A flood of paperback books, advocating the theory of
premillennialism, has invaded the religious market in recent years. One
of the first widely-popular efforts was titled, The Late Great Planet Earth. It was authored by Hal Lindsey, a graduate of the school of theology at the Dallas Theological Seminary.
The thrust of Lindsey’s book is two-fold: First, it espouses the
premillennial theory of Christ’s second coming. Second, it interprets
present world political trends as signs of the imminent return of Jesus
Christ.
A more recent production, advocating the same general theory, is the fictional Left Behind
series. The popularity of this effort has enabled the originators to
develop a parallel film series as well. No doubt, there is great
interest in the religious world of end-time events.
The Issue Defined
The premillennial concept is the result of literalizing a few
symbolic verses in the book of Revelation, coupled with a considerable
disregard for scores of Bible passages of clearest import. The word
“premillennial” itself is derived of two components—“pre” signifies before, and “millennium” denotes a period of one thousand years. The theory thus suggests that Christ will return to the earth just prior to a one-thousand-year reign.
The premillennial theory is advanced in several different ways. It
is, therefore, not an easy task to generalize regarding this system of
doctrine. We will focus mainly on that branch of millennialism that is
known as dispensational premillennialism. The following quotations are
introduced to bring some of the main points into focus:
It is held that the Old Testament prophets predicted the
re-establishment of David’s kingdom and that Christ himself intended to
bring this about. It is alleged however, that because the Jews refused
his person and work he postponed the establishment of his kingdom until
the time of his return. Meanwhile, it is argued, the Lord gathered
together “the church” as a kind of interim measure (Kevan 1999, 352).
Generally, premillennialists believe that shortly before the second
coming the world will be marked by extraordinary tribulation and evil
and the appearance of the Anti-Christ. At his coming, Christ will
destroy this anti-Christ and believers will be raised from the dead.
There will then follow a millennium of peace and order over which Christ
will reign with his saints. At the close of this time, Satan will be
loosed and the forces of evil will once again be rampant. The wicked
will then be raised, and a final judgment will take place in which Satan
and all evil ones will be consigned to eternal punishment (Harvey 1964,
151).
For centuries the Jews have been scattered among many nations. In
preparation for the return of Christ and the beginning of the
millennium, they are being gathered back to their own land, according to
prophecy, in a national restoration. David’s throne will be
re-established at Jerusalem, and through these restored people as a
nucleus Christ will reign with his immortal saints over the whole world
(Nichols n.d., 279).
To summarize, the premillennial view asserts that Christ came to this
earth for the purpose of setting up his kingdom. He was, however,
surprisingly rejected by the Jews. Hence, he postponed the kingdom plans
and set up the church instead—as sort of an emergency measure. When he
returns, he allegedly will raise only the righteous dead, restore
national Israel, sit upon David’s literal throne in Jerusalem, and then
reign for a span of one thousand years—after which comes the
resurrection of the wicked and the judgment.
One of the primary fallacies of the premillennial concept is a materialistic
view of the reign of Christ. This same notion was entertained by the
ancient Jews and actually was responsible for their rejection and
crucifixion of the Messiah. The fact is, this mistaken Jewish
expectation of a literal, material kingdom spawned the millennial
doctrine that was taught in the early post-apostolic age. As one
historian observed:
The idea of a millennial reign proceeded from Judaism, for among the
Jews the representation was current, that the Messiah would reign a
thousand years on earth, and then bring to a close the present
terrestrial System. This calculation was arrived at, by a literal
interpretation of Psalm 90:4, “A thousand years are in thy sight as one
day.” It was further argued that as the World was created in six days,
so it would last six thousand years, the seventh thousand would be a
period of repose, a sabbath on Earth to be followed by the destruction
of the World (Neander 1858, 248).
The necessary implications of the premillennial doctrine are grave
indeed. This teaching strikes treacherously at numerous facets of
Biblical truth. Let us consider some of these crucial matters.
Christ’s Rejection by the Jews
The premillennial view implies that the Jewish rejection of Christ
was an unexpected miscarriage in the plans of God. Whereas, the truth
is, his rejection was plainly foretold by the Old Testament prophets.
