It really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, but it does to me, because it is what I think.
Many of you have followed me for quite some time (others, just more recently); for those of you who have followed me for awhile, you know that I have publically (somewhat) been working through my millennial view (for years, much before blogging). And I continue to (I am not static on this). My genealogy: Classic Dispensational (Pre-Trib/Premil), Progressive Dispensational (Pre-Trib/Premil), Historic Premil (Post-Trib/Non-Dispensational), Amillennial (Post-Trib/Non-Dispensational), and now back to Historic Premil (Post-Trib/Non-Dispensational).
I have recently been reading more on the book of Revelation in particular, and listened to a debate between an amil, postmil, and historic premil (which I am one again). As I have continued to read, and reflect on this, I simply can’t look past the Greek grammar in that particular section of Revelation, as well as the language of resurrection (it is best understood as in reference to the bodily or final resurrection). So I have reverted back to historic premil/post-trib; but this only means that I see a yet future intermediate period between the now and the non-yet of the consummate form of the kingdom (Revelation 21–22). I still interpret much of the book of Revelation as a functional amillennialist (except for Revelation 20, which I don’t see as recapitulating chapter 19, nor the previous 18 chapters). Like an amillennialist I believe that the Great Tribulation finds primary referent historically in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad, and then this type of Tribulation moves out universally over the span of church history and once again intensifies (thus the progressive parallelism found in Revelation) just prior to the return of Christ (so I don’t use Daniel 70 weeks as a cipher by which I understand Tribulation language as Dispensationalists do).
I have more to say, but this should put me on record for now; again, not that it really matters that much ;-).
Of course it matters. And even if it doesn’t to anyone else, this is your blog, after all! π But what matters more is what difference it makes to your theology in other areas. And to an outsider, that might actually make some of this make sense, as it’s basically code to me!
So: I think I get the difference between dispy and non-dispy versions. To be perhaps too blunt, I assume that means you’re not supersessionist. (Or not intentionally so!) I’ve seen bits of that. Further, as post-trib, you hold that nobody gets to escape what’s coming, no matter how faithful they are. The trials of this world are for everyone in it, the faithful included, who will endure to the day of the Lord. And yet as a pre-mil rather than an a-mil, you hold that the subsequent “day of the Lord” will be very long indeed.
First: does any of that affect the shape of your understanding of God’s judgment on sin, and the nature of salvation/redemption, or just the timeframe in which it takes place? Or are the choices here perhaps dictated by your understanding of salvation?
Second: does any of that have an effect on your ethics?
Matt, thanks :-). I think the reason I qualified the opening of this post the way I did, was because I have had so many in the past say something about how often I change my mind on this stuff; in actuality, I haven’t … it is just that I actually think about this, and I think many others don’t π … or it isn’t as important for them, but for me, if it is this apparatus that helps me make sense of specific exegetical points, rather than just annexing them to a later date (like in the consummation π ), then it becomes an important hermeneutical/exegetical one for me. In other words, I have a high belief that if something is addressed in the text of Scripture that God thought it was important enough to be addressed in His Scriptures and plan therein, and thus this deems it important enough for me to wrestle through and “rightly divide” it. So there is some “code” here, if you like :-).
I thought I was supersessionist for awhile, but I don’t honestly see how we can be if we take seriously the continuity between Jesus’ particularity as a Jew, and how God has chosen (elected) to use that particularity as the shape of His own life actualized in the Son of David. Indeed, I reject an escapist theology; one reason being is that if I think globally about Christianity, an escapist theology ends up really being a racist theology (since massive amounts of Christians are suffering in untold ways all across the globe, esp. in so called 3rd world and developing countries). Yes, as a premil I would have to hold that “The Day of the LORD” extends from the second coming (the end of this current situation), and climaxes at the end of the millennial period (which could actually just be a relatively short period of time, i.e. not a literal 1000 years, which I take as symbolic given the usage of gematria etc. by John in his circular epistle, Revelation).
