opportunity to be
incorporated into the elect remnant—the church of Christ (cf. Romans
11:26). Thus the nation of Israel was rendered totally without excuse in
its rejection of Christianity, while at the same time serving as a restraining force by preventing Christianity from being perceived by the Romans as a separate, and therefore illegal, religion (religio illicita).
Once the Jewish apostasy was complete, and God’s wrath was poured out
upon Jerusalem, Christianity came to be seen as a distinct religion from
Judaism. Increasingly, Christians found themselves brought into
conflict with the persecution from “the wicked” or “lawless one” (vs.
8). In fact, after A.D. 70 (when the withholding effect of Judaism was
removed), Roman opposition to Christianity gradually grew greater,
culminating in the fierce and formidable persecution imposed by Caesar
Domitian in the final decade of the first century.
Once the shield of Judaism was removed (vs. 7), and Christianity
increasingly found itself subject to the indignities of governmental
disfavor, the Lord was to come and “consume with the spirit of His
mouth” the one responsible. This terminology is not an allusion to
Christ’s second coming. Rather, this verse refers to Christ’s coming in judgment on the Roman power. Such a use of the word “coming” to describe the display of God’s wrath upon people in history
is not unusual (cf. Isaiah 19:1; Micah 1:3). Paul alluded to the
government’s use of counterfeit miracles (vs. 9), and thus deceit (vs.
10), that is reminiscent of the Concilia’s employment of tricks and
illusions to deceive people into worshipping the emperor (Revelation
13:13-15) during the last decade of the first century A.D. (Summers, p.
178; Swete, pp. 170-172).
Summary
When studied in context, these passages render the notion of an
“Antichrist” and the entire dispensational scheme without scriptural
support. Those in bygone days who applied these passages to Nero,
Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. have been proven
wrong. Yet the pattern continues unabated among those who have not
learned from the sad mistakes of the past.
will there be an armageddon?
The next feature of the dispensational scheme insists that world
history will culminate in a cataclysmic global holocaust known as
“Armageddon” (followed by the “Millennium,” a 1000-year reign of Christ
on Earth). They say that current events in the Middle East and elsewhere
are arranging themselves in such a fashion that the second coming of
Christ is imminent. Of course, this claim has been made repeatedly for
many, many years—with no fulfillment forthcoming.
The term “armageddon” occurs only once in the New Testament: Revelation
16:16. In keeping with the literary genre of the book (i.e., apocalypse
[“revelation”]—vs. 1), the term is unquestionably used with figurative
connotations. The Holy Spirit capitalized on the meaning which this
location possessed for those who would have been familiar with the Old
Testament (as Asia Minor Christians would have been). In Hebrew, the
term “Harmageddon” means “mountain (or hill) of Megiddo.” Was there a
hill of Megiddo? Yes. In fact, Jews were only too familiar with this
prominent battlefield and vicinity. Many bloody encounters stained the
soil of this region. It was here that Deborah and Barak defeated the
Canaanites (Judges 5:19). Gideon was victorious over the Midianites in
this area (Judges 7). These positive accomplishments were etched into
the Israelite consciousness. But there were other, more vivid, images
evoked by Megiddo, for it also served as a place where national tragedy
had occurred. Ahaziah died there after being pierced by Jehu’s arrow (2
Kings 9:27). And it was there that good King Josiah perished tragically
at the hands of Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29).
With this long historical background, Megiddo came to occupy a place in
the minds of believers similar to places which immediately bring to the
American mind definite and strong impressions: the Alamo, Pearl Harbor,
the Twin Towers, etc. This significance was then utilized by the Holy
Spirit to convey to struggling, persecuted Christians of Asia Minor near
the end of the first century the sure outcome of the conflict then
being waged between the forces of evil (Satan and imperial Rome) and the
forces of righteousness (God, Christ, and faithful saints who were
enduring). These Christians were certainly in no need of assurance that
some future global holocaust would occur which Christ would bring to an
end 2,000+ years removed from their suffering. These Christians were in dire need of assurance that Christ would come to their
aid soon. They needed encouragement to hang on, and to remain steadfast
in the face of inhuman mistreatment. The symbol of armageddon provided
that assurance. Christians were given the solace that the outcome of the
battle would soon be realized. The enemies of God and His People would
be punished, while suffering saints would soon be comforted. Thus
“armageddon” is purely symbolic and in no way relates to dispensational
dreams of a future world war centered in or emanating from northern
Palestine.
