Historic Premillienialism

You Can Listen to this Sermon Here.

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.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism

You Can Listen to This Message Here

Before we dig into the four views of the end times, a couple of things that I pray will help keep things in proper perspective.

1.       Every system of theology is the product of man and will have error. No one description of any system will satisfy everyone. One author advises his readers to 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. Jesus humiliated Himself once, came to earth to live among sinful people and redeem His sheep. He returned to the Father, with the glory that was His before He put on flesh. Does our view of the end times keep His glory in its rightful place?

Recall the definition of postmillennialism by Loraine Boettner: "..the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals... the world eventually is to be Christianized and the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace, commonly called the millennium." This hermeneutic: Revelation either mostly figurative or mostly fulfilled in 70AD (Mt. 24:34). Context determines whether literal or figurative. Interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament.

Something dawned on me: of the 4 systems of eschatology we reviewed last week, there are two categories, Postmillennial and Premillennial, with two variants in each category. Both postmil and amil posit the return of Christ after the millennium; both historic premil and dispensationalism posit the return of Christ before the millennium. The differences within each category are very real and tangible, but the grouping should make them easier to keep organized in our minds.

Let us learn more from two well-known advocates of this system.

Kenneth Gentry (Postmillennialism Made Easy): "Undoubtedly, postmillennialism’s distinctive principle is its conviction that the vast majority of men will be saved." Since Gentry identifies that as the distinctive principle of postmillennialism, it ought to be easily and vigorously supported by Scripture. Here’s an example. With regard to Matt 7:13-14, he says: "he (Jesus) is urging his disciples to consider the present situation they currently live in. They must look around themselves and see that many souls are presently perishing and too few men are being saved. He is not giving them a prophecy regarding the future. He is pressing them: What will they do about this current situation? Do they love him enough to seek to reverse it?" Is this what the Scriptures indicate? (Read the passage.)

In another place, Gentry tell us, "Postmillennialism teaches that a time is coming in earth history, continuous with the present and resulting from currently operating, God-ordained spiritual forces, in which the overwhelming majority of men and nations will voluntarily bow in salvation to the lordship of Jesus Christ.  Scripture’s glorious message — in both the Old and New Testaments — is that “every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (Rom 14:11). This is the postmillennial hope."

In its original context, God is calling His people to repentance, promising salvation for them – and glory! In Romans 14, Paul uses it to remind the saints to look kindly on one another (verses 10 – 12): But you, why do you criticize your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before the tribunal of God. For it is written:

As I live, says the Lord,

every knee will bow to Me,

and every tongue will give praise to God.5

So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

In Romans 14, Paul is quoting Isaiah 45:23, wherein we read this (verses 21-25 page 1324).

Brother Gentry confuses this age with the age to come, claiming something that YHWH has promised to do at the end of the age, when all who are true Israel will be redeemed and all who do not believe on the Son will be broken. On that great and terrible day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord; both, those who inherit eternal life and those who enter eternal doom. There is no place in Scripture that promises a virtually universal redemption of humankind. We see a glimpse of them at the closing of Rev 6 (summarize).

Loraine Boettner, in The Meaning of the Millennium, says postmillennials look forward to "a golden age of spiritual prosperity during this present dispensation, that is, during the Church Age." This is brought about, he says, "through forces now active in the world." A couple pages later, Boettner appears to clarify what he means by this last statement, in describing life in the millennium: "Christian principles of belief and conduct will be the accepted standards." He agrees with Gentry about the nature of the millennium but adds detail on how it will be brought about. Behavior modification can produce these changes, but the kingdom of God is not so; it is populated by God redeeming sinners and making them new creatures.

As did Gentry, Boettner assigns Scripture revealing the age-to-come to the millennium, which is in this age. This point, that EVERY system of eschatology places the millennium in this age is important to keep in mind. Otherwise we can incorrectly accept arguments that describe the eternal state when they are used to describe the temporal state. Zech 9:10 and Rev 7:9-10 are examples he uses. The context of each passage provides clear evidence that the Spirit was speaking of the age-to-come. Rev 7 is striking (page 2473). The scene is in heaven, not on earth. The saints in 9 & 10 are described in 11 – 17. These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God and serve Him day and night. How can anyone claim this scene describes a scene on earth?

In like fashion, Boettner uses Psalms 47:2 & 97:5 to claim specific validation of their glorious millennium, while these passages describe YHWH's sovereignty and power over all the earth even now - not only or peculiarly during this golden age.