1) My choice is really driven by “pure” exegesis at this point; so in this instance, with this issue, I would say that exegesis is truly driving this horse and buggy, and not the theology (or consequences), per se. But given the topics you raise here, theologically it would be focused more on the broader horizon of salvation, instead of sin and judgement. I think whether I am amil or historic premil doesn’t really change how I view judgment and justification; since I see both of these already expiated and realized in the humanity of Christ for us. I honestly am up in the air still on what the future literal interim period is for (which is why some simply choose amil, they can’t figure out its purpose). If I reject the dispy answer (which I do), which is to charge the future literal millennial age with the place as the situation where the Davidic promises are finally realized on earth in literal Jerusalem, and the promises made to the Jews are finally physically realized; then I think the only reason I can see for a literal future period like this (according to Revelation 20) is that it serves the function of providing the time wherein the martyrs and Christians–so vindicated by Christ’s blood–have the opportunity to finally rule and reign over this world system in the way that the whole book of Revelation seems to presuppose (for the victory of the martyrs)—so maybe I’m not so up in mid air on this ;-). W/o this interim period, if we move into the consummate state, this kind of ruling and reigning on the earth couldn’t be realized in the way that the interim period will allow for (i.e. since hell won’t be a place where saints will be ruling and reigning etc.). And I just cannot buy the idea, of amillers, who claim that this ruling is happening right now for these saints as they are in the heavenlies in their intermediate state; since the text seems to suggest that this vindication comes at some point yet future, and does not ingress at the point of their death (i.e. the martyrs in Revelation are crying out for vindication of their blood, and that finally comes–future–at the second coming of Christ). I don’t think the amil has the space needed, contextually/intratextually in the book of Revelation for this kind of vindication to occur (unless it is “spiritualized” as symbolic for something else, but I don’t see what that something else might be).
2) My ethics have been affected for sure, but that was affected when I repented of dispensationalism, and to non-dispy. As a dispensationalist I collapsed God into the political structures of Zionism, and so I, implicitly supported the nation of Israel over against other nations in a way that understood them to be the “special” people of God (and I mean politically). Once I jettisoned this position I quit conceiving of God this way, and thus quit thinking of His activity in terms that were tethered to one political in the world today (Israel, and her most staunch supporter, i.e. America). So this shift has globalized my perspective in a way that thinks in terms of the universal body of Christ over against the system of this world (and “evil age”). And thus I don’t see America or Israel as God’s special people, I see Jesus as God’s special person, and thus I see people of all stripes as special to God; so I don’t think in political terms about people groups, I think in Christic terms, which allows me to actually hear contradicting words from God in Christ, words that contradict my own situation as an American Christian person.
Okay, thank you, that cleared up several points for me! I walked into this not understanding how this was a necessary discussion, but I think I might now begin to understand what it’s good for. π
So, at present, your shift is simply to accommodate the passages of scripture that provide for the inbreaking as a paradigm reversal, and as the period in time when the kingdom of God is a present and effective reality, justifying the faith of the faithful that God would fulfill the promise of the new creation. I can actually get behind such an idea, once it’s shorn of dispensationalism and the triumph of some people over others. Of course, scripture (and the rabbinic commentaries on it especially) are full of the triumph of some people (God’s people) over others. Modern dispensationalism has parallels in Genesis Rabbah and the attempts to flesh out the hope of Israel in history to account for the oppression of Israel by the nations. We all want God’s rule to involve our vindication. Paul forces me to discard such an idea, both for its ethnocentrism and for its notion that God plans the troubles we face. But I dig the remaining idea that the “millennium,” whether or not it is actually a literal millennium, remains the anticipated period of time in which creation is restored to its right order before its Creator, and is not simply dissolved in judgment.
You might just have given me a reason to have some form of a millenial rule in my own theology; I don’t know yet.
