Historic Premillennialism
A reminder of a couple of things that we need to keep in
mind.
1.
Every system of theology is the product of man
and will have error. No one description of any system will satisfy everyone. We
should look for the system that “does the least violence to Scripture.”
2.
Keep Christ clearly in view. The ultimate goal
of all creation is the glorify God the Father and the Son. Our view of the end
times should seek to keep His glory in its rightful place
Historic premillennialism is one of the systems within the
premil category; dispensationalism being the other. Recall the definition of premillennialism
by George Ladd, who is recognized by most as the "go-to guy" for this
view: "After the Second coming of Christ, he will reign for a thousand
years over the earth before the final consummation of God's redemptive purpose
in the new heavens and the new earth of the age to come." Here's the basic
rule of interpretation (hermeneutic) used by this system: "Natural reading"
of Revelation. Context determines whether literal or figurative. Interpret the
Old Testament by the New Testament (Hos. 1:9/Rom 9:25-26, Jer.31:33ff/Heb. 8)
Millennium must be Christ-Centered and is often seen as a literal 1,000 years,
but this latter is not essential to this view.
Ladd's definition reveals what's most important to this
view: Jesus returns to earth before the millennium, before the consummation of
all things and the making of new heaven and earth. It is important to
comprehend this: the earthly reign of Christ comes while sin and death are
still present. Secondly, Ladd insists on a "natural reading" of
Revelation. We will see what this means and why it's important to him.
In his defense of historical premillennialism (The Meaning of the Millennium), Ladd
starts off summarizing his position by saying it's "the most natural
reading of Revelation 20." He puts distance between his position and that
of dispensationalists, making note that his hermeneutic sounds very much like
Amillennialism. In his book, The Last
Things, he wrote, speaking of himself, "the present writer feels that
he must adopt a spiritualizing hermeneutic because he finds the New Testament applying to the spiritual church promises which
in the Old Testament refer to literal Israel. He does not do this because
of any preconceived covenant theology but because he is bound by the Word of
God." Ladd is guided by a spiritual hermeneutic which takes promises made
to literal (physical) Israel and fulfills them in the church in the gospel age
because he finds this pattern in the New Testament.
But Ladd is unable to be consistent in this hermeneutic, saying,
"there are two passages in the New Testament which cannot be avoided. One
is Romans 11:26: "And so all Israel will be saved." It is difficult
to escape the conclusion that this means literal Israel." Later in his
essay, it becomes apparent Revelation 20 is the other passage. We will take a
look at his position on each of these.
Ladd defends his view of Romans 11:26 by reviewing the olive
tree metaphor earlier in the chapter. Natural branches are broken off because
of unbelief and wild ones are grafted in; and natural branches can get grafted
back if they do not continue in unbelief. Verse 24 concludes: For if you were cut from what is by nature a
wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree,
how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own
olive tree. Ladd sums up, "This is the context of Paul's statement,
that a hardening has come upon (a large) part of Israel until the full number
of the Gentiles comes in. "And so [that is, in this way, after a period of
hardening] all Israel will be saved."
He then asserts that the "New Testament clearly affirms
the salvation of literal Israel," although he merely asserts "literal
Israel" is what Paul had in mind without defining this term. Ladd also
makes it clear that whoever is in "literal Israel" would be saved in
the same way as every other soul - "by faith in Jesus." He admits,
"the New Testament does not give any details of Israel's conversion and
role in the millennium" and goes to protest that just "because many
of the Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the church" doesn't mean
"that all of the promises to
Israel are fulfilled in the church." It should be noted that it's not as
though the church is where the promises are fulfilled, for Paul tells us in 2
Cor 1:20 that every one of God's
promises find their "Yes" in Christ Jesus. Not some of the promises
or even most of them. EVERY promise of God finds it fulfillment in Christ. The
church gains in this because we are His body. Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to
see His day, not the church. Abraham was looking for a city whose designer and
builder is God as the fulfillment of the promise given him. This heavenly
Jerusalem is the bride of Christ. Every identification or scrap of significance
we may have is all and only because we are in Christ. He is the focus of
redemptive history and in Him ALL the promises of God find their Yes! Seeing
promises made to physical Israel being fulfilled in Christ is not a bad
hermeneutic. But it will undermine premillennialism if held to consistently.