Boettner writes several pages describing how he looks to current events as evidence of the "golden age" blossoming, citing foreign aid spending by the USA and reports in the London Times lauding our spending. He cites various forms of religious radio programs spreading what he calls "the Christian message" as more evidence. If you have spent any amount of time listening to "Christian radio" you know the gospel is a rare thing to be broadcast, there being as much error as truth in any given radio program. With scant discernment, Boettner would have us be impressed with size and scope: the 22 million listeners of the Lutheran Hour and other large scale programs. When Christians measure spiritual success by the numbers, they will end up being businessmen, with an eye for the numbers of this world rather than having a desire for faithfulness to the gospel.

He pushes this pragmatic perspective further touting "theological seminaries, Bible institutes and Christian colleges" which are "growing faster than the population" as well as statistics which show "nominal adherents" to the Christian faith to be the largest religious group in the world and declares "All the false religions are dying." He bases this assertion on the fact that false religions come and go. But there is nothing new under the sun and all false religions have the same substance and foundation, regardless of their name. And John tells us antichrist is coming and many have already come. False religions are not dying - they are putting on new clothes, spreading the same lies as always.

On this point, I cannot help but think of what Paul said in his second letter to Timothy. 2 Timothy 3:1-5 (page 2329). Gentry noted this passage and declared that it does not say more and more people will grow in wickedness, so it doesn't work against their position. He agrees that some people will continue and grow worse - which flies in the face of Boettner's assertion that false religions are dying. Everyone who speaks against Christ serves doctrines of demons and is part of a false religion. These men and their work will not die off until Christ returns to destroy them.

In keeping with his focus on things temporal, Boettner next tells us, "The great material prosperity of which the Bible speaks of accompanying the millennial era will be, to a large extent, the natural result of the high moral and spiritual life of that that time. In numerous prophecies temporal blessings are expressly represented as following in the train of the new covenant blessings."  He references Matt 6:33; Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added to you. Based on his statement, one would expect this passage to reveal “great material blessings” for those in the New Covenant. But the “other things” mentioned here are the basics of life, as the preceding verses make clear: Matthew 6:31-32; Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’  For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. We are not promised "great material prosperity" in this passage! We are told not to worry about food and drink and clothes; to trust God to provide.

In this same line of thought, he cites 1 Timothy 4:8; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. Does this communicate "great material prosperity" or spiritual value as a child of God? Which of these will be a part of the life to come? He lastly brings to our notice Isaiah 35:1; The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; the desert shall rejoice and blossom like the crocus. This verse is in the midst of a lengthy passage wherein the prophet is describing the age-to-come, when the judgment of God has set all things right.

Two great errors attend this line of thought: claiming spiritual promises and blessings as material, and seeing material blessings as the measure of godliness. This is the very same perspective of Job's friends and of the Jewish community in the say of our Lord. This is why His disciples were incredulous when He told them it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. They were incredulous, having been taught material blessings were a sure sign of God’s favor. Who, then could be saved? In their cultural religion, if a rich man could enter the kingdom, who could? Further, Romans 14:17; the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Again - the Jewish culture of Jesus' day was based on this same error, thinking the kingdom was of eating and drinking and of silver and gold. Did not the Pharisees question Jesus about why His disciples did not wash before eating? Did they not question why He ate with tax collectors and sinners? Did His own disciples not think valuable perfume was better sold to feed the poor than to “waste” washing His feet?

To be concerned about temporal things, thinking they are of God’s kingdom is to fall into the same ditch as did the Jews of Jesus day. This is the ditch the postmillennial position puts people in.

David Engelsma noted, “The hope of postmillennialism, particularly in its "Christian Reconstruction" form, is a "Jewish dream." This was the express judgement of the early Reformed creed, the Second Helvetic Confession (A.D. 1566):

We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgement, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt. chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18 and the apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different (Chap. 11, in Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, ed. Arthur C. Cochrane, Westminster Press, 1966).

He says, postmillennials “call the church to "Christianize" the world, a task that Holy Scripture nowhere assigns either to the church or to the believer. Christ calls His church to guard against becoming worldly; He does not call her to make the world Christian.”

Back to Boettner’s case for Postmillennialism. He says, “man’s proper management of the earth, the task assigned to him before the fall, will go far toward restoring a profitable plant and animal life. Remedy for the sin condition in man and a marvelous transformation will take place in nature.” Did you understand what he said? By “properly managing the earth” man can restore and transform nature – including remedying the sin condition in man! Boettner cites no Scripture for this extreme claim – how could he! How presumptuous of the man! He devotes a page to describing advances in transportation, medicine, communications; not one word about the work of the Spirit. Does this not sound exactly like the liberal who claims man is inherently good and simply needs a little education to make his righteous?