Would it matter if the creation of the “New Heavens and New Earth” had nothing to do with a dissolving of creation but a new establishment of the functions of creation. If so, check out Walton’s Lost World of Genesis.
The terms are all confusing (I’m amill?) but maybe if thought this way, the new creation and the reigning of the saints with Christ is in the 2nd coming when all the judgment is made and all tears wiped away. It’s not that the saints get to rule on this earth and then some other earth but rather this earth is transfigured and functionally set anew by the coming of Christ and the resurrection of all the dead.
Some thoughts,
Cal
Matt,
Wow, nice! Now if I could only re-convince my wife of premil; I convinced her of amil, and now she won’t go back π … not yet anyway.
But, yeah, it is really the text on this one that is driving my reversal. I still like Bauckham’s book on Revelation, and can still agree with almost everything he writes therein. But he just presupposes amil/postmil (as I corresponded with him too by email, as I read his books), and doesn’t argue for it, really. I think when the arguments are out on the table, historic premil makes the most exegetical sense to me.
Cal,
But I don’t think of this earth and “another earth” as disconstinuous (as dispy premil often does); instead it is still this earth in the millennium and consummate form; it is just that I see an intermediate stage happening prior to the full realization of the New Heaven/Earth (just as there is correlation between the crucified body of Christ with His resurrected body … the scars in His hands post resurrection illustrate this). So for me what you are saying is still in total agreement with what I believe … I just see an intermediate period (future millennium) yet to precede the final consummate reality. And the intermediate period will be a time where we will have already received “glorified” bodies at the second coming of Christ (which initiates this intermediate period). And so unlike the postmil who envisions a “golden age” millennial period ushered in by the Church and the Proclamation of the Gospel, as a Premiller, I see this “golden age” ushered in by Christ Himself at His second coming. This will be a time where reigning for the martyrs and Christians will occur, and then will consummate in the Great White throne judgment, at which time Christ will finally bring judgment on those who rejected their life in Him; and it will be a time (the millennium) wherein we will be judging the “angels” (cf. I Cor. 6:1ff). I take that literally.
I should say will ultimately consummate not in the Great White Throne, but the New Jerusalem (New Heaven and Earth).
This is where classifications fail. While we’re talking amill and premill, ultimately it seems we agree on the basic premises here. We both reject the escapism and confused punctuation of dispensationalism and the utopianism of postmill.
Yet the greatest joy is that our King will return one day. That’s something my heart aches for on my best days.
Cal
Cal,
There is no real confusion. The terminology of premil/amil signifies two disparate and distinct exegetical positions relative to this issue. As a premil I believe in a yet future, unrealized millennial interim period, that is different from what we are in now (because we will be glorified), and what we will experience in the ultimate consummate state (Rev 21–22). I have two stages, yet, you have one. So there is a difference, but not functionally π … maybe that’s what you’re saying.
So, you no longer see Rev 20 as talking about the ‘intermediate state,’ ?
I reckon it’s about what happens in the time between when the saints die in this life, and the great resurrection. Saints will reign with Christ in their intermediate state, and the second death will pass over them. And at the end of the age ( after the thousand years) the devil and all those with him will be overcome (the second death) by the rider on the white horse that is Christ.
In effect it seems as if the devil is only released from his prison to be defeated once and for all.
Josh,
I have a hard time seeing the 1000 years as a non-durative amount of time. I also have a hard time conceiving of the word for resurrection, in context, as anything other than bodily (i.e. contra the amil conception of spiritual cf. Jn 5.24). I also have a hard time believing that the reigning with Christ for the martyrs has anything other to do than being in reference to a yet future period on this earth. Coupling this with the bodily resurrection, it is hard for me not to see this as in reference to a literal (but not literal 1000 yrs) reference of time. Nevertheless, I still function, interpretively (other than this) as an amil when it comes to Revelation (and other passages in re. to tribulation etc.).
But I am not absolute, Josh.