Will there be a millennium?
Dispensationalism also insists that when Jesus returns (for a third
time!) to terminate “Armageddon,” He will then usher in the
“Millennium”—an alleged thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth in which
He will establish a literal, physical kingdom, and rule from Jerusalem.
Four contextual indicators militate against a literal 1,000 years in
Revelation 20:1-6. First, the events of the book of Revelation were to
“shortly take place”—an expression that occurs near the beginning as
well as near the end of the book (1:1; 22:6). “Shortly” (en tachei)
meant quickly, at once, without delay, soon, in a short time (Arndt and
Gingrich, 1957, p. 814; Mounce, 2006, p. 1288; Hengstenberg, 1851,
1:47-49). Moffatt gave the meaning as “soon” and noted: “The keynote of
the Apocalypse is the cheering assurance that upon God’s part there is
no reluctance or delay; His people have not long to wait now” (n.d., 5:335, emp. added).
Other passages where the term is used, confirm that a brief length of
time is intended—not merely the rapidity with which the designated
events occur, as some have suggested. Regarding those disciples who cry
out to God night and day for His intervention, Jesus assured: “He will
avenge them speedily (en tachei)” (Luke 18:8).
What comfort would be afforded if Jesus intended to convey the idea
that relief may be long delayed, but when it finally did come, it would
come in a quick fashion? When Peter was asleep in prison, bound with two
chains between two soldiers, and an angel awoke him by striking him on
the side and instructed him to “arise quickly (en tachei)!”
(Acts 12:7), would Peter have understood the angel to mean that he
could continue resting or sleeping for as long as he chose, just as long
as when he did get ready to get up, he came up off the prison floor
with a rapid motion? When Festus insisted that Paul be detained in
Caesarea rather than be transferred to Jerusalem, since “he himself was
going there shortly (en tachei)” (Acts 25:4),
would anyone have understood him to mean that he may delay his visit to
Caesarea by years? Paul even used the term in contradistinction with
being “delayed” (1 Timothy 3:14-15; cf. White, n.d., 4:117). When Paul
wrote to Roman Christians, informing them that “the God of peace will
crush Satan under your feet shortly (en tachei)”
(16:20), did he mean “in the near future”? Or did he mean that God’s
action on their behalf may not come for centuries or millennia, but
nevertheless wanted them to be assured that when God finally did act, He
would do so in a swift manner? Additional occurrences of the expression
further underscore the meaning of “soon” (Acts 10:33; 17:15; 22:18).
A second contextual indicator within Revelation itself is the
occurrence of the phrase: “for the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). Thayer
said “near” (eggus) refers to “things imminent and soon to come
to pass” (1901, p. 164; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, p. 213). Such a
reference would necessarily pertain to the first century—not the twenty-first.
Two or three thousand years would be too late for the desperate
Christians of Asia Minor (see Summers, p. 99). Those who get caught up
in “millennium mania” seem oblivious to the fact that the book was
written to an original, immediate audience. Revelation was, in fact,
written to the seven churches of Christ situated in Asia Minor (1:4).
All seven are even named (1:11)! If the book was written to them, and if it was their
spiritual condition that was the concern of the book, millenarians are
incorrect in their contention that the book is devoted primarily, if not
exclusively, to predictions of the end times. Though the Old Testament
prophets predicted future events on occasion, their primary message was
relevant to their immediate audience. Dispensationalists have trouble
finding in Revelation a relevant message for a first-century audience.
The apostle John recognized their need, and identified himself as their
“companion” in the terrible tribulation they were then enduring (1:9). Not only was this tribulation going on at that
time, but John further referred to himself and his readers as being in
the kingdom at that time (1:9). Thus, Christ’s kingdom was already set up, in existence on Earth, and in full operating mode.
Third, there is the statement of the angel to John: “Do not seal the
words of the prophecy of this book” (Revelation 22:10). What did the
angel mean? What he meant becomes apparent when one reflects upon the
fact that Daniel was told to do the exact opposite of what John was told
to do. After receiving a remarkable series of detailed prophecies,
Daniel was told to “shut up the words, and seal
the book until the time of the end” (Daniel 12:4, emp. added).