Isaiah had prophetically asked, “Who hath believed our report? and to
whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (53:1).
In the New Testament, when describing the rebellion of the Jews, John wrote:
But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed
not on him: that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled,
which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the
arm of the Lord been revealed? (John 12:37, 38).
Again, it was prophesied: “The stone which the builders rejected is
become the head of the corner” (Psalm 118:22; cf. Matthew 21:33-46).
Having been foretold centuries before, the Jewish rejection of Christ was no surprise.
Implications Regarding the Kingdom
Nothing in the Scriptures is any clearer than the fact that the
kingdom of God was established shortly after the death of Christ. Note
the following:
Daniel’s Prophecy
The prophet Daniel declared: “And in the days of those kings shall
the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed”
(2:44). The “kings” of the prophecy were Roman kings (the fourth part of
the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream [2:31ff]). The Roman Empire came
into dominance in 63 B.C. and it fell in A.D.
476; hence, it follows that the kingdom of God was established at some
point between those two dates—or else Daniel was a false prophet! There
is no evidence that the Roman Empire will be revived to accommodate
Daniel’s prediction.
The assertion that the kingdom was not set up in the first century, but is yet to come, strikes at the very heart of the inspiration of the prophets.
John the Baptizer: “The Kingdom Is Near”
John the Baptizer, Jesus himself, and the twelve disciples all
preached that the kingdom was “at hand,” literally meaning “is come
near” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; cf. Luke 21:30 for the meaning of “at
hand”). Thus, they preached the nearness of the kingdom of God, and such
can scarcely be harmonized with the notion that it hasn’t come.
While it is true that the expression “at hand” can be used
prophetically of that which is yet in the distant future, other
contextual considerations—either immediate or remote—must indicate that
fact. The term is used figuratively in James 5:8 to reflect an intense
expectation—regardless of the time factor.
The Prophecy of Christ
Christ exclaimed:
Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who
shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come
with power (Mark 9:1).
Either the kingdom came within the lifetime of those to whom he referred, or they are getting very old!
Observe, please: Jesus promised that the kingdom would come with
power (Mark 9:1). But that power would accompany the reception of the
Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). Thus, the kingdom would come with the arrival of
the Spirit. But the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost—some fifty
days after Christ’s death (Acts 2:4). Therefore, the kingdom was
established at that time.
Peter Using the Keys of the Kingdom
On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter preached the inaugural
discourse and thereby used one of “the keys of the kingdom” (Matthew
16:19) to admit the obedient into the church. If Peter used the
kingdom’s key to open the church when they were not the same
institution, he stands convicted of burglarizing the church of the Lord!
“Eating and Drinking in My Kingdom”
Shortly before his death, the Savior promised his disciples, “[Y]e
may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” (Luke 22:30). The Lord’s
table was placed within the kingdom. If one can find disciples partaking
of that table, it will be a demonstration of the kingdom’s existence.
When Paul wrote to the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), he rebuked
them for their perversion in partaking of the “table of the Lord”
(10:21); it thus is evident that the Corinthian Christians were in the
kingdom.
Translated into the Kingdom
When Paul wrote to the Colossians, he affirmed that God “delivered us
out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the
Son of his love” (1:13). The term “translated” (methistemi)
means to “remove from one place to another” (Arndt and Gingrich 1967,
500). The tense of the verb reveals that their entrance into the kingdom
had already occurred at some point in the past.
Made to Be a kingdom
When John wrote to “the seven churches that are in Asia” (Revelation
1:4), he stated that Christ had loosed them from their sins by his blood
and made them “to be a kingdom” (1:6). Further, he was with them in that kingdom (1:9).
How could such have been if the kingdom had been postponed?
The New Birth into the Kingdom
The existence of God’s kingdom on earth is further demonstrated by
the fact that the same process which moves one into the kingdom also
puts him into the church. Jesus taught that the “new birth,” consisting
of being born of “water and the Spirit,” enables one to “enter the
kingdom” (John 3:5). This is simply receiving the Spirit’s message (the
gospel) and being baptized in water—the very thing which puts one into
the “one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13), which is the church (Colossians
1:18). Hence, to enter the church is equal to becoming a citizen of the
kingdom.