After all this, Boettner seems to try to get back on track, saying, “no matter how marvelous this material prosperity may become, it will ever remain but he by-product of the moral and spiritual prosperity that already to some extent characterizes the partially Christianized nations.” Not quite back on track, Boettner claims God pours out material blessings in response to what He sees in “partially Christianized nations.” There is a consistent theme here: the kingdom of God is about great material blessings. Pagan nations suffer poverty. What does Scripture say?

Psalm 37:1-2 & 7 Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers! For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb. Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way, over the man who carries out evil devices!

Psalm 73 reveals the prosperity of the wicked, who seem to prosper and never face trouble like the common folk. They deny God’s existence, and yet: (verse12) Behold, these are the wicked; always at ease, they increase in riches. Despite all this, he has the right perspective: (Read 23 – 28, page 1028)

The Christian response to material prosperity is NOT to blindly assume it’s a blessing from God. He will be generous and take care not to fall in the various pits that await those who seek after riches. The foolish farmer who thought material prosperity was goodness met his maker that very evening. Better to treasure peace with God through faith in Christ than to trust in uncertain riches of this age. Rather than boasting in wealth, Paul tells us (2 Thess 1:5-7, page 2316). Some trust in horses and chariots, we trust God. That should be our stance.

These men who hold to a postmil view are not heretics, but the arguments put forth by these advocates are at odds with the express intent of Scripture in critical areas. I think we'll see another way of looking at the end times which does less violence to Scripture and points us more consistently to Christ.

An Introduction to Eschatology

You Can Listen to this message here

Study on Eschatology

Questions.

1. How many views of the end times are widely held?

2. Is any particular view of the end times a Baptist view?

3. Are all the several views fairly equal in age, or is one rather new?

4. Which books of the Bible have the most impact on how one sees the end times?

5. What's your favorite author or preacher on end times?

6. Does one's view of the end times impact other aspects of how the Bible is understood?

First things.

Before we start, a caveat: This will not be, cannot be, an in-depth study of this topic. Countless books have been published defending the various views we will review and, while I will rely on credible advocates to describe each system, not all who hold to any eschatological view will agree with a given advocate of that system. Anyone could claim a difference between what I present and what he believes - such is our condition, wherein advocates of a position have much difficulty agreeing on their common position.

Before we define our terms, there is a topic we need to address. Eschatology, the study of end times, is not a detached doctrine that has little or no connection to the Bible as a whole. Just as we go astray when we take a verse out of context to determine its meaning, so with any doctrine. We must anchor our doctrines in the Bible, trying to bring the biblical message to bear rather than treating this study or any other one as a standalone topic.

This helps us take what the Bible teaches as a frame of reference for the topic at hand. One author asks these questions: Who is Israel? What is a Jew? Where is Jerusalem? In the Bible there is a record of two of each of these; one physical, the other spiritual. We should all be familiar with physical Israel, ethnic Jews, and physical Jerusalem - they fill up most of our Bible. But through the lens of the New Covenant, Hal Brunson says, "Paul assigns a spiritual definition to all Christians as "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16) and "Abraham's seed" (Gal 3:29). Paul also describes each individual Christian as a spiritual Jew whose "circumcision is that of the heart by the Spirit" (Rom 2:29). Moreover, Paul uses the term "Jerusalem" in a spiritual sense to reference the "state of grace" that believers experience through their relationship to Jesus Christ; "Jerusalem which is above," Paul declares, "is the mother of us all" Gal 4:26). Echoing Paul's language, the writer of Hebrews even asserts that believers have already "come to the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:22)."

Just as our spiritual identity and spiritual family are more important than our temporal identity and temporal family, so is it when Scripture speaks of physical and spiritual Israel, Jews, and Jerusalem.

Basic definitions of words and phrases will make this study much more manageable. Key terms for us are eschatology, millennium (with the various prefixes), rapture, preterism, and futurism.

Why should we study this topic? Is it that important, or can't we ignore it and trust God, knowing it will all work out in the end? This is one of several secondary topics we can study from the Bible that are important but not essential. But if we don't take a serious look at these - including covenants and eschatology - we will end up with views of these important topics that are shallow, the product of another's study; making us disciples of man. If we continue to hold tightly to conclusions we have not made our own, we will be either subject to being swayed easily by spurious doctrines OR we will be aggressively defensive. No matter what secondary topic we come across, the proper view will be closely connected to the basic rules we have adopted for interpreting the Scriptures. This needs to be the result of careful deliberation rather than a casual journey.