Furthermore, he was instructed: “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed
till the time of the end” (vs. 9, emp. added). The reason Daniel was
told to seal the book was because the fulfillment of the prophecies that
had been revealed to him were hundreds of years off in the future—far
from his own day. The predictions, therefore, would be of no immediate
value to the initial recipients of the book. The book could be closed
and placed on the shelf until those who would be living at the time of
their fulfillment could appreciate the relevance of its predictions. In
stark contrast, John was ordered: “Do not seal the
words of the prophecy of this book” (22:10, emp. added). Why? The text
answers—“for the time is at hand”! These words can hold no other meaning
than that the bulk of Revelation was fulfilled in close proximity to
the time they were written—2,000 years ago.
Fourth, consider the use of the impersonal verb “must”: “things which must shortly take place” (1:1). Baptist Greek grammarian Ray Summers explained:
The verb translated “it is necessary” or “must”…indicates that a moral
necessity is involved; the nature of the case is such that the things
revealed here must come to pass shortly…. The things
revealed here must happen shortly, or the cause will be lost…. They were
in need of assurance of help in the immediate present—not in some
millennium of the distant and uncertain future (p. 99, emp. in orig.).
Indeed, the downtrodden, persecuted Christians of Asia Minor needed assistance right away.
The dispensational framework would rob those first-century saints of
the very comfort and reassurance they so desperately needed,
deserved—and received.
Fifth, note the use of the term “signified”: “And He sent and signified
it by His angel to His servant John” (1:1, ASV, KJV). This term (seimaino),
as is evident from the English translation, means “to show by signs”
(Mounce, 2006, p. 1268; Moulton and Milligan, 1930, p. 572; Vincent,
1890, 2:564; Summers, p. 99; Perschbacher, 1990, p. 369; Robertson,
1960, 6:284). The term, along with the Greek word translated
“revelation” (apocalupsis), introduces the nature of this book.
The book of Revelation reveals or unveils God’s message through signs
or symbols. Placing a literal interpretation on the numbers, animals,
objects, colors, and locations of Revelation—as dispensationalists
routinely try to do—does violence to the true intent of the book. John’s
Revelation declares itself to be a book of symbols, filled with
figurative language, and not intended to be taken literally. In fact, as
Swete observed, “much of the imagery of the Apocalypse is doubtless not
symbolism, but merely designed to heighten the colouring of the great
picture, and to add vividness and movement to its scenes” (p. cxxxiii). A
genuine recognition of this self-declared feature of the book excludes a
literal interpretation of the number 1,000.
In addition to these preliminary contextual details, chapter 20
contains specific features that assist the interpreter in pinpointing
the meaning of the symbol of a “thousand year reign.” It is surely
noteworthy that in the entire Bible, the only allusion to a so-called
thousand-year reign is Revelation 20:4,6—a fact that is conceded even by
dispensationalists (e.g., Ladd, 1972, p. 267; Mounce, 1977, pp.
356-357). Yet an entire belief system has been built upon such scanty
evidence. An examination of the setting and context yields surprising
results. For example, a simple reading of the immediate context reveals
that the theme of Revelation 20 is not “the thousand-year reign of
Christ.” Rather, it is “victory over Satan.” Each of the symbols
presents concepts that, when put together, relieve the fears of
oppressed Christians regarding their outcome. The key, abyss, and chain
(vs. 1) are apocalyptic symbols for the effective limitation or
containment of Satan in his ability to deceive the nations in the
specific matter of emperor worship enforced by the government (see
Swete, pp. xxxi, civ-cv). The symbol of one thousand years (vss. 2-7) is
a high multiple of ten, representing ultimate completeness (see
Summers, pp. 23). John’s readers thus could know that the devil was to
be completely restrained from deceiving the nations into worshipping the
emperor. The thousand years symbolized the extended triumph of God’s
kingdom on Earth over the devil who was then operating through the
persecuting powers of Rome. A thousand symbolic years of victory would
lessen suffering in the minds of persecuted Christians.