The doctrine that the kingdom was postponed because of the Jews’ rejection of Christ is not in harmony with the Scriptures.
Implications Regarding the Church
The claim that the church was set up as an interim measure due to
Christ’s postponement of the kingdom actually suggests the idea that the
church is but an accident which was no part of God’s original plan.
One could scarcely exaggerate the error in this proposition. The
Bible clearly teaches that “the manifold wisdom of God” is made known
“through the church,” and this was “according to the eternal purpose
[plan] which he purposed in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:10-11). Hence,
the church was in God’s plan from eternity.
Further, the death of Christ was known before the foundation of the
world (1 Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8), and the shed blood of that
death “purchased the church” (Acts 20:28). If the death of Christ was
known for ages, it is certain that the result of that death was known as well—namely, the establishment of the church.
Actually, the church is simply a body of baptized believers who have
been saved from their past sins (Acts 2:38; 1 Corinthians 12:13). The
church is the saved! (Ephesians 5:23). If the church is but an accident,
that implies an accidental salvation!
That the church was a part of God’s original plan for human
redemption is further seen in the types of the Mosaic age. The
tabernacle (specifically the holy place) and subsequently the temple
were types of the church (1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians
2:21; Hebrews 9:9). These Old Testament symbols pictured the church’s
future establishment and its integral part in the plan of Jehovah.
God’s Promise to Abraham
The doctrine of premillennialism asserts that God unconditionally
promised Canaan to the descendants of Abraham. Further, it is contended
that the promise has never been completely granted; hence, the claim is
made that the Jews eventually will be restored to Palestine in order
that the Abrahamic covenant might be fulfilled. Indeed, some are
declaring that, with the establishment of Israel as an independent
government in 1948, the Jewish restoration was begun, and this is a
signal of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Again, we must kindly
note that this notion is not consistent with biblical teaching.
Concerning Canaan, Jehovah promised Abraham, “Unto thy seed will I
give this land” (Genesis 12:7). This land-covenant with the patriarch
involved all that land “from the river of Egypt unto the great river,
the river Euphrates” (15:18), and it was pledged to his seed “for ever”
(13:15).
Several questions here are of great concern:
- Was the promise ever totally fulfilled?
- What is the meaning of “for ever”?
- Was the promise in any sense conditional?
Was the Promise Ever Totally Fulfilled?
An understanding of these queries is crucial to this discussion. Note the following:
When the law of Moses was given, provision was made for the
establishment of cities of refuge where the manslayer who had killed
without premeditation might flee for the preservation of his life.
Initially, three cities were to be set aside for this purpose. Moses
declared, however:
[I]f Jehovah thy God enlarge thy border, as he hath sworn unto thy
fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy
fathers; if thou shalt keep all his commandment to do it, which I
command thee this day, to love Jehovah thy God, and to walk ever in his
ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, besides these
three (Deuteronomy 19:8-9).
Thus, six cities of refuge would be evidence of the substantial fulfillment of the land promise to Abraham’s seed.
A reading of Joshua 20:7-8 reveals that the cities of Kedesh,
Shechem, Hebron, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan were assigned as havens of
refuge—six cities. Thus, “all the land” had been given; the land
covenant has been fulfilled! This is further demonstrated by Joshua
21:43—“So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give
unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.”
This refers principally to Canaan. There was to be some expansion later. Scripture specifically states of Solomon’s time:
And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River [Euphrates]
unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt (1 Kings
4:21; 2 Chronicles 9:26).
Finally, Nehemiah rehearses the fact that God brought Abraham from Ur
of Chaldees to give him the land of Canaan, and, says he, you “have
performed your words: for you art righteous” (9:7-8). It is tragic that
the premillennial theory implies the opposite.
What Is the Meaning of “For Ever”?
But millennialists contend that Palestine was promised to Israel “for
ever” (Genesis 13:15). This fails to recognize, of course, that the
term “for ever” is not always used in the Bible in a completely
unlimited sense.