In his book, The Last
Things, Ladd devotes chapter 2 to separating his position from
dispensationalism, as regards Israel. He makes a wonderful defense of Paul's
teaching that believers are the true Jews, true children of Abraham. Here's
where we find out what he means by "literal Israel" - "When Paul
says "All Israel will be saved," he obviously cannot mean every Jew
who ever lived. He is talking about redemptive history. But the day will come
when "all Israel," the vast majority of living Jews, will be
saved." When premillennials talk about "literal Israel" they
mean physical Israel, Jews according to the flesh.
A few pages later, after making the case for the fulfillment
of the Levitical religion in the New Covenant faith, Ladd concludes, "Once
the types and shadows have fulfilled their purpose, they are discarded in God's
redemptive programs." But he cannot see national Israel as part of those
"types and shadows", for he continues:
What does this have to do with the
present Israeli question? Three things: First, God has preserved his people.
Israel remains a "holy" people (Rom 11:16), set apart and destined to
carry out the divine purpose. Second, all Israel is yet to be saved. Third, the
salvation of Israel must be through the new covenant made in the blood of
Christ already established with the church, not through a rebuilt Jewish
temple.
Ladd is on the money when he says not every Jew who ever
lived is what is meant by "all Israel." But is he on the money by
saying "all Israel" means "the vast majority of living
Jews" (at the time of Christ's return)? Is he on track with his three
things about Israel? Points 2 & 3 flow from his first point, so we'll look
at that one. There is no doubt that God preserved national Israel for a time
and a purpose - to preserve the promised seed until He came. But once Christ
came, the Old Covenant no longer played a role. Just as the religious practices
were discarded, so was the people defined by them. Without the religion that
YHWH gave them to set them apart from the rest of the world, after the conquest
by Nebuchadnezzar in which the genealogical records were destroyed, national
Israel lost its distinctive identity. And when the New Covenant came, game over
for literal Israel.
Is national Israel described as "holy" in Romans
11:16? Let's read the passage to get some context, Romans 11:13-16 (page 2176)
One can make the case that the "firstfruits"
refers to Christ or to redeemed Jews (see Rom 16:5 & 2 Cor 16:15). But
there is no basis to claim this passage refers to national Israel. The last
part of verse 16 shows us what makes the firstfruits holy - the root, which is
Christ! Verse 18 tells us the root supports the branches. No branch can boast. No
person is truly holy as God is holy without redemption found only in the Lord
Jesus.
With regards to Ladd's claim that Romans 11:26 means
"the vast majority of living Jews will be saved," Blake White (a
Baptist I count as a friend) has said, " Paul uses very similar language
in Romans 10:13 as he does in Romans 11:26. In the former he writes that
everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. In the latter he says
that all Israel will be saved. All Israel consists of everyone who calls on the
name of the Lord. They will be saved."
While some have made very credible arguments that "all
Israel" in Romans 11:26 refers to the elect Jews (which makes better sense
than Ladd's view), considering the extensive teaching about the make-up of
true, spiritual Israel and Paul's use of that word to describe Gentiles who are
in Christ, and the way both Jew and Gentile believers are portrayed in the
olive tree metaphor, it makes the best sense to see his phrase "all
Israel" in Romans 11 to refer to true, spiritual Israel. All elect Jews
are not "all Israel," all the Jews living at any point in time are
not "all Israel," but all the elect from all generations are!
If we back up to verse 7 we see that national Israel failed
to obtains reconciliation with God, but the elect within national Israel
obtained it. The rest of national Israel was hardened. This ties to what Ladd
correctly saw as part of national Israel being hardened; but they are hardened
until, or as long as, the full number of Gentiles are being redeemed. Paul is
not giving a chronological relationship between these two groups, he's telling
us the elect from both Jew and Gentile will obtain peace with God until He
returns. Paul uses the same construct in 1 Cor 11 when he says we proclaim the
Lord's death until He comes. A remnant of Jews will be saved until the fullness
of the Gentiles is brought in, elect from both groups will be brought in until
the last of the lost sheep is brought in. This is what Paul is teaching us in
Romans 11.
