How important is the Millennium?

[Saint Nicholas]

The basic tenants of the “Chiliasts” and their extreme brothers the “Dispensationalists” both fail to understand Eschatology in light of Redemptive history. Also they fail to understand the true covenant context of redemption in relation to Jesus Christ and his fulfillment.

This redemptive history is fulfilled and inaugurated in Jesus Christ alone and will be consummated at His glorious coming to usher in the New Heavens and Earth and to destroy all of the shadow creation.

Amillenialists have been accused of not taking a literal rendering of the old testament prophesies concerning the hope of Israel. But we do! However not literalistically. There is a difference.

The literal fulfillment of ALL the covenant promises made to Abraham, Israel (Jacob) have been fulfilled and inaugurated in Jesus Christ who is the True Israel. Those in Christ (both Jew and Gentile) are the true Israel of God. Those not in Christ (both Jew/Gentile) are not in any sense Israel at all. The shadow gives way to the real.

If we as amillenialist Gentile (goyim) are accused and faulted for trying to steal somehow the “physical blood line” Jew/Zionist/Talmudic old testament’s hopes, and claim that these hopes and promises are for the “Ekklesia”, Then the Chiliasts must also fault Jesus, Paul the Apostle, Luke, John, Peter, Matthew, and the New Testament writers for interpreting the Old Testament prophesies in like fashion as we do.

Through the light and lens of the Gospel witness from the Holy Spirit poured out on the Ekklesia we must interpret the reality and fulfillment of Israel’s hope as foretold by the law, prophets, and psalms.

Chiliasm WAS NOT the normative nor major understanding of the millennial age from the so-called “fathers” to the reformation, and up till the mid 60's of the 20th century. However there were some teachers of old who did believe in a literal 1000 years. Even John F. Walvoord a leading Dispensationalist admits this.

I strongly feel that Amillennialism has been so thoroughly misrepresented and slandered that those who believe in these slanders and misrepresentations have not honestly studied for themselves our position but rather blindly followed their leaders and their slanderous accusations.

I am so thoroughly convinced in conscience and by the Holy Spirit that the Amillennial understanding of eschatology is correct and gives Jesus Christ full glory not only in His Person but in His redemptive acts also.

I will state on record that all forms of Chiliastic Eschatology are offensive to Jesus Christ. For they either impugn or minimize His office as the true and real King David, His person as the only Messiah of the world, His Work of perfect obedience being the true Adam, His priesthood as the only mediator between God and Man, His true temple that is His own Body and those in Him.

I will spend all of the upcoming week defending this issue from a polemical and apologetical structure.

To hold or believe in any sense a restoration of the types and shadows of the old covenant in light of their historical and present fulfillment, is an affront to almighty God and his Christ.

In Christ our King who presently rules from the true and real Mount Zion,

Nicholas

[Robert R. Higby]

Amen Nicholas, you have hit the nail on the head in judging this issue in light of the everlasting gospel of Grace in Jesus Christ! I very much look forward to your expositions.

Further responses to John K.

When Jesus said they (goats) will go to eternal punishment but the righteous to eternal life, the word aionios should not have been translated 'eternal'. A better translation would be, "These will go to the punishment of The Age, but the righteous to the life of The Age." This passage, so popular with damnationists since Augustine and before, though it talks of severe judgment, had nothing to do with a supposed eternal Hell, a concept not found in the Scriptures.

We could debate this here, however, it is a separate issue. Let's not depart from the primary issue of the thread. Proponents of eternal torment and annihilation are abundantly found in both camps (amillenial and pre-millenial), so it is not the same debate.

But if you conveniently ignore the millennium, you start assuming that the heavenly immortal kingdom arrives right when Christ returns, and you lose this element of the way God executes judgment on goats.

1. The heavenly immortal kingdom arrived when Jesus came in the first century (Mt. 12:28), nothing could be clearer from His own teaching. In addition, the kingdom that is consummated at Christ's final return is not merely heavenly; heaven and earth become one as the dwelling of God with men in the New Earth is perfected.
2. God executes temporal judgment on goats in the current age (Rom. 1:18 ff) and eternal judgment on goats (Heb. 6:2) at His final return.

Oh, it's also hugely important because it's when we saints begin to reign.

The reign of the saints with Christ is now (Rom. 5:17-21). It continues to eternity future.

--Bob

[JKuiper]

Why do those who insist on a literal millennium take one verse out of an allegorical passage and try to make it literal? That verse has a context just as much as John 3:16. If you take a single verse and remove it from its context you run into problems. Have any of y'all read Behold, He Cometh by Herman Hoeksema?

[alt731]

Why do those who insist on a literal millennium take one verse out of an allegorical passage and try to make it literal? That verse has a context just as much as John 3:16. If you take a single verse and remove it from its context you run into problems. Have any of y'all read Behold, He Cometh by Herman Hoeksema?

Since there have been so many people in history, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, John Gill, John Darby, Francis Schaeffer etc... who insist on a literal millennium, all coming from different perspectives, I should imagine they all had different reasons to do so. As for me, I think that it is the overwhelming testimony of the Old and New Testaments that the righteous will rule over the wicked on earth in a literal kingdom that is the biggest factor, though I also think that if you simply read Revelation 19 through 22, it is almost impossible not to view the millennium as a literal period in time (though the length of the period might be taken as metaphorical).

[Saint Nicholas]

Why do those who insist on a literal millennium take one verse out of an allegorical passage and try to make it literal? That verse has a context just as much as John 3:16. If you take a single verse and remove it from its context you run into problems. Have any of y'all read Behold, He Cometh by Herman Hoeksema?

Hello Jonathan....I personally would not say that Re. 20 should be understood allegorical. Unless your definition of allegorical means something different than what I understand it to mean. However, the spiritual meaning behind the symbolisms should be taken literal. 1,000 yrs, bound, chained, etc. are symbolic expressions of real things.

I have not read Herman Hoeksema's book as of this time.

Nicholas

[Robert R. Higby]

Alt731, you say that the elect will rule over the non-elect in a 'millennium', how about for eternity? Is not forever and ever and ever and ever more important than a 1000 year snap of the finger (which is almost nothing in terms of everlasting time)?

I have read Hoeksema and consider his Revelation commentary to be (still) the best that has been published, though I continue to have many disagreements with his conclusions.

Allegorical interpretation is FALSE, period, and this applies to ALL of scripture! The Bible contains many symbols portraying truth but never proposes truth in terms of allegorical reasoning.