I have often said that if a few passages in the Bible were explained to me, I would easily "convert" to amillennialism. Many people do not consider it "Reformed" to be premillennial, even a classic premillennial like myself (I prefer the term "Zionistic premillennialist", but that would be a long story). G.I. Williamson in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith and Charles Hodge in his volumes on Systematic Theology both vehemently denounce premillennialism as unbiblical. Many amillennialists claim that there are doctrinally fallible weaknesses to premillennialism (Justin Taylor and Sam Storm address a few here). They claim that the Bible teaches that as soon as Jesus returns, the Final Judgment, the death of death, and the damnation of all unbelief must take place immediately. (Dr. Jim Hamilton makes an excellent response to this here.)
I am very tempted to side with the amillennialists here. However, I cannot do so in good conscious. Here is why: there are just too many passages in the Bible that amillennialists cannot adequately explain. My favorites - the core of my beliefs - are these:
1. Revelation 20 - Many claim that the idea of two resurrections is not present in the Bible; however, here the idea is clear. They came to life...This is the first resurrection/The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended (vv.4-5). The amillennialist spiritualizes these resurrections. They claim that as there are two deaths here in Rev. 20 - a physical first death and a spiritual second death (v.14) - so there must be a spiritual resurrection in addition to the physical resurrection. Thus, the first resurrection - the resurrection of believers - is a spiritual entering into heaven and the second resurrection is the physical resurrection of both believers and non-believers post-second coming at the Final Judgment. This seems a valid interpretation and is very tempting to take, but the problem rests in the Greek. The Greek word for resurrection (included in first resurrection) in this chapter is anastasis which only (as N.T. Wright has argued and Greek Lexicons affirm) refers to physical resurrection. Therefore, by linguistic analysis, there must be two physical resurrections within Revelation 20 - one for believers, and one for the rest of the dead (unbelievers). These physical resurrections are separated by a thousand year Millennium. This Millennium, then, must be physical (not a millennial kingdom in heaven), for it takes place after a physical resurrection. There seems to me to be no way around the Greek texts - Rev. 20 is not spiritual.
2. Isaiah 65 - This is a very strange passage indeed. It speaks of God establishing a new heavens and a new earth in which there shall be joy in Jerusalem (the center of the millennial kingdom - cf. Zech. 14), no more weeping or distress (the exact picture of the new heavens and the new earth in Rev. 21), in which there shall be prosperity and absolute peace. However, it says that during that time there shall be death (v.20) - that anyone who dies under 100 shall be accursed. Moreover, it speaks of childbearing - and we know for a fact that the resurrected shall not engage in marriage, the righteous medium for childbearing (Matt. 22:30). Thus, if this chapter really does speak of the new heavens of the new earth (which, by comparison with Rev. 21, it does), it must be concluded that death and childbearing (childbearing outside of marriage no less - a sin which believers could not partake in after being perfected in glory) continue on after the world has been perfected. Premillennialism, of course, is able to reconcile this chapter perfectly. This chapter speaks of the millennial kingdom. It is a time in which the earth has been perfected, believers have been glorified, Christ has returned, but there are still unbelievers present in the world. These unbelievers would then explain v. 20. It would be the unbelievers who would die after a hundred years (they are still in mortal, corruptible bodies) and who would bear children outside of marriage. These children, in my estimation, would not (as some have claimed) have a chance to come to faith during the millennium for all the elect of God have already been gathered to Him at Christ's second coming (Matt. 24:31) - thus, they shall be necessarily reprobate, as their parents will be. The question then comes up: why would God allow unbelievers and their sin into the new heavens and the new earth? After all, doesn't v.17 say, the former things shall not be remembered? Here it must be noted that life in the new heavens and the new earth for unbelievers will be anything but pleasant - they will be in the presence of a holy God and thus this existence will be, in a sense, worse than hell itself. Thus, it is not a reward for unbelievers to be in paradise (and it will not be paradise for them) - it is a punishment, completely in tune with God's nature as a judge of sin. As for v. 17, it cannot be said that this verse cancels out the rest of the chapter. Rather, it must be assumed that the former things are the sins of the believers. They shall no longer recall physically their old lifestyles, though other sinners shall still be present in the land. (It must also be noted that just because there are sinners in the land does not mean there shall be sin at a high degree - Satan shall be bound, as Rev. 20 says, so he shall not even be able to tempt unbelievers in a way that their sin should corrupt the restored world. Unbelievers in the millennial kingdom will sin - they will bear children outside of marriage, for example - but their sin shall not corrupt the natural world or believers - it shall only corrupt themselves further.) In my estimation, amillennialists cannot (at least adequately) explain Isaiah 65. After all, how could there be death and sin in the new heavens and new earth apart from the millennial kingdom?
3. Zechariah 14 - By far my favorite proof. I have never even heard an amillennialist even try to explain this passage (and, as I have heard, Martin Luther himself was forced to admit he was clueless to its meaning). Indeed, I have had both amillennialists and postmillennialists admit to me that they had no idea what this passage meant. It must be hard to ridicule premillennialism when your own views cannot even account for this piece of Old Testament prophecy. In a nutshell, Zech. 14 expands on Zech. 12-13, which tell the tale of the wholesale conversion of Jewish Israel after the famous Battle of Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Zech. 14 begins by talking about the return of Christ, that He shall return to the place from whence He ascended: the Mount of Olives (v. 4). His coming shall put an end to the armies of the nations who rose up against Jerusalem during the great battle. Then, he establishes His Kingdom in Jerusalem. Amillennialists might argue that the Kingdom of Christ spoken of in Zech. 14 is really just the eternal state, not the millennial kingdom. However, there are distinctives in this chapter that indicate that it cannot be the eternal state post-Final Judgment. It speaks of the nations of the earth (strange that there should still be nations like Egypt if this is the eternal state, eh?) coming annually to Jerusalem to partake in the renewed Judaic Feast of Booths (Lev. 23). Vv.18-19 speaks of the possibility of Egypt disobeying Christ's command to partake in the Feast of Booths and the punishment of drought that should be afflicted on them if they did so. However, the very idea of disobedience and punishment is foreign to the eternal state post-Final Judgment. After believers are glorified (as they will be at Christ's second coming - 1 Cor. 15) and the reprobate are forever damned (as they will be at the Final Judgment - Rev. 20), there cannot be the possibility of sin or judgment in the perfected world like the kind mentioned in Zech. 14. Thus, this passage must be speaking of a time prior to the Final Judgment, a time in which Christ and non-believers are together on the earth. It must be referring to the millennial kingdom.
The very idea of a millennial kingdom is still fantastic to me - almost too fantastic. If I could explain it away as the amillennialists try to do, I would. However, I cannot. Passages like these, I am convinced, cannot adequately be explained by amillennial eschatology. If you could explain to me the problems of these three passages with any level of credibility, I would gladly become an amillennialist. But I don't believe you can. This is why I must, Biblically, be a premillennialist.
No comments:
Post a Comment