Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind... Romans 12:2
Differing Opinions:
Eschatology Responses
Historic Premillennial Response
First, let me affirm my agreement with both of the other essays on one significant point that we all share: the gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful, capable of transforming the world. We all agree, too, that it is our privilege and duty, until Christ returns, to spread its life-changing message to every creature on the planet.
We have some disagreement as to how "successful" we can expect to be in bringing a permanent, planet-wide revival before Christ returns, and we have some disagreement as to how spiritually "revived" the world is presently. Premillennialists like myself believe that the growing Matt. 13 "kingdom" is mostly spiritual in nature, and that while the number of believers may be expected to indeed increase, they must live their faith in a world that will grow increasingly hostile to Christian values and beliefs. This does, in fact, seem to be exactly the kind of world we live in (ok, as reported by CNN, if you wish). Levelheaded premillennialists merely take this as confirmation of the interpretation of Scripture they have affirmed since the time of the early church.
Notice that in both the amillennialist and postmillennialist essays, we are supposedly in "the millennium" at present, with the prosperity, peace, and blessing that Scripture describes supposed being realized now—but both of the essays must look to other Scripture passages of trial and tribulation to explain why this time of prosperity is so evidently mitigated. But are Scripture's own descriptions of the millennial period so mitigated (cf. Isaiah 11, 65)? And is it not more plausible to assume that the times of trial and tribulation, which Jesus says increase like "birth pangs" increase before a child is born (Matt. 24:8), are not descriptions of the age of prosperity itself (i.e., the millennium), but of the time period that precedes that age?
I would also suggest that the visions of Rev. 19-20 are not merely portraying a spiritual revival, nor regeneration of souls; nor does the "deceased saints coming to life" seem to be the "absent from the body" sort of existence deceased saints are in before the Second Coming. Rather, the visionary descriptions of Rev. 19-20 are consistent with what Paul describes in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 and 2 Thess. 1:5-8. When Christ returns, the bodies of deceased believers are physically raised, and He brings physical vindication on the enemies of the people of God who have endured literal, physical persecution at the hands of the wicked (cf. Rev. 6:9-11). And, in point of fact, in the twentieth century, there were more Christians slaughtered for their faith than in the previous nineteen centuries combined. Is this the sort of peace and prosperity we should expect if we are presently in the "millennial period"? Premillennialists say, "No." Are we presently in a period of awesome spiritual sensitivity, or does it seem, rather, as premillennialists suggest we should expect, like the world is still manifesting its characteristic hard-heartedness towards the things of God and the message of the gospel? Let the reader decide.
Finally, I would add that, just like the Old Testament only hinted at the fact that the Messiah would fulfill its prophecies in not just one, but two, comings, so also the New Testament does not always mention all the chronological details of our future, either. We get enough information to be able to establish an accurate picture (I think even 1 Cor. 15:23-24 hints at a two-stage future state), but we should not be surprised that some NT passages give more of a broad overview of what to expect in the future than a detailed chronology. Put the pieces together, though, and I submit that we find: 1) when Christ returns, the rescue he brings is cataclysmic (rather than merely gradual, incremental or progressive); and 2) He brings a silver age of earthly peace and prosperity, in which He "rules with a rod of iron" that precedes the golden age of the Eternal State, in which all of His enemies—including Satan, Death, and Hades—are completely vanquished once and for all.
We may not agree on all the details of how this will unfold, but we do agree on how the story will ultimately end. In this we can likewise rejoice together at the hope Scripture provides the children of God, whatever their eschatological persuasion. Maranatha, indeed!
— Rev. R. Todd Mangum, Ph.D.
Amillennial Response
My response will begin with a few comments regarding Dr. Mangum's defense of premillennialism, and then turn to Dr. Strawbridge's defense of postmillennialism.
Evaluating the case for premillennialism
My objections to Dr. Mangum's case can be summarized under two points.
First, the "general analogy" of Scriptural teaching seems clearly to teach that the return of Christ concludes the present age and commences the final state. Christ's coming will be a visible, pubic event that will bring about the salvation of the people of God and the realization of the kingdom of God in its fullness (Matt. 24:27, 33; Luke 17:24; 32:27-28, 31). When Christ is revealed from heaven, he will bring rest immediately and simultaneously for his beleaguered church and eternal punishment upon the unbelieving and impenitent. The expectation of Christ's church is for a second coming of Christ that will bring a permanent end to all opposition to his kingdom (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7, 8; Phil. 1:6, 10; 1 John 2:28; 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rom. 8:17-25). Furthermore, the usual presentation of the resurrections of the just and the unjust suggests that they will occur simultaneously in the context of the final judgment that precedes the final state (Dan. 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:14-15; Rev. 20:11-15; John 6:40; 1 Thess. 4:16; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 15:23). The cumulative force of these passages indicates that the second coming of Christ will be an event that definitively concludes the present age and simultaneously introduces the state of consummation (the new heavens and earth).
Second, the passages cites by Dr. Mangum for a premillennial return of Christ are not sufficient to overrule this general testimony of Scripture. Though Dr. Mangum appeals to 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, this passage suggests an immediate sequence between Christ's future coming and "the end." This text says nothing about any extended period, let alone a millennium, between Christ's coming and "the end." The appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah 65 to prove an interim millennial period also neglects to note how the writer of Revelation cites this passage to describe the final state (Rev. 21:1ff). When Dr. Mangum says that Revelation 20 "explicitly reveals that Christ's second coming unfolds in two states," he begs the question by assuming that the description of Satan's "binding" must refer to a future event.