“Loosing for a little season” (vs. 3) represented the revival of
persecution under later emperors like Aurelius, Diocletian, and Julian
the Apostate. “Thrones” (vs. 4) represented the victorious power of the
oppressed. The persecuted saints were pictured on thrones judging
because of the victory of their cause. “Souls” (vs. 4)—not resurrected
bodies, but disembodied souls—represent those who were martyrs of the
Domitianic persecution. Their refusal to “receive the mark” meant they
refused to worship Caesar or to manifest those marks that would identify
them as adherents of the false state religion of emperor worship. The
“first resurrection” (vs. 5) referred to the triumphant resurrection of
the cause for which the Christians of 20:4 had lived and died. Gog and
Magog were symbolic of the enemies of God and Christ, imagery drawn from
Ezekiel 38 and 39. The “beloved city” (vs. 9) is spiritual Israel, the church (John 4:20-21; Galatians 6:16).
Some allowance may be granted in the interpretation of these highly
figurative symbols, without doing damage to other Bible doctrines, or
reflecting adversely upon the Gospel system and the broader will of
Deity. However, the 1,000 years must not be perceived as a yet-future
period. There is simply no biblical support for doing so. The figure
represents an important concept for those to whom it was first directed.
It has meaning for people living today only in that context. There will
be no 1,000-year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth.
Is the kingdom yet to be established?
Dispensationalists further claim that the kingdom is yet future, and
that Jesus is not reigning now, but will commence His reign in His
kingdom when He returns in the future to establish it in Jerusalem.
However, several passages cannot be harmonized with such a view. First,
the Bible teaches that the kingdom exists now and has existed since A.D.
30. While Jesus was on Earth, He went to Galilee, “preaching the gospel
of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the
kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’” (Mark
1:14-15). He also stated that “there are some standing here who will not
taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark
9:1). In fact, God “has delivered us from the power of darkness and
conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love”
(Colossians 1:13, emp. added). To insist that the kingdom is yet to be
established is to fail to recognize that the Bible plainly declares that
the kingdom already exists on Earth.
Second, the words “kingdom,” “Israel,” and “church” all refer to the
same group of people—the saved, Christians, the church of Christ, spiritual
Israel. Jesus predicted that He would build His “church” and give to
Peter the keys of the “kingdom” (Matthew 16:18-19). Jesus did not build
one institution and give to Peter the keys to a different institution
that would be established on Earth 2,000+ years after Peter’s
death. Paul told the Galatian Christians: “Therefore know that only
those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.… And if you are Christ’s,
then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise”
(Galatians 3:7,29; cf. 6:16). He told Christians in Rome: “For he is not
a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward
in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is
that of the heart” (Romans 2:28-29). Spiritual Israel is the church of
Christ which is the kingdom.
Third, Jesus is reigning now in heaven and has been since A.D. 30.
Peter referred to this reign when he explained that Jesus “has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and
powers having been made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). Daniel predicted
over four centuries prior to fulfillment:
One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to
the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him
was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all
peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an
everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed (7:13-14, emp. added).
This prophecy was fulfilled at the ascension of Christ: “while they
watched, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight”
(Acts 1:9). Jesus returned to heaven where He was given rule over His
kingdom.
Peter made this fact clear in his remarks on Pentecost: “God had sworn
with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the
flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,
he, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.... This
Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore, being
exalted to the right hand of God...” (Acts 2:30-33,
emp. added). So Jesus was reigning at that moment over His kingdom. Paul
expressed the same truth: “He raised Him from the dead and seated Him
at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and
power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in
this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under
His feet” (Ephesians 1:20-22). Hence, when Jesus returns a second time,
it will not be to reign on Earth. Rather, “[t]hen comes the end, when
He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when 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” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25, emp. added).
Fourth, Jesus completed His work on Earth and,
consequently, has no reason to return to the Earth, itself, to do any
additional work. He explained to the disciples: “My food is to do the
will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work” (John
4:34, emp. added). Shortly before His departure from the Earth, He
prayed to the Father: “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work
which You gave Me to do” (John 17:4, emp. added). He reiterated this
fact on the cross when He declared: “It is finished” (John 19:30).