For instance, circumcision was an “everlasting covenant” (Genesis
17:13); the Passover was an ordinance “for ever” (Exodus 12:14); and the
Levitical system had an “everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13). These
Old Testament institutions, however, passed away with the abrogation of
the law, thus demonstrating that “for ever” sometimes has a temporary
significance.
Was the Promise Conditional?
The truth of the matter is, the Old Testament clearly indicates that
Israel’s possession of Palestine was conditioned upon their faithfulness
to God—a condition which they violated repeatedly; hence, it was
foretold:
When ye transgress the covenant of Jehovah your God, which he
commanded you, and go and serve other gods, and bow down yourselves to
them: then will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and ye
shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you
(Joshua 23:16).
That time eventually came, and the Jews lost their “deed” to the Promised Land!
Jeremiah’s Visual Aid
In the nineteenth chapter of the book that bears his name, the
prophet Jeremiah was instructed of Jehovah: “Go, and buy a potter’s
earthen bottle.” Subsequently, he was told to go to the valley of Hinnom
and prophesy to the inhabitants of Jerusalem concerning their sins and
their eventual destruction.
As a symbol of this promised punishment, Jeremiah was commanded to “break the bottle” and to proclaim its meaning.
Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again (v. 11).
This prophecy was partially fulfilled with a siege of the Babylonians in 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25), but was completely and ultimately fulfilled with the destruction of national Israel by the Romans in A.D. 70 (see Clarke n.d., 305).
After the Jewish nation was destroyed, it was so permanently scattered by the providence of God that it cannot be made whole again. Regardless of the fact that some Jews are migrating back to Palestine, they will never be restored as God’s nation!
The Pronouncement of Christ
Further evidence that national Israel will never be restored is found within the teaching of Christ himself.
In Matthew 21, Jesus told what is called the parable of the wicked
husbandmen, the design of which was to emphasize how wretchedly the Jews
had treated God’s prophets, such rebellion reaching its zenith with the
crucifixion of Christ. Because of their rejection of Jehovah’s precious
stone, the Lord said to the Jews:
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God [i.e., their reign as
God’s special people] shall be taken away from you, and shall be given
to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (v. 43).
The inspired apostle Peter unquestionably declares that the “nation”
to be henceforth so blessed is God’s “holy nation,” the church (1 Peter
2:7-10). The Bible is exceedingly clear: Christians are the seed of
Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29), the “Israel of God” (6:16).
Restoration Proof Texts
The millennialist purports to have a whole repertoire of proof texts
to substantiate his claim of Israel’s restoration. An examination of
several of them will reveal misappropriation of the Word of God.
It is argued Isaiah 2:2-4 will be fulfilled with the establishment of the “millennial kingdom.”
And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of
Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and
shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach
us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go
forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. And he will
judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and
they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more.
Actually, it is a prophecy of the establishment of the church, which
is the house under consideration (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). This was
fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), which was the beginning of
the “last days” (Acts 2:16-17).
The truth is, if there is a dispensation yet to come, namely the
millennium, then Peter was wrong, and we are not in the last days but in
the next-to-the-last-days. Isaiah 2:4 does not predict a time of
universal world peace, rather, it characterizes the peaceful disposition
of those formerly hostile nations which “flow unto” the house of God.
In 11:1-16, Isaiah prophesies regarding Christ (vv. 1-5) and the
establishment of his divine government in the church. Again, the
peaceful atmosphere thereof is beautifully described (vv. 6-9) as being
in God’s “holy mountain” which is the church (Daniel 2:35, 44). And to
cinch the matter, verse ten is quoted in the New Testament (Romans
15:12) by an inspired writer and shown to be applicable to the reception
of the Gentile nations into the church.
To suggest that it applies to some future age is to totally disregard
the inspired interpretation of the prophecy and to reflect upon the
credibility of a New Testament writer.
Hosea’s prophecies (2:14-23; 3:5) are frequently said to point to Israel’s restoration in the “millennium.”
Again, however, an inspired New Testament writer says otherwise. Paul
quotes Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 in his letter to the Romans (9:25-26) and
thereby shows that the restoration foretold by Hosea was of a spiritual
nature, including both Jews and Gentiles. Such is accomplished in the
church.
