Notes on pre-millennialism part 1
This is part 1 of a 2 part presentation that is my portion of a series at my church on eschatology. Other's are taking on preterism, hyper-preterism, and idealism. I've got historic pre-millennialism, classic dispensationalism, and progressive dispensationalism. Its nothing fancy, just a broad overview of the positions (none of which I hold, by the way).
Welcome to the third presentation in the Eschatology series. For the past two weeks, Jack Royce has been discussing the "Full Preterist" and "Partial Preterist" (as he terms them) positions. This and next week, I'll be discussing what are known as the pre-millennial positions. Specifically, I'll be going through what is known as the "historic pre-millennial" view, the classic dispensationalist viewpoint (arguably the view of modern American Evangelicals), and a newer form of dispensationalist that has been developing in the last couple of decades known as "progressive dispensationalism."
Between these three viewpoints (and even within some of them), there is actually a tremendous amount of differentiation and disagreement. The uniting theme to them, though, is the pre-millennial interpretation of Revelation. This means, simply, that all three believe that Jesus will come before the millennial reign depicted in Revelation 20. Other labels you might hear associated with this are the futurism, which means most of the book of Revelation is still to come; chiliasm, for the emphasis on the future millennial reign' and occasionally historicism, which holds that the tribulation depicted in Rev. 4-19 is unfolding in history as we speak.
Lord willing, today we'll go through historic pre-millennialism and start on classic dispensationalism. Next week we'll finish up classic dispensationalism and then cover progressive dispensationalism. For each system, we'll try to cover the major points, the reasons for those points, and the historic development of that system.
So, let's now begin with historic pre-millennialism. This may actually be the simplest system of all that we'll cover in this series because it is fairly straightforward in what it says and why it says that. Here is, roughly, how the historic premillennialist sees the unfolding of history from the coming of Christ to the end of the world:
- Death and resurrection of Christ inaugurate the spiritual kingdom, or the "inter-regnum" period
- At the end of the spiritual kingdom, "a great apostasy and tribulation" occurs
- Jesus comes back to overthrow the uprising and establishes the millennial reign. Some, if not all, hold that the resurrection of the righteous occurs here.
- At the end of the millennium, a final rebellion occurs
- Lastly, the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment
Nice, simple, and clear-cut, right? Although I am not an historic pre-millennialist, I'll try to give an overview for some of the major biblical reasons for this.
The first passage cited in support is Rev. 19.17-20.6. This is a long passage, but it is worth reading in its entirety:
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave,1 both small and great." 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence1 had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
Revelation 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit1 and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. 4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Granted, almost every position has to appeal to this text in some form or another. Historic pre-millennialism, however, appeals to the literal flow of the text. What do we see here? In verses 17-21, a massive war erupts between the forces of evil and Jesus. Jesus wins (of course), and Satan/The Beast is thrown into a pit for a thousand years so that "he might not deceive the nations." At the end of the thousand years, as the rest of Rev. 20 shows us, another rebellion occurs, which is again overthrown, and then comes the final judgment and resurrection. The literal flow is: rebellion, millennium, and then final judgment. Historic pre-millennialism argues that the textual sequence of the events listed in Revelation should be considered as demarcating what the actual historical sequence will be. It argues that this should be seen as "one continuous narrative" and that there is no evidence for the recapitulation theory that other viewpoints hold.
Historic pre-millennialism also points out that the description of Satan's binding in vs. 2 and 3 is emphatic.* Satan is "bound", thrown, and "sealed" over. Thus the millennial reign depicted must be one where Satan's activity is not merely limited, as a-millennialists and some post-millennialists will maintain, but must be ceased. Furthermore, pre-millennialists point out that the NT frequently refers to Satan as "on a rampage". Pet. 5.8, for example, warns us that "Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." The argument is that the millennium depicts Satan as bound and defeated. Neither our experiences nor Scripture show Satan as currently bound and defeated. Therefore, the millennium is still future. And, since the millennium comes after the second coming in Rev. 19, it must be understood as chronologically coming after the future Second Coming.
It should be noted as an aside that essential to pre-millennialism's understanding of the book of Revelation is the dating of the book. The different forms of preterism that Jack outlined over the last two weeks all depend on a pre-70 A.D. dating of Revelation, that is, that John's exile to Patmos and subsequent apocalyptic revelation happened sometime in the mid 60's A.D. and before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Pre-millennialism, however, argues that Revelation was probably written after the fall of Jerusalem, perhaps as late as 90 A.D. If Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem then of course it would mostly be pointing to those events. But, if it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem then it must be pointing to something future. In this, they are actually in agreement with much of both early church and modern scholarship. The post-70 A.D. dating of Revelation is probably the majority opinion of evangelical and Reformed scholars today (although the pre-70 dating does have good scholarly arguments).
We've looked at the structure of the doctrine, now we'll examine the historical development. This doctrine actually made its entrance onto the scene very early in church history. Consequently, it has the distinction of being one of the oldest eschatological viewpoints in theology.
One of the apparent first to speak of a future visible millennial kingdom was a man named Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60-120), apparently a friend of Polycarp, the disciple of John, and a hearer of John himself. He described the glory of the kingdom as this: "The days will come in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give two hundred gallons of wine. And when any of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.'"