It is my prayer that this short study of eschatology will spur you on to dig deeper into the Scriptures to see if these things be so. I've known some people who are unwilling to think about these things and have thrown up their hands, rightly claiming God will win in the end; calling themselves "pan-millennialists." God hasn't given us His Word to ignore the parts that are troubling or difficult to understand. He has given us His Spirit to illuminate our understanding and promises to give us wisdom if we ask. Let us humbly yet boldly ask God for His wisdom as we study this important aspect of His written revelation to us.

As noted, many people consider eschatology as a separate doctrine that does not have a large role to play in everyday life, one's view of the end times is, in reality, a logical outworking of the way one reads the Bible. God's revelation of Himself through His written Word is progressive and we cannot understand what the future holds if we do not understand what God has done in the past and what He has promised to do to His own and His enemies. Jesus said (Luke 24) that all Scripture was about Him; this guides our view of what lies ahead - it's all about Him.

Millennium literally means a period of a thousand years. Premillennialism teaches that Christ returns before the millennium, postmillennialism teaches that He returns after the millennium, and Amillennialism teaches we are in the millennium until Christ returns. We find this millennium mentioned in Revelation 20; no place else. Here is a prime example of how one's basic view of Scripture, your hermeneutic, determines your eschatology: Do you read apocalyptic (that is, vividly symbolic) literature the same way you read historical narrative? This is part of one's basic understanding of how to read the Bible and will determine whether you see the millennium as a literal expression of time or a symbolic reference to time.

Rapture is a word derived from Latin Vulgate rendering of 1 Thess 4:17, where the saints are "caught up" to meet the Lord. Historically, this has been viewed as an account of the general resurrection at the end of the age (along with 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 - page 2215 and 1 Thess 4:13-5:11 - page 2309).

Preterism and futurism are terms referring to prophecies fulfilled in the past and those to be fulfilled in the future, respectively. Full preterists claim all the prophecies of Christ's return, including His second advent, have taken place. We now live in the age to come, according to this view - which is considered heretical by virtually everyone. The futurist is at the other extreme, with the added condition that all prophecies made concerning national Israel must be fulfilled in national Israel. With both preterism and futurism there are partial views held by many people. Most of us, I would wager (if I were a betting man), are partial preterists. These two views are products of one's basic hermeneutic - how do you see the Scripture?

There are 4 basic views of the end times that are held by the saints, with some things in common and some things in conflict. Here is a brief overview of these positions, as described by leading advocates of each.

Historic Premillennialism: "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." George Ladd. 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.

Amillennialism: "...amillennialists do not believe in a literal thousand-year reign which will follow the return of Christ... the millennium of Revelation 20 is not exclusively future, but is now in the process of realization." Anthony Hoekema. This hermeneutic: Progressive Parallelism in Revelation (Earth's history repeated 7 times) OR Prehistorist: interpret in terms of meaning to 1st century church-- reassurance of Christ's victory over Roman persecutors. Context determines whether literal or figurative. Interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament.

Postmillennialism: "..the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals... the world eventually is to be Christianized and the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace, commonly called the millennium." Loraine Boettner. This hermeneutic: Revelation either mostly figurative or mostly fulfilled in 70ad (Mt. 24:34) Context determines whether literal or figurative. Interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament.

Dispensationalism: There is what’s known as “classic dispensationalism,” first taught by John Darby in the early 1800s, and then by C.I. Scofield and early 20^th century folks at DTS. In the past 30 years a movement called progressive dispensationalism has emerged. This latter group is moving away from some of the more objectionable doctrines of Darby, which is very good, but is a moving target as they continue to migrate their view more towards historical teaching. To keep things manageable, in this study the term “dispensationalism” will refer to that which was taught by well-known advocates from our time. Here’s how one of their own describe it: "A golden age of civilization...as described in the Bible...a millennial kingdom will be ushered in by a divine, supernatural and catastrophic manifestation from heaven at the Second coming of Christ....when the conditions of life have reached the depths of great tribulation." Herman Hoyt. This hermeneutic: The whole Bible is divided into several (originally 7) dispensations/time periods in which God acts in different ways toward man.  Interpretation must be literal whenever possible. Interpret the New Testament by the Old Testament.