Hosea 3:5 speaks of Israel returning and seeking Jehovah and “David
their king” (certainly not David literally) “in the latter days.” This
is another indication that the Christian era, the reign of Christ, is in
view (cf. Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; 2:16-17; see Laetsch 1956, 40).
Amos 9:11-15 is a favorite Old Testament prophesy of the
premillennialists. C. I. Scofield, alluding to James’ citation of this
passage in Acts 15, called this “the most important passage in the N.T.”
for dispensationalists (1945, 1169). It is argued that the rebuilding
of the “tabernacle of David” refers to the restoration of national
Judaism in the “millennium,” at which time Solomon’s temple literally
will be rebuilt and the Jewish economy reinstated.
In Acts 15, a question was raised among the early disciples as to
whether Gentiles were obligated to circumcision. Peter, who had preached
first to the Gentiles, denied such.
James utters an inspired oracle corroborating Peter, and in
connection he cites the words of Amos concerning the rebuilding of the
tabernacle of David. The rebuilding of David’s tabernacle was the
enthronement of Christ and the establishment of his church! And a part
of this design was that the Gentiles might have the privilege of seeking
the Lord. It thus would follow, if the tabernacle of David is yet in
the future (as premillennialists contend), that all Gentiles are still
lost! (Acts 15:16-17).
The claim that Judaism will someday be restored, in view of the books
of Galatians and Hebrews, is, quite honestly, absolutely incredible.
There are, of course, many additional prophecies which, according to
the premillennialists, predict Israel’s restoration; but none of these
demonstrate a restoration of national Israel in a future millennium. It
may be suggested, in summation, that the Old Testament prophecies which
speak of a restoration for Israel pertain either to:
- a return to Palestine from the confines of the Babylonian Captivity (605-536
B.C.),
in the time of Cyrus of Persia (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:22-23)—for example,
a number of passages in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel are of this
nature; or, - the restoration of Israel to Jehovah’s favor spiritually through
the church. Peter affirmed that a major thrust of Old Testament prophecy
was concerning salvation, which “the prophets sought and searched
diligently,” and which has now been announced through the preaching of
the gospel (1 Peter 1:9-12).
The Throne of David
The premillenial doctrine virtually ignores the spiritual
emphasis of Old Testament prophecy. It holds that Christ will return to
this earth to be seated on the literal throne of David in Jerusalem.
The underlying fallacy of this view is its materialistic approach to the
reign of Christ.
The Lord’s kingdom is not a worldly, political economy, as was
David’s, for Jesus plainly said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John
18:36). Remarkably, the premillennialists contend it will be.
Isaiah prophesied that Christ would be heir to the throne of David.
Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end,
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to
uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for
ever (Isaiah 9:7).
Additionally, the angel Gabriel informed Mary concerning her expected Son:
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he
shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there
shall be no end (Luke 1:32-33).
The question is not whether Christ was to sit on the throne of David; the controversy is concerning the nature of that throne—i.e., was it to be a material throne, or was it to be the spiritual throne of David?
That Christ’s reign on the throne of David is of a heavenly,
spiritual nature is manifestly evident from the following
considerations:
The last king to reign on the Davidic throne of the Old Testament era
was Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah, or in an abbreviated form,
Coniah). In Jeremiah 22:24-30, it was prophesied that he and his seed
(Judah) would be delivered into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar and cast into
a foreign land (Babylon). Specifically, concerning Coniah it was said:
Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his
days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the
throne of David, and ruling in Judah (v. 30).
The issue is clear: no descendant of Coniah would ever again prosper,
ruling from the literal throne of David. Now, the fact is, Christ was of the “seed” of Jechoniah, both from a legal standpoint (through Joseph [Matthew 1:12, 16]) and from a physical
vantage point (through Mary, via Shealtiel [Luke 3:27]). It thus
follows that Christ could never reign on David’s earthly throne—and
prosper!
The prophet Zechariah prophesied regarding the Christ thusly:
Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of
his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; even he shall
build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and he shall
sit and rule upon his throne; and be shall be a priest upon his throne;
and the counsel of peace shall be between them both (6:12-13).