Dispensationalists say that Jesus came with the intention to be King,
and to set up an earthly kingdom, but that the Jews unexpectedly
rejected Him. But this claim is in direct conflict with the facts. On
one occasion, after feeding thousands of people with five loaves of
bread and two fish—a feat that would constitute a tremendous advantage
should war with Rome be forthcoming—John noted that “when Jesus
perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king,
He departed again to a mountain by Himself alone” (6:15, emp. added).
If Jesus intended to establish a physical kingdom on Earth, that
occasion would have been the perfect time to do so—with the support of
the masses. So why did Jesus refuse to be made a king on Earth on a
physical throne? He gave the reason to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of
this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight,
so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not
from here” (John 18:36). The dispensational claim that Jesus is coming
back to be a king on Earth on a physical throne is the very thing
first-century Jews tried to get Him to do—but which He refused to do—and
which He denied before Pilate. Did Jesus lie to Pilate?
but what about the promises to Israel?
Many these days insist that God made clear promises in Scripture to
physical Israel that are yet to be fulfilled and which absolutely must
be fulfilled, and that they play a prominent and continuing role in
God’s scheme of things. This contention has had a profound impact upon
U.S. foreign policy and in the way people around the world—especially in
the Middle East—perceive America. It is surely a shock to find that the
Bible depicts no such favored status. All people stand
on level ground at the foot of the cross of Christ. God is no respecter
of persons and makes no distinctions between people on the basis of
ethnicity (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11,28-29; Galatians 3:28). The
promises that were made to physical Israel in the Old Testament were
fulfilled long ago.
For example, God announced to Abraham that He would give to his
descendants (the Israelites) the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:1; 15:7).
This promise was fulfilled when Israel took possession of Palestine in
the 15th century B.C. (Joshua 21:43-45; 2 Chronicles 9:26).
What so many people today fail to recognize is that Israelite retainment
of the land was contingent upon their continued obedience (Leviticus
18:24-28; Joshua 23:14-16; 1 Kings 9:3-7). But, sadly, they forfeited
retention of the land due to their incessant disobedience and continual
rejection of God’s guidance. The complete and final cutoff of physical
Israel took place in A.D. 70—as Jesus mournfully announced: “O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those
who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not
willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:37-38).
Further, the reestablishment of national Israel, and the rebuilding of
Jerusalem and the Temple (i.e., the national promises of Deuteronomy 30
and Zechariah 12-14) were literally fulfilled in the
returning remnant after the Babylonian captivity (Nehemiah 1:8-10;
Isaiah 10:22; Jeremiah 23:3; Ezra 3:1-11). The establishment of the
modern state of Israel in May of 1948 cannot supplant this already
achieved fulfillment and has nothing to do with the original promises
made to Abraham and his descendants.
Many of the Old Testament prophecies that predicted the return of the
Jews after captivity were laced with predictions of the coming Christ to
the Earth to bring ultimate redemption. Hence, the national promises
were spiritually fulfilled in the church of Christ
wherein both Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. For example,
premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding
prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle
of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up
its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess
the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the
fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which
was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be
rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied
by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say
that Jesus will return, set up His millennial kingdom, and reign on a
literal throne for a thousand years, incorporating the Gentiles, in
addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it,
this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian
spin placed upon it.
However, two Bible passages correct this mistaken interpretation, and
settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The
first is the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to
King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel
7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the
Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the
Tabernacle (the one God refused to allow David to build—2 Samuel 7:1-7)
would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build
David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this lineage to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.
The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the
Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding
Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following
confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has
declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a
people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree,
just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12.
In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two
significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos:
(1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had
been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew
22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby
“rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with
the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this
occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of
humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” [NOTE: Also, study Ezekiel
37:15-24 and see Jesus’ application to Himself in the first century
(John 10:11,16).]
In light of James’ inspired application of it to the integrated church
of the first century, the Amos prophecy, like all others in the Old
Testament that dispensationalists wish to apply to the future, find
their ultimate and final climax in the momentous advent of the Christian
religion on the planet—2,000 years ago. The premillennial treatment of
prophecy, in the final analysis, demeans and trivializes the
significance of the Gospel, the church of Christ, and the Christian
religion as the final revelation from God to mankind.