If we are look at Romans 11 as Ladd presents it, we see God
presented as a respecter of persons, as He is portrayed as favoring one ethnic
group over another. This is flatly denied in Scripture as regards salvation.
While national Israel was highly favored in many ways (see Romans 2), it was
not in any way related to being reconciled with God. When Simeon, a righteous
and devote man saw the infant Jesus, he said, "this child is appointed for the all and rising of many in Israel."
This is clearly a reference to national Israel and also clearly reveals that
some Jews will be raised up and others will fall, with the anointed one as the
rock of offense over Whom many will stumble.
In another place, the apostle says Gentiles (who were
foreigners to the covenants of promise and without God) have been brought near
and that in Christ Jesus, both groups, Jew and Gentile, are one man - having
torn down the wall of hostility (Ephesians 2). And in Galatians 3:28-29 we
read, There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ
Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs
according to the promise. What sense would it make to back-track on all
this and elevate a generation of people that put stock and confidence in their
flesh? True Israel is the Lord Jesus and all His sheep. And in the same way as
Jews and Gentiles were saved in Paul's day, without regard to fleshly
genealogy, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, all Israel will
be saved - as the Gentiles are also brought into His sheepfold.
On to Ladd's second passage that cannot be overlooked, Rev
20. In introducing this topic (The Meaning of the Millennium), he
presents a vigorous and glorious view of the second coming of Christ. No secret
rapture that some teach, but "divine invasion in which the majesty and
glory of God will be revealed." He emphasizes that Rev 19 teaches the
return of the Lord Jesus; this is central to his position on Rev 20. In typical
premillennial form, Ladd claims Revelation "chapters 19-20 form a
continuous narrative announcing the marriage of the Lamb, the victorious return
of Christ and his victory over his enemies." Chapter 20, he says,
describes Jesus' victory over the devil in which he is bound and shut up in the
"bottomless pit" for a thousand years, "that he should deceive the nations no more," and at the end of
the thousand years he is cast into the lake of fire. He then writes, "This
is to me the only admissible exegesis of Revelation 20:1-6. The exegesis of the
passage depends upon one's interpretation of verses 4-5." (page 2492)
Of these two verses Ladd says, "The entire
interpretation of the passage hinges upon the question of whether the first
"coming to life" and the "coming to life" of the rest of
the dead mean the same thing, namely, bodily resurrection." He and others
argue that the Greek word for "came to life" clearly means bodily
resurrection in the latter occurrence so it must mean in the first occurrence.
Ladd does not deny that the Bible teaches spiritual resurrection, and points
out a passage in John 5 that teaches the spiritual resurrection precedes the
bodily resurrection (page 2032 vs 25-29). But Rev 20 cannot be communicating
that because there is no contextual clue within Rev 20 to tell us such; there
is in John 5. Ladd cannot accept the same pattern in Rev as he found in John 5
because it undermines his system. "At the beginning of the thousand years
some of the dead come to life; at the conclusion, the rest of the dead come to
life. The passage makes perfectly good sense when interpreted literally."
Ladd demonstrates what another author warned about: "An expositor's
interpretation of the meaning of "the
first resurrection" will be directly related to the presuppositions he
brings to the text."
The clear teaching in several other places that show a
spiritual resurrection first, then a bodily resurrection (he cites Eph 2:1-6
and John 5:25-29), leaves Ladd unconvinced that we should see Rev 20:4-5 in the
same light. His presuppositions - literal Israel will be saved and the first
resurrection is physical - will not allow him to follow the pattern established
elsewhere in Scripture. This is a recurring them in most of the eschatological
systems: an unhealthy focus on the temporal, with varying degrees of ignoring
the spiritual.