This passage positively affirms that Christ would function as priest and reign as king on his throne—simultaneously. But, according to Hebrews 8:4, Christ could not act in the role of a priest while on the earth—for
he was not descended from the priestly tribe (Hebrews 7:14). Since the
Lord could not be a priest on earth, and since he is priest and king
jointly, it necessarily follows that his reign as king cannot be earthly in nature. Rather, it is heavenly.
The heavenly nature of the reign of Christ is readily apparent in
that narrative known as the parable of the pounds, recorded in Luke
19:11-27. The parable involves a certain nobleman (Christ) who went into
a far country (heaven) to receive a kingdom and to
return. Some citizens, however, sent a message to him, saying, “We will
not that this man reign over us.” Finally, having received the kingdom,
the nobleman returns to render judgment.
From this account it is perfectly clear that:
- the kingdom was received in heaven (not on earth);
- the reign was from heaven (not from Jerusalem); and
- the return of the nobleman was after the reception of the kingdom (not prior to it).
All of these facts are strikingly at variance with the premillennial concept.
King David was informed by the prophet Nathan:
When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I
will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels,
and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my time,
and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever (2 Samuel
7:12-13).
That this is a prediction of the reign of Christ upon David’s throne
is beyond question. In view of this promise, David was told: “[Y]our
throne shall be established for ever” (2 Samuel 7:16). Note the
application of this context to Christ by an inspired New Testament
writer (Hebrews 1:8).
It is extremely significant to note in this connection that Christ is
to be seated on David’s throne, over his kingdom, while this
illustrious Old Testament king is still asleep with the fathers, i.e., in the grave. In glaring contrast to this, the premillenial notion contends that Christ will sit upon David’s throne after the resurrection of all the righteous—including David.
In harmony with the foregoing is Peter’s declaration:
Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David
that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him
with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, he looked
ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ (Acts 2:29-31, NASB).
Of special importance here is the infinitive “to seat,” suggesting
the design of Christ’s resurrection. As N. B. Hardeman so wonderfully
expressed it:
[G]rammatically, “to sit” is an infinitive with the construction of
an adverb, carrying the idea of purpose equivalent to the following
expanded form, viz.; He raised up Christ that He should sit, that He
might sit, for the purpose of sitting upon David’s throne. If Christ is
not on David’s throne, the resurrection might have been deferred until
this good hour, or for ages yet to come (1928, 37).
The reign of Christ on David’s throne is not an event awaiting future
fulfillment. The Son of God has been reigning over his kingdom since
the day of Pentecost. Hear his promise to early saints:
He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my
throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne
(Revelation 3:21).
Notice the past tense “sat down.” Clearly, Christ is now on the throne.
If it be contended that this passage speaks of Christ on the Father’s
throne and not David’s, it need only be replied that the Father’s
throne and David’s are biblically the same. Solomon sat upon the throne
of David (1 Kings 2:12), which was in reality Jehovah’s throne (1
Chronicles 29:23). Hence, when Christ sat down on the Father’s throne,
he was on the throne of David! He is presently reigning and will
continue such until all his enemies are destroyed, the last of which
will be death (1 Corinthians 15:25-26).
To speak of Christ on David’s throne is simply to affirm that our
Lord has “all authority”; that to him has been given “all rule, and
authority, and power, and dominion” (Ephesians 1:21); indeed, that he
exercises a regal reign characteristic of the great King that he is.
Compare Matthew 23:2, where the authority of the scribes and Pharisees who taught the law is symbolically described as sitting on “Moses’ seat.”
The Resurrection
Based mostly upon a misunderstanding of Revelation 20:1-6 (to be
discussed later), premillennialists urge that there will be two
resurrections of the dead. The first will occur at the time of Christ’s
coming and will consist of the righteous only. Following this, it is
contended, will be the one-thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.
Terminating this will be the second resurrection (of the wicked)
followed by the judgment.
There is no real support for this view; in fact, it contradicts
numerous verses of clearest meaning. The Scriptures teach that when the
Lord Jesus comes:
- time will end;
- all of the dead will be raised at the same time;
- the judgment will occur;
- eternity will commence.