Evaluating the case for postmillennialism
There is much in Dr. Strawbridge's argument with which I, as an amillennialist, can concur. However, I would observe that his position is "formally" amillennialist, that is, he does not affirm a specific interregnum or millennium within a more extensive interadvental period. He also mistakenly assumes that amillennialists deny the "observable" nature of Christ's kingdom in the present age. What amillennialists object to in postmillennialism is its failure to account adequately for the nature of the millennium or interadvental period. As the apostle Paul clearly teaches in Romans 8:18ff, this period of redemptive history, though one in which believers are "more than conquerors," will be marked by continual suffering and eager waiting for the "revelation of the sons of God." The principal problem with postmillennialism is its "over-realized eschatology."
— Cornelis P. Venema, Ph.D.
Postmillennial Response
Response to Premillennialism
Dr. Mangum's first evidence to prove premillennialism is 1 Cor. 15:23-24. I ask the reader to find Waldo—or in this case premillennialism—in these verses: "But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God..." Waldo is not here. The reign begins with Christ's ascension (vs. 25) and ends with the last enemy vanquished at the Resurrection (vs. 26, 51-56). There is no room for another one thousand years of enemies in a mongrel millennial kingdom after the last enemy has been overcome at the Resurrection.
Perhaps Dr. Mangum's central line of argument is the prophetic pictures of Isaiah 11 and 65. He believes these will not admit to a figurative, hyperbolic or typological sort of interpretation. While I do not embrace a literalistic interpretation or see a need to remove any typological aspects, it is not difficult for a postmillennialist to see how the covenantal blessings of Christ's reign can extend "far as the curse is found" (Isaac Watts). Would any Biblical expositor deny that the available, promised blessings to Israel in the antecedent age extended to health, birthrate, domesticated animals, sickness, etc. (e.g., Ex. 23)? How much more, then, under Christ's exalted reign? We see these blessings as realizable in a covenantally-corporate manner, not individually in a Simon-says, name-it-and-claim-it fashion.
Dr. Mangum argues that only the premillennial conception of the millennial reign satisfies the image of Christ ruling with a rod of iron [Ps. 2:9] (citing Rev. 2:26-27; 12:5; 19:15). But according to the apostles' interpretation of Psalm 2, Christ is ruling with a rod of iron now (Acts 4:25-26, 13:33, Heb. 5:5). He reigns from Zion's holy hill (vs. 1-6; 1 Pet. 3:22), inheriting the nations (vs. 8, Mt. 28:19-20), breaking all those who do not bow the knee. Kings who do not kiss the Son are crushed to pieces (witness Herod, Acts 12:23). Jesus Himself uses the image of Psalm 2:9 in reference to the kingdom being taken from the Jews (Mt. 21:43-44).
In summary, premillennialism is exegetically erroneous on 1 Cor. 15. Covenantally, premillennialism cannot make sense of the blessings in history either prior to Christ or after the Ascension. And hermeneutically, premillennialism is inconsistent with the way the New Testament uses the Old Testament.
Response to Amillennialism
Dr. Venema has provided a helpful and succinct explanation of amillennialism. I accept Dr. Venema's view of the present reality of the millennium, though some postmillennialists tend to see the millennium proper as a future golden age of fuller gospel blessings. My question for amillennialism is whether Christ accomplishes discipling the nations. What does Christ's millennial reign effect? Does He extend His reign by subduing His enemies? Are covenantal blessings for the people of God possible in history?
There is an incoherence in amillennialism as presented. How can it be that the nations are being discipled and brought to Christ while tribulation, apostasy, and the spirit of Antichrist are characteristic marks of the present period of redemptive history? On the reign of Christ, this description sounds postmillennial, but on the marks of the present period, it sounds pessi-millennialist. Why not just say, "Christ's reign is present, but it will fail." We could help rename it: "flunk-a-millennialism."
Since we have formal agreement on the presence of the millennium and goal of discipling the nations, let me address the pessimistic aspect. Dr. Venema writes that amillennialism interprets the signs of the times to be characteristic marks of the present period of redemptive history (see, for example, Matt. 24:4-14; 2 Tim. 3:12; James 1:2-4; Heb. 12:6; 2 Thess. 2:3; 2 Pet. 1:10; 1 Jn. 2:18, 22). If we carefully consider these texts, we will find that none describe marks of the entire period. Tribulation is, of course, real in the Gospel age, but to deny kingdom increase and advance from these texts is a-exegesis.
Matthew 24 and 1 John 2:18-22 do not describe the entire millennium. Jesus identifies the time-frame: "This generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (vs. 34). John's time reference is that this is the last hour. Whatever time is in view in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, this sequence of events cannot be extended over a two thousand year period (or more). The text states that the falling away comes first, and then the man of sin is revealed. Whatever the falling away was, it had not yet happened as Paul was writing. Since it was something that could be recognizable to his audience, it could hardly be extended as a characteristic mark of the entire millennium.
Should we not look to texts that address the reign of Christ to understand the characteristics of Christ's reign? In these texts we see a note of triumph and growth (Is. 9:7, Dan. 2:35, 7:13-14, Rev. 11:15, 1 Cor. 15:25, Matt. 13:32-33). If we take seriously the time-texts in the signs of the times passages we find that they are directly applicable to the events surrounding the destruction of the temple (70 A.D.). They are not to be stretched for the whole of Christ's reign. Rather: "To Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed" (Dan. 7:14).
— Dr. Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.
See also historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism.
Return to Volume 10, Number 1.
Site Design and Content
© 1993—2006 U·TURN