While Revelation contains elements of narrative and epistle
content, it is primarily an apocalyptic work, full of signs and symbols. We are
told in the very first verse of this book that God made the revelation known by
signifying it though His angel to
John. The Greek word behind "signifying" is used in linguistic,
medical science, and literature to describe communication through signs; such as sign language used to
communicate with deaf people. Since we see that this is the device YHWH has
told us He used to reveal this bit of the redemptive story to our brother and
partner in the tribulation, kingdom, and endurance that are in in Jesus (verse
9), what basis would we have to interpret it "naturally" or
"literally"? If the book is symbolic by design, we should insist on
clear indications that a piece of it should be taken literally, or physically. Even the letters sent to the 7 churches are
mainly symbolic, although they represent historical facts that are rightly
taken literally. One theologian has discovered that of the 81 Old Testament
prophecies which are interpreted by the New Testament, 70 of them (86%) are
fulfilled spiritually! The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom.
Later in his argument, Ladd admits "the New Testament
nowhere expounds the theology of the millennium;" but he says, "in
some way not disclosed in Scripture, the millennium is part of Christ's
Messianic rule by which he puts all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor
15:25)." And then, "The order of the Age to Come will involve a new
heaven and new earth, and will be so different from the present order that we
can speak of it as beyond history.
The millennium will reveal to the world as we now know it the glory and power
of Christ's reign." This is the tension of the premillennial system -
recognizing the Bible does NOT expound a theology of the millennium but being
compelled to sketch out a theology of the millennium, for without it, your
system would fall apart.
Since death and rebellion are part of the millennium in
Ladd's system, how effective is the glory and power of Christ's reign? He
agrees Jesus reigns now, but can be seen only by the eye of faith. Does not
that agree with the entire nature and design of the gospel? We preach Christ
crucified to a world that cannot see Him and does not believe in Him. Yet the
gospel is the only thing given that is the power of salvation to those who are
being saved. Luke 16:31 ‘If they do not
hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should
rise from the dead.’ Another round of earthly presence of Christ Jesus with
Him as earthly king sounds like Jewish dreams. He was clear - His kingdom is
not of this world; it is of the one to come.
The Scripture speaks of the spiritual nature of the kingdom
in numerous places, including 1 Peter 1:3-4; 1 Thess 4:17; 2 Cor 5:1; John
17:24 (Jesus says His sheep will be with Him where He is, not another place.)
Col 3:2; Heb 12:22; 2 Pet 3:13; John 14:2-3. Our destiny is tied to Christ,
secured by our union with Him. It is not tied to a place on earth, no matter
how one defines the millennium.
In his lengthy argument about our identity in Christ, in
Romans 5 & 6, Paul describes the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus
and our relationship with Him. Since we have been united with Him in a death
like His, we will certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His. We
have died to sin with Christ and we will live with Him for sin and death have
no dominion over Jesus and, therefore, no dominion over us! Do not allow sin to
rule over you but present yourselves to
God as those who have been brought from death to life. This is the change
that takes place in every sinner brought to faith in Christ - resurrection from
spiritual death to eternal life! In the present age.
Ladd is emphatic that Rev 19 reveals the second advent of
Christ Jesus. We find this climax to the great eschatological battle: (Read
14-16, page 2491). In Rev 20 we see, during the present gospel age, Satan bound
from deceiving the nations so the saints can go to all the nations with the
Lord's gospel. And then, at the end of the millennium, Satan is released to
deceive the nations and lead the people of the world to their eternal defeat.
The battle in Rev 20:7-10 shows the same revolt against the Lord and His Christ
as we read in Rev 19 (page 2493). Another author, R. Fowler White, has observed
that the binding of Satan to keep him from deceiving the nations (as found in
Rev 20) would be superfluous if it followed the battle of Rev 19:11-21 in
chronological sequence. But if Rev 20 is parallel to Rev 19, describing the
same basic themes from a slightly different perspective, then we the same
redemptive plan of God reinforced by the retelling.