Consider the following:
The End
In 1 Corinthians 15:23, Paul speaks of the “coming” of Christ. With
reference to that event, he says, “Then cometh the end” (v. 24). It is
obvious that the return of Christ is not to begin an earthly reign; rather, it will bring an end to earthly affairs! Some contend that the adverb “then” (Greek eita) demands an interval which allows time for a millennium. Such is not the case, however. Note the use of eita in connection with eutheos (“immediately”) in Mark 4:17.
The Day
Jesus spoke of “the day” in which he would be revealed, i.e., the day
of his coming. In presenting this truth, the Lord referred to two
divine destructions of former ages (see Luke 17:26-30). Observe that on
“the day” that Noah entered the ark, the antediluvian world was
destroyed. Further, in “the day” that Lot departed Sodom, the people of
the plain cities were destroyed.
So also, contends Christ, “in like manner shall it be in the day
that the Son of man is revealed.” The clear implication of this passage
is that the wicked will be destroyed in “the day” of Christ’s coming;
certainly there is no room for a thousand-year interval here (cf.
Matthew 13:40, 49; 25:31-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
The Hour
Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the
tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto
the resurrection of judgment (John 5:28-29).
This passage thoroughly negates the two-resurrections theory.
Professor David Brown wrote: “It is hardly possible to conceive a
plainer statement of the simultaneousness of the resurrection of both
classes” (1882, 190).
See also Acts 24:15, where Paul makes it clear that there “shall be a
resurrection [singular] both of the just and unjust.” Thus, a single
resurrection involving two groups.
Certainly there are contexts in which only the resurrection of the
righteous is under consideration (cf. John 6:54; 1 Thessalonians
4:13-18, etc.); but these do not cancel the plain force of verses
affirming a general resurrection.
Additionally, the symbolic language of the book of Revelation
(20:1-6) must be brought into harmony with these literal New Testament
declarations of the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the
judgment. It most definitely is not a sound hermeneutical principle to
force numerous lucid verses into harmony with a solitary symbolic
reference.
What about Revelation 20:1-6?
The twentieth chapter of the book of Revelation, verses one through
six, is the very heart and soul of the theory of premillennialism. It is
what George Murray calls “the very citadel and bulwark of premillennial
eschatology” (1948, 175). Indeed, it may be said, were it not for these
half dozen verses, the theory would not even have a semblance of
suggestion in the New Testament.
As Albert Barnes observes:
It is admitted, on all hands, that this doctrine, if contained in the
Scriptures at all, is found in this one passage only. It is not
pretended that there is, in any other place, a direct affirmation that
this will literally occur, nor would the advocates for that opinion
undertake to show that it is fairly implied in any other part of the
Bible. But it is strange, not to say improbable, that the doctrine of
the literal resurrection of the righteous, a thousand years before the
wicked, should be announced in one passage only (1954, 428-429).
Earlier, it was stressed that it is foolish to attempt a forced harmony between the figurative
elements of Revelation 20:1-6 and the premillennial theory—with the
latter being contradicted by so many plain passages of Scripture. Making
this very point with reference to Revelation 20:1-6, noted scholar
Charles Hodge wrote:
It is a sound rule in the interpretation of Scripture that obscure
passages should be so explained as to make them agree with those that
are plain. It is unreasonable to make the symbolic and figurative
language of prophecy and poetry the rule by which to explain the simple
didactic prose language of the Bible. It is no less unreasonable that a
multitude of passages should be taken out of their natural sense to make
them accord with a single passage of doubtful import (1960, 842).
Finally, note this significant quotation from Geerhardus Vos
concerning the relationship of the book of Revelation to the
premillennial view:
In regard to a book so enigmatical, it were presumptuous to speak
with any degree or dogmatism, but the uniform absence of the idea of the
millennium from the eschatological teaching of the New Testament
elsewhere ought to render the exegete cautious before affirming its
presence here (1939, 987).
The Book of Revelation: Its Purpose and Form
Preliminary to this discussion should be a few observations
concerning the purpose and form of the Apocalypse. The church of the
apostolic age was being severely persecuted. Indeed, in subsequent
years, it was subjected to a veritable bloodbath.
The design of Revelation is thus to show that the relatively infant
church would be heir to much persecution and suffering. Too, the saints
must persevere and by their faith overcome these trials. Finally, the
document affirms that Christ would ultimately be victorious over all his
enemies.