The second recorded writer that espoused this was Justin Martyr (100-160). In his Dialogue with Trypho (ch. LXXX), Justin stated that "I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." Interestingly enough, Justin remarked that there were differing opinions on this: " I and many others are of this opinion, and believe that such will take place ? but, on the other hand, many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." Although this open minded attitude did not extend towards all views, however, for he also stated that " Some who are called Christians ? say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians."
Another prominent early pre-millennial theologian was Irenaeus of Lyons (130-200), the disciple of Polycarp. Irenaeus had perhaps the most well-developed pre-millennial system. It should be noted, though, that Irenaeus, Papias, and Justin Martyr all looked to a far-off millennial reign. Others, such as the heretical Montanists, began looking to an imminent return by Jesus to establish the earthly kingdom.
What caused historic pre-millennialism to lose its influence was the work of Augustine on the subject. Augustine, who has been claimed by both the amillennialists and postmillennialists, dealt the decisive blow to the pre-millennialism in his day through his writings. Historic pre-millennialism was not to occur again until the Reformation.
The Reformation, because it was such a turbulent time, actually produced a great deal of eschatological speculation, much of it in veins similar to the old pre-millennialism. On the one hand, the Protestants looked at the terrible persecution they were undergoing at the hands of the church and thought the end of the world must be near. The fringe groups were most famous for this as they began actively looking for the immediate and imminent return of Christ, frequently selling all of their possessions and literally fleeing for the hills. But even Luther wrote in his preface to the book of Revelation that much of the book was currently being fulfilled in the current time. And, of course, everyone accused the pope of being anti-Christ.
And while the Protestants were fearful of the ongoing persecution, the Roman Catholics were seeing the ongoing rebellion and wondering if the rebellion wasn't the sign of the end. This is the time period, after all, when the pope commissioned Michelangelo to paint The Last Judgment.
To be clear, I am not saying that all Christians, or even the majority, in the Reformation were historic pre-millenialist. I haven't read enough of those during the time to conclude this. At the least, though, they do share the common traits of a pessimistic view of history and imminent return of Christ that has frequently characterized pre-millennialism more than the other eschatological viewpoints.
Today, although its dispensational progeny is the majority view of most Americans, historic pre-millennialism is barely alive. The last major theologian was George E Ladd of Trinity Evangelical Divinity Seminary, who died in the last half of the 20th c. and did much to give this view more scholarly robustness and respect. (Incidentally, Ladd was also a staunch opponent of dispensationalism.)
What I find interesting is that progressive dispensationalism, a viewpoint that we will cover next week, is a move back in the direction of historic pre-millennialism. So perhaps we'll see a resurgence of this view in the future.
In what time we have left, I'll try to cover the key points of classic dispensationalism. Next week, we'll go over the details of dispensationalism (which are many) and its historical development.
Dispensationalism, once you get into it, becomes a complicated system. But there are two key principles that must be understood before you delve into all of the gritty details. Robert Thomas, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 180 "The standard hermeneutical approach to Scripture, at least since the Reformation, has been the grammatical-historical approach, sometimes called literal interpretation. Applied to Revelation, this approach results in a dispensational understanding of this book?. Interpreters should understand the revelation to John as they do the rest of the Bible, even though God gave it in an unusual symbolic fashion."
Notice Thomas' argument: if you consistently apply the principles of interpretation applied in the Reformation, you will arrive at a dispensationalist understanding. In his own description of dispensationalism he consistently uses phrases such as "clearly this means." The principle is that if you simply and objectively take the face value of statements in Revelation, then you will inevitably become a dispensationalism.
This assertion can lead to some surprising interpretations. Revelation 21, for example, describes a city that is made of gold, with pearl gates, and over 1300 miles cubed in its dimensions. Almost every other system would see this as solely symbolic. Thomas, however, sees this as having literal meaning (p. 210): "Unquestionably, the tangible aspects of the city's architecture have symbolic meaning, but that does not deny their materiality. An infinite God will create this city, illumined by his glory."
While the historic pre-millennialist position would also stress the clear reading of Revelation and prophecy in general, it would not place as much emphasis upon a "literal" meaning. Historic pre-millennialism, as well as preterism, and idealism, would all argue that Revelation, for example, must be understood according to its genre ? in this case, apocalyptic. Thomas counters that argument by saying that Revelation is nowhere described as apocalyptic (and that no other book in the Bible is apocalyptic), but should be understood as prophetic and interpreted in the same way as you would Isaiah or Jeremiah.
The second major principle of dispensationalism, and what most distinguishes it from historic pre-millennialism, is the differentiation between Israel and the Church. John MacArthur, for example, has stated explicitly that the core of dispensationalism is the difference between the Church and Israel. Whereas Reformed & covenantal theology has argued that the Church is the outgrowth of Israel and that God has the same underlying plan for both, Dispensationalism argues that the two are completely separate. This means, for example, that all of the passages that speak of the return of Israel to the land are literally true. Thus the re-creation of the State of Israel last century was A Very Big Deal to many dispensationalists.
How the differences between Israel and the Church are worked out vary among dispensationalists. MacArthur, for example, believes that many dispensationalists have taken the differences too far. And it does seem that the newer dispensationalism toned down some of the stark differences that Darby and Scofield made. But that will have to wait until next week.
August 23, 2004 01:01 PM