Is the binding of Satan found in Rev 20 part of the future
or is it now? Jesus asked, "How can
anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first
ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house" (Matt 12:29). The
Greek verb deö, to bind, here translated "ties up" is the very same
verb used of Satan’s binding in Rev 20. Those who object that Satan is still
struggling to carry out his deceptive work overlook that the binding implies a
restriction, not total neutralization. For example, the very same verb (deö) is
employed of John the Baptist’s binding by Herod (Matt. 14:3), which
nevertheless didn’t prevent John from sending his disciples to Jesus (Matt.
11:1-7). Another example of this verb used to depict a relative restriction is
found in Romans 7:2, "For the woman
who has a husband is bound by the law to [her] husband as long as he lives."
This binding is not complete or comprehensive in its normal use in the New
Testament. Neither the context in Rev 20 nor the similar uses in the Bible
indicate we should view as comprehensive in Rev 20. The strong man is Satan;
Jesus has spoiled his house, taken over his dominion, and restrained him from
certain actions. All of this was accomplished during the Lord's first advent,
being consummated by His propitiating death and glorious resurrection and
ascension.
Kim Riddlebarger, in A
Case for Amillennialism, sums it up: "God's restraint of satanic
deception of the nations (Rev 20:1-3) is a description of the present age of
gospel preaching and is not a reference to a future millennium. This is the
gospel dispensation when Satan is bound, and the gospel will go to the ends of
the earth until the thousand years are over (Acts 17:30-31 page 2123; Eph
3:4-6). Only then, God's restraint upon Satan is lifted, so that he can deceive
the nations and organize them against Christ's church, the supreme act of
rebellion which brings about the final judgment." We will review this
concept more fully when we discuss amillennialism, but mention it here to
demonstrate that the premillennial view is not the only one possible - and may
not do the least violence to Scripture.
In his critique of Ladd's essay, Loraine Boettner, postmil,
observed, "When Christ returns in his own glory and that of the Father,
with all the holy angels, certainly no mere man, who by comparison is but a
worm of the dust, shall be able to stand before him. His period of humiliation
is over, and his divine glory forbids the approach of those who are tainted
with sin. No mortal man can come into that presence and not be overwhelmed by
it. This world and the people in it cannot stand such glory."
In his critique of Ladd's essay, Anthony Hoekema, amil, asks questions that premillennialism opens up
but does not answer: Why should believers be raised from the dead to live on an
earth which is not yet glorified and is still groaning from sin, rebellion, and
death? Why should the glorified Christ have to come back and rule over sinful
people and endure rebellion? Was not this phase finished during His time of
humiliation? Is Christ no coming back in the fullness of His glory to usher in,
not an interim period of qualified peace and blessing, but the final state of
unqualified perfection?
Is Revelation a book of the future, as premillennialism
asserts, which their view of the millennium demands? In 8 statements of Jesus
throughout Revelation, the Lord emphasizes the present tense of His identity,
using expressions that transcend their physical or literal meaning and describe
Jesus metaphorically or spiritually as the "I AM."
Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, saith the Lord.
Revelation 1:11 I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.
Revelation 1:17 Fear not; I am the first and the last.
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and,
behold, I am alive for evermore.
Revelation 2:23 I am the One who examines minds and hearts.
Revelation 21:6 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning
and the End.
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and
the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:16 I am the Root and the Offspring of David,
the Bright Morning Star.
This is the focus of the whole Bible and the Apocalypse
revealed to John. Just as Ladd's focus on literal Israel in Romans 11 led him
to depart from the apostolic hermeneutic he recognizes elsewhere as God
describes His elect as spiritual Israel, so in Rev 20 he departs from the
spiritual hermeneutic he recognizes elsewhere as God fulfills physical promises
spiritually in His redeemed. This is the tendency of our human condition -
focusing on the physical rather than the spiritual. Consistently in Scripture
we are instructed to think heavenly, where we are seated with Christ in this
present age - during the millennium of Rev 20. That's where Ladd would have
ended if he had been consistent with his hermeneutic.
No comments:
Post a Comment