The first three systems have been held by Christians since apostolic times and can be found in writings of the early church fathers. Dispensationalism has some things in common with Historic Premillennialism and Postmillennialism but, as a system, did not come into being until the 19th century and was first popularized by the notes in the Scofield Study Bible - the first study Bible widely published in this country. Only the new system of dispensationalism seeks to interpret the New Testament by the Old, denying the progressive nature of God's revelation found in the Scriptures. Only dispensationalism insists on a literal millennium. Only dispensationalism believes in more than one judgement, dividing this event into three separate events. Only dispensationalism believes in a secret rapture before the return of Christ. Only dispensationalism denies the current reign of Christ as Lord and King. Only dispensationalism believes Satan is not bound in any sense until Christ returns. Only dispensationalism insists on a near complete separation between Gentile and Jewish Christians.

Dispensationalism, alone, interprets the New Testament by the Old, insists on a literal millennium, insists on two or more judgments, insists on a secret rapture, claims Satan is rampant, denies the current reign of Christ, and builds a wall between Gentile and Jewish saints.

These seven distinctions put dispensationalism at variance with the three historic systems of eschatology and should cause any student of Scripture to view it with great caution. A long standing rule to guide our biblical interpretation is, if it's new, it's not true. Why would God keep something of significance from His people for nearly 2,000 years after the close of the canon of Scripture?

Historically, Baptists have been largely amillennial (William Carey, John Bunyan, Alexander Carson, John Broadus, Andrew Fuller, Arthur Pink, T.T. Shields, and Adoniram Judson), with a few postmillennials (B.H. Caroll, J.M. Pendleton, and A.H. Strong) and historic premillennials (Spurgeon, John Gill, and Robert Haldane) in the mix. Beginning in the early 20th century, dispensationalism has gained much ground, taking the dominant position; it now appears to be losing some ground. Major advocates of this view include Paige Paterson, John MacArthur, Jack Graham, John Walvoord, and Thomas Ice.

Implications.

If you see prophecies to national Israel as something that must be fulfilled in national Israel, your eschatology will reflect that view and you will likely embrace Darby’s system. If you see all the promises finding their yes and amen in Christ Jesus, you are more likely to embrace the amillennial perspective.

We need to ask ourselves - What is our primary focus in our personal theology: is it ethnic Israel, God, or self? Is our primary focus on the heavenlies, where we sit with Christ, or on earthly matters? The honest answer to these questions will help each of us begin to examine our underlying beliefs, our presuppositions, that for the foundation for how we read the Scriptures.

Since all Christians are called children of Abraham (Romans 4:11-12; Galatians 3:29), one author encourages us to look into the Scriptures to see what eschatology he held.

When we first read of Abram (Gen 12), he is told by God to leave his people and go to a land God will show him. Leave the comfort of the known and trust the Creator to lead you to a better but unknown place. In the very next chapter, his clan has grown too large for all to live together so Abram gives nephew Lot the choice of where he will settle. Verses 10 & 11: And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other. Abram was the elder and could have chosen the land that was like the garden of YHWH, but he did not. His eyes were fixed, not on earthly things but on heavenly things.

Abram was promised a large tract of land in Gen 15, beyond Abram’s comprehension. God gave him a vision of the growth and captivity in Egypt that his earthly heirs would experience. Verses 18 – 21: On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give3  this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

In Gen 22 we have the well know story of Isaac being offered up as a sacrifice and the ram being supplied by YHWH. It was later said of Abraham, that he considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back (Heb 11:19). In Gen 25 we read of his death – he was buried in a cave he had bought, not having taken possession of the land promised.

All of this is summed up in Hebrews 11: 8-10. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. Abraham was promised lots of land and countless heirs of his own flesh. He lived as a sojourner and exile on the earth (1 Pet 2:11). Again, from Hebrews 11:13-16 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.  For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

What is this city? Was Abraham looking for an earthly city? Hebrews says if that were the case, the ancient saints would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Abraham wasn't seeking refuge in a temporal kingdom, but in an eternal one.

This is what we are told in other places to fix our minds on. (1 Pet 2:4-5a) As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house. (Eph 2:19-22) So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Every sermon ought to present Christ properly and exhort the hearers to seek Him. This is essential for us to be reconciled to holy God. And it ought to be our focus of the end times.

R.A. Torrey, Profitable Bible Study

Do not come to the Bible full of your own ideas, and seeking from it a confirmation of them. Come rather to find out what are God's ideas as He has revealed them there.

The Gospel Blessedness of the New Covenant

You can listen to this sermon here.

The gospel is not a weak step-sister that requires the big brother of the Law to help her win people to Christ. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe. All that is required for us to be saved is accomplished by Christ; and credited to His elect by grace.

This is the last of the three messages I was blessed to preach at the conference in Lake Charles recently.