What is Premillennialism?
August 9th, 2006 by Stephen
Premillennialism is defined by one of its adherents thus:
“The theological position that maintains that we are living before the time when Jesus Christ will literally come to this earth to establish the literal, physical Kingdom promised to Him from God the Father. It is believed that this Kingdom will be a world wide kingdom that will be ruled by Jesus Christ Himself at Jerusalem. It will be a time of peace, righteousness, and justice like the world has never known.
“Adherents of this view arrive very naturally at their conclusions by following the plain sense rule of interpretation of Scripture. In this manner of interpretation, the Scriptures are allowed to stand for their plain sense meaning as they occur in their contexts. “
[Gary Fisher. Full article at: http://www.sxws.com/LIONJUDH/prophecy/Premillenialism.html ]
It is argued by premillennialists that we should interpret the words of scripture literally. In particular we should understand Revelation literally to refer to a 1000 year reign.
A problem with premillennialism is that Scripture does not seem to support there being a thousand year span between the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. Christ declares: “For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done” (Matt. 16:27) and “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats . . . And they [the goats] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt.25:31-32, 46).
Thus premillennialists hold to a literal view of Revelation but must then square that view with scripture. It seems to me that the “plain sense rule” of interpretation lets them down.
Now this is a problem, but not insurmountable. I am not arguing here that premillennialists are being unbiblical, I am merely pointing out an inconsistency. Thus people reading the whole article by Gary Fisher and his associated attack on amillennialism will be forewarned that he presents his view with bias. He presents a problem with amillennialism with no explanation, but avoids the problems of premillennialism.
The premillennialist view of the secret rapture causes another split in their thought. There are “pre, mid and post tribulation” views (referring to when the rapture will occur). Gene Whitcher holds to a mid tribulation rapture. Other adherents of the secret rapture hold to a pre tribulation rapture.
However we note that some premillennialists also hold to a post tribulation rapture. I think the secret rapture is quite insupportable as a doctrine, but I see the merits of the premillenial, post tribulation case.
Against the secret rapture I found this quote from Dale Moody:
“Belief in a Pretribulational Rapture . . . contradicts all three chapters in the New Testament that mention the Tribulation and the Rapture together (Mark 13:24-27; Matt. 24:26-31; 2 Thess. 2:1-12). . . . The theory is so biblically bankrupt that the usual defense is made using three passages that do not even mention a Tribulation (John 14:3; 1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:52). These are important passages, but they have not had one word to say about a Pretribulational Rapture. The score is 3 to 0, three passages for a Post-tribulational Rapture and three that say nothing on the subject. . .
Pretribulationism is biblically bankrupt and does not know it”
The Word of Truth, 556-7.
I wondered if for the sake of clarity it would have been good to mention the historic premill position. I realise that “post-trib rapture” guys would fall into that category. But a guy like Ladd would definitely not have been literalistic in his readings of Revelation, compared with many dispensationalists.
Good post none-the-less!
Thanks, Ian. This is a good point.
I should have mentioned classical premillennialism as a seperate issue, and associated that line with the viewpoint of George Ladd, as well as Wayne Grudem, who discusses the view in his excellent systematic theology. That is not to say I agree with Grudem on the point, but he does argue for a form of premillennialism that has a much better historical pedigree than the modern dispensationalist viewpoint, and is, as you say, less wedded to literalistic readings of Revelation chapter 3.
How do you square the missing week in Daniel with your beliefs? I’m curious as to when the 70th week happened.
Hello Min,
I see no gap between 69th and 70th week in Daniel 9. This would be another example of how the plain sense rule fails with the premillennialist view. No clock was stopped, no gap need be inserted in this prophecy.
As per Daniel’s prophecy, Christ’s coming saw the end of the old covenant and its ritual system and the coming of the new. The temple was no longer the temple – the Church is now God’s temple. Christ’s rule over the nations has begun.
Thanks for commenting.
Thanks for responding, much appreciated.
Have you read Kim Riddlebarger’s excellent book “A Case for Amillennialism”? I highly recommend it.
He blogs over at The RiddleBlog: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/ There are a number of good resources on eschatology there.
Also, Crawford Gribben recently published “Rapture Fiction” by Evangelical Press. It looks quite good as well – explaining the dispensational phenomena of recent years. Crawford blogs at http://anablepo.blogspot.com/.
Hello Ian,
Thanks for posting. Coincidentally I already have Kim Riddlebarger’s book in my Amazon shopping basket. I did not realise he was blogging – I’ll check that out. Thanks for the link. (Sorry that the links tripped my spam filter, which is why I had to approve your post).
I haven’t read “rapture fiction”, although I did, a long time ago, read Grier’s “The momentous event”, which probably deals with similar material. Of course, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones spoke on the doctrine of the secret rapture. I find I cannot recall where he does so, but he was – as one might expect – very thorough. B B Warfield also covers the Irvingites and the history of that doctrine in his book “Counterfeit miracles”.
If you think “rapture fiction” would add something to the debate, I’ll look it out.
Picking up on my 70th week question, I agree that it makes sense to keep it contiguous, but that doesn’t explain the rest of the prophecy.
Dan 9:26-27 mentions that Jerusalem will be destroyed and war will end in the region– which we could equate with AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. So, who confirmed the covenant for 7 years after that? What is the consummation? What was declared to be poured out on the desolate?
Daniel 9:27 clearly points to the coming of Christ, and in one sense he destroys the old temple, because henceforth we are the Chrurch. However, the latter part of the verse is problematic in that it could be fulfilled on 70 AD, just as it could have been fulfilled in 167 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes.
My own feeling is that this is another example of the curious balance that we see in Paul’s theology – that Christ’s kingdom is already instantiated – and yet we wait with longing for the last trumpet. It is already but not yet.
It is thus possible to see this in Daniel 9:27. Messiah’s kingdom is consumated, the annointed one has come and remade the temple. The latter part of the verse may then point to the whole church age.
But I am not an expert on the subject. Meredith Kline perhaps is, so you may want to read his take on the subject.
My own view is with Vos: that there is a certain sense in which the best interpreter of difficult prophecies is its fulfillment in history.
167 AD would not fit nicely into the 70 weeks time frame, right? I’m trying to imply your test that says that it’s logical that they are contiguous years.
The other problem that I have is that I do not know that all prophecies have a single fulfillment. Take for instance the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah had a son in fulfillment of it, but Matthew stated that Christ was the fulfillment.
Why can’t 70 AD and 167 AD be a preview of what is to come?
I’m back to where I was in that I’m not sure that either side is definitive on what these prophecies mean.
Hi Min,
That is 167BC, not AD. However, I see the frustration. I don’t think I can do much to help at this point (see my previous quote from Vos).
Regards,
Stephen