Let me start right off with this disclaimer: I am not a Left Behind dispensationalist. I find that view to be far outside Scripture with very little basis in proper exegesis and hermeneutics. It makes for great Hollywood, but poor eschatology. For one thing, it dismisses the idea that God is no respecter of persons, because it separates national Israel as a uniquely favored group of people based on their nationality alone, and that view is strongly condemned in the NT epistles. I view the nation of Israel as a foreshadowing of things to come (as much of the OT is), specifically in Christ, and a microcosm of how men generally appear before God (stubborn and rebellious against God).
Having said that, I haven't landed firmly in any millennial camp yet, but I am hovering closely over amillennialism.
First, I think it's wise to give a brief description of the differing types of millennial views regarding Israel and the church.
- Amillennialism: The church is the eschatological fulfillment of Israel.
- Dispensational Premillennialism: Views church and Israel as two distinct peoples of God with two individual redemptive plans.
- Historic Premillenialism: The church is the fulfillment of Israel.
- Postmillennialism: The church is the fulfillment of Israel.
I think that to distinguish Israel as a distinct nation is to miss the point Paul makes in Romans 9:6-7. Israel, in my estimation, is a TYPE while Christ (not the church) is the fulfillment of that type. In that regard, I disagree with each of these camps. See Matt 2:15 for one Scripture proof.
Now to argue the larger eschatological issue:
A while back, my pastor said in one of his sermons that amillennialists don't believe in a millennium. This is not exactly true. This camp does believe in a millennium, just not a literal 1,000 year period. We (they) believe it is a figurative number that describes a PERIOD of time, or an age. The reason I'm closing in on amillennialism is mainly because I believe we are now in this period of time, and the following is my reasoning from Scripture and history.
First of all, history. Regarding the tribulation of Christians: I recently listened to the Foxe's Book of Martyrs audio book, and if you would have told any Christian up until perhaps the founding of the United States that there would be a FUTURE tribulation of Christians, they would have called you naively uninformed at best and outright crazy at worst. The Christians of the first 17-1800 years underwent some of the most gruesome and inhumane tortures that man could devise. These faithful Christians endured through a VERY GREAT tribulation, and it is only now in this western comfort that we can complacently claim that there is a "still-to-come" tribulation. Even today, in many parts of the world, Christians are going through tribulations of terrible kinds! http://www.persecution.com/
Now from Scripture: This is by no means exhaustive, just preliminary. First of all, the tribulation has been going on since Stephen was stoned as recorded in Acts 7. John also said that he was in the tribulation at the time of his writing the letter at the end of the FIRST century. Rev 1:9a - "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom..."
Next, I believe the first resurrection spoken of in Rev 20:5 is speaking of regeneration, or spiritual birth.
"Scripture teaches us of two principle resurrections of the dead. It speaks of the resurrection in Christ (John 11:25, Ephesians 2:5) which is the called the first. But it also speaks of another resurrection at the last day (John 11:24, 1st Corinthians 15:52). Only one can be the first resurrection of the saints. And I want to say that again for emphasis. ONLY ONE can be the first Resurrection. And that is what many theologians cannot seem to comprehend. You cannot have two separate events, both called the first resurrection in scripture. That is confusion and God is not the author of confusion. In Revelation 20:5, the First Resurrection refers to what has occurred that made those souls who have died able to live and reign with Christ, while the souls of those who were unsaved (the rest of the dead) could not go to live and reign with Christ. The rest of the dead (unsaved who died) "they lived not again" until the second resurrection when they must be raised from death to stand for judgment before the throne of God. What the chapter is doing is contrasting the souls of the saved, which though they are dead, yet they still live and reign with Christ in heaven, with the souls of the "rest of the dead" (the unsaved) who didn't have life again until the second Resurrection. The ones who reign with Christ after death are those who have had part in the first resurrection. The expression, the First Resurrection clearly refers to the souls of the saints that are raised first, in distinction from the raising of these wicked (rest of the dead) that occurs after the millennium. This is at the the second resurrection."Source: http://is.gd/GPF3
Thirdly, I believe Christ's kingdom is not a literal physical kingdom as taught by premil dispensationalists: Christ Himself said so in John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.""