That the book of Revelation is highly symbolic is evidenced not only
by its content, but also by the introduction. Christ “signified” the
message by his angel unto John (1:1). The question naturally arises as
to why the Lord chose symbols to be the vehicles of these truths.
Symbolism frequently serves a two-fold purpose—to reveal and to conceal.
Occasionally, the Lord’s parables functioned in this capacity, i.e.,
they portrayed certain truths to the disciples while withholding the
same from those who were spiritually dull (cf. Matthew 13:10-15).
The theme of victory within the book of Revelation was largely
couched in the imagery that adorned the Old Testament. The Christians
were undoubtedly familiar with this sort of language; so the message of
hope would be grasped by those early disciples. At the same time, the
defeat of the persecuting powers was veiled to those not discerning the
figures. One can well imagine, for example, how trials for the
Christians might have been intensified had they been discovered
circulating a document which literally predicted the overthrow of their
persecutors.
And so, as George Ladd points out: “In the apocalypses, symbolism
becomes the main stock in trade, particularly as a technique for
outlining the course of history without employing historical names”
(1999, 52).
It is thus a serious error to literalize the book of Revelation, and
this is precisely what the premillennialists have done with the first
six verses of chapter twenty.
The Symbols Employed
An examination of the first half-dozen verses of Revelation 20
evidences the following symbols: a key, a chain, a dragon or serpent, an
abyss, a thousand years, thrones, a beast, marks on foreheads and
hands, and a resurrection.
It is certainly a strange interpretation which contends that a figurative serpent was bound with a figurative chain and thrown into a figurative abyss which was locked with a figurative lock that had a figurative key, to be confined for a literal
thousand years! It ought to be manifestly obvious that no literal reign
of Christ upon the earth is here alluded to. Even if one does not
understand the specific design of the symbols, he can see the symbolic
import of the thousand years.
Significant Omissions
Perhaps this context is more significantly devastating to the
premillennial theory for what it does not say, but which, if the theory
were true, it surely would have mentioned. Nothing is said of:
- Christ’s second coming;
- the establishment of a kingdom;
- an earthly regime;
- a bodily reigning;
- the throne of David; or
- the Jews being regathered to Palestine.
All of these elements are vitally important to the millennial view, yet they are conspicuously absent from this narrative!
The Gist of the Narrative
Obviously the context of Revelation 20:1-6 is a part of the design of
the book as a whole. Many scholars believe that this section is a
symbolic description of the revival of Christianity from a period of
bloody persecution. For example, note that earlier (6:9-11) John had
seen the “souls” of the martyrs “underneath the altar” crying, “How
long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our
blood on them that dwell on the earth?”
In chapter twenty, however, the apostle views the “souls” on
“thrones” reigning with Christ. For a while, Christianity appeared to
have been buried in tribulation, but ultimately, it emerged. It was,
figuratively speaking, resurrected.
The Scripture speaks of figurative resurrections as well as literal ones (see Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37:12; Romans 11:15).
It would, therefore, not be inconsistent with analogy of prophecy if
we should understand the Apostle as here predicting that a new race of
men were to arise filled with the spirit of the martyrs, and were to
live and reign with Christ a thousand years (Hodge, 842).
That this resurrection alludes to the triumphs of persecuted saints
is further borne out by the fact that “the second death hath no power”
over the reigning ones, which harmonizes perfectly with chapter two,
verse eleven—“He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.”
Thus, the resurrection of 20:6 is a figurative way of saying
“overcome.”
The one thousand years, of course, also would be symbolic in scope,
suggesting either that the victory of God’s cause—as considered in this
context—would be lengthy in span, or possibly the one thousand years may denote the completeness of the saints’ triumph. One may confidently say that the term “thousand” is never used in the book of Revelation in a literal sense.
Conclusion
There is no support for the theory of premillennialism—not in the
book of Revelation, nor elsewhere in the Bible. It certainly is
difficult to abandon a theory that has been entertained for many years,
but when one discovers that a religious view is false, he should reject
it in deference to truth.
Wayne Jackson
Sources/Footnotes