Conclusion
A careful and consistent appraisal of Bible teaching forces one to
conclude that all promises made to physical Israel have either been
fulfilled or forfeited through disobedience. All who wish to be
acceptable to God must submit to Jesus Christ now (John
3:5; 8:24). [NOTE: Compare the use of “now” in Romans to refer to the
Christian age which began at Pentecost: 3:26; 5:9,11; 8:1,18; 11:5;
13:11; 16:26.] Christians need not fear any of the political, economic,
or military developments of today or tomorrow. God has given us simple
instructions on how to become a Christian, how to live the Christian
life, and the need to urge others to do the same. God deals with all
human beings today on the same basis and on the same grounds—obedience
to Christ’s will. “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no
other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts
4:12). The sensationalism and hysteria associated with the ongoing
attempt to apply long since fulfilled Bible prophecy to the current
events of today is seductive. But it only serves the purpose of
diverting people’s attention away from their daily responsibility to
live obediently and faithfully now.
The Bible portrait of the end times is much simpler and succinct. The
Bible teaches that at some point in the future, unknown even to the
angels (Matthew 24:36), Jesus will return in flaming fire (2
Thessalonians 1:8). He will hover among the clouds without ever setting
foot on the Earth (Acts 1:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:17). At that point, all
who are in the graves will be resurrected (Luke 14:14; John 5:28-29) and
changed (1 Corinthians 15:52-53). The righteous will rise to meet the
Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Then all people who have ever
lived, both good and evil, will stand in judgment before God (Matthew
25:31-46; Revelation 20:11-13; 2 Corinthians 5:10). The wicked will be
consigned to hell, while the righteous will be welcomed into heaven
(Romans 2:5-10).
When one is willing to remove from his mind all preconceived and
complex theological concoctions, and simply let the Bible paint its own
picture of the end of time and the second coming of Christ, the
dispensational viewpoint is seen to be convoluted, concocted, and
unfounded. There will be no “Rapture.” There will be no “Antichrist.”
There will be no “Great Tribulation.” There will be no “Armageddon” or
“Millennium” on Earth.
REFERENCES
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Eadie, John (1877), Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Hengstenberg, E.W. (1851), The Revelation of St. John, trans. Patrick Fairbairn (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).
Ladd, George E. (1972), A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lindsey, Hal (1970), The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Moffatt, James (no date), The Revelation of St. John the Divine in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. Nicoll, W. Robertson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1930), The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1982 reprint.
Mounce, Robert (1977), The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Mounce, Robert (2006), Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Perschbacher, Wesley (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Robertson, A.T. (1960), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Summers, Ray (1951), Worthy Is the Lamb (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Swete, Henry (1911), Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977 reprint).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Vincent, M.R. (1890), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 reprint).
White, Newport (no date), The First and Second Epistles to Timothy in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Workman, Gary (1988), Studies in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon (Denton, TX: Valid Publications).
Additional Works Consulted
Bales, J.D. (1972), Prophecy and Premillennialism (Searcy, AR: James Bales).
Barclay, William (1960), The Revelation of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Hailey, Homer (1979), Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Harper, E.R. (no date), Prophecy Foretold Prophecy Fulfilled (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Jackson, Wayne (no date), Premillenialism: A System of Infidelity (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier).
Turner, Rex (1979), The Premillennialists’ Abuse of the Prophecies of Daniel (Memphis, TN: Getwell church of Christ).
Winkler, Wendell, ed. (1978), “Premillennialism, True or False?” (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).
When
interpreting a statute, courts adhere to general canons of construction
to aid in the proper interpretation of that statute. The first and most
important rule of statutory interpretation is that the resolution of a
dispute over the meaning of a statute begins with the language of the
statute itself (United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.,
1989). In other words, the cardinal rule of statutory construction is
“that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a
statute what it says there” (Connecticut National Bank v. Germain,
1992). As such, “[i]f statutory language is plain, permitting only one
construction, there is no occasion to seek out congressional intent by
reference to legislative history or other extrinsic aids” (Lapine v. Town of Wellesley,
2002). However, if the statute’s language is not plain, courts may rely
on the legislative history of the statute to help interpret that
statute (United States v. Fields, 2007). Legislative history is
comprised of the comments and statements of senators and congressmen
made while a bill is being debated.