And to repeat, John believed he was in the kingdom as well in Rev 1:9a - "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom..."
What kingdom do you suppose John was speaking of?
I also believe the rapture, a phrase coined by John Nelson Darby near the end of the American Civl War, is unbiblical. The text most commonly referred to in defense of this theory is 1 Thess 4:15-17. If I may, another quote regarding this text:
"the New Bible Commentary: Revised:
"'To meet the Lord' (Gk. 'eis apantesin tou
kyriou'): When a dignitary paid an official visit ...
to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the
leading citizens in going out to meet him and
escorting him on the final stage of his journey was
called the 'apantesis'; it is similarly used in
[Matthew] 25:6; Acts 28:15. So the Lord is pictured
as escorted to the earth by His people--those newly
raised from death and those who have remained
alive.""
I believe this historical context helps paint a better picture of what Paul is referring to. He is saying that this second coming is the FINAL and ONLY second coming. What is commonly explained as "the rapture of the church" in 1 Thess 4:15-17 is imagery of the servants of the Lord meeting and joining with their King as he comes to reign and conquer His enemies. It is not a secret rapture which ushers in a tribulation, or predates the final second coming (how many second comings are there?) The coming of Christ in 1 Thess 4:15-17 IS THE second coming of Christ in judgment. That day is THE Day of the Lord.
This, of course, is just a primer on my view of end times. If it sparks discussion, then perhaps we can fill in some of the details (if anyone reads this blog, that is).
I'm also researching Covenant Theology, which I hope to do a blog entry on in the near future.
Soli Deo Gloria
2 comments:
Questions:
Is the messiah the same as those he is saving? if not how can Israel be a type of christ?
Are you sure John is using the greek thlipsis strictly as tribulation in an end times sense or in a persecutive manner?
What about post trib premil?
If satan is currently reigning on the earth during tribulation - are we in the full reign of Christ?
Shouldn't things be getting better if we are in the millenial reign?
What do you make of G.E. Ladds position that the kingdom is here and not here, now and not yet?
what about Paul's position on being grafted in and his specific language in Romans 11 which draws clear distinction between the wild branch and the natural?
just interested...
Thanks Jonathan. Sorry about the delay in getting back with you. I hope I do justice to your questions. I could go deeper, but let's see what happens with this:
Is the messiah the same as those he is saving? if not how can Israel be a type of christ?
In Matthew 2:15 the Apostle says that Christ is a fulfillment of the Exodus (Hos 11:1, Num 24:8) and the NASB also cross references Matt 2:15 with Exodus 4:22 which equates Israel with Christ (22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.)
Is Israel a type of Christ in every sense? Certainly not! For Israel sinned. Which is why I also say that Israel is a type of fallen mankind as well (as seen from God's perspective, sinful and rebellious).
Israel also is a type of church, in the sense that they are the children of the promise (see Rom 9:6-8)
By type I mean a foreshadowing of the future fulfillment. So Israel is a foreshadowing of many things which are expressed explicitly in the NT.
Are you sure John is using the greek thlipsis strictly as tribulation in an end times sense or in a persecutive manner?
I'd have to say that there's really no difference, and to make a distinction is eisegesis, because the word does not have that distinction in its meaning (according to blb.org). But considering the history that followed, you would be hard-pressed to convince me that he was speaking of anything other than what you're terming "end times" persecution. Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
What about post trib premil?
I haven't looked into that view yet.
If satan is currently reigning on the earth during tribulation - are we in the full reign of Christ?
Satan doesn't reign! Christ is sovereign and reigns over the demons:
Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
What makes you think that satan reigns on the earth now?
Shouldn't things be getting better if we are in the millenial reign?
In what sense should things be getting better? Are you thinking of a specific text?
What do you make of G.E. Ladds position that the kingdom is here and not here, now and not yet?
I am not familar with Ladd or that position, but it seems accurate from what you've said here.
what about Paul's position on being grafted in and his specific language in Romans 11 which draws clear distinction between the wild branch and the natural?
Romans 11 is indeed speaking of national Israel, but only of the remnant, which Scripture refers to again and again. It is the portion of national Israel that will be saved, but they are merely a part of the whole. The true Israel (in reference to the church) is all who believe (again, see Romans 9:6-8).
Post a Comment