"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17.
Thanks, Jim, for these thoughtful answers. I look forward to your post on questions for amillenialists. In the mean time, let me respond to your answers and try and show where we agree and disagree.
First, I think we can agree on your point that "we should read literally things that were meant literally, and figuratively things that were meant figuratively." But you put your finger on the difficult issue when you recognize that different people disagree on what should fall into each category. Some premillenialists (particularly dispensational) believe that the 1000 years in Revelation 20 was intended to be taken literally. Amillenialists, most postmillenialists, and many historic premillenialists (i.e., George Eldon Ladd) believe the number should be taken figuratively. Since John isn't available for us to ask which he intended, we are left with a judgment call. Since I'm not sure whether you hold to a literal thousand year millenium or not, I won't press this further. If you'd like to know why I think this number should be taken figuratively, you can include it in your amil questions.
But what about the statement "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended." You say that you see nothing symbolic in this verse. I almost agree (except I think the number 1000 is symbolic.) This resurrection is attested to in numerous other New Testament passages and is undoubtedly a physical, bodily resurrection. It's the first resurrection - the one in verse 4 - that marks the difference between premil and amil. Premillenialists hold that since the second resurrection is a physical, bodily resurrection, the first must be so as well. I disagree. The passage not only speaks about two resurrections - but note that it also speaks about a second death (implying a first.) So there are two deaths and two resurrections. And when we ask the New Testament to clarify this for us, the answer is clear (in my view): Just as there is a physical death and a spiritual death, so there is a physical resurrection and a spiritual resurrection. Coming to life in verse 4 is not the physical resurrection of believers, but the spiritual resurrection - being saved! This is why verse 6 says "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power..."
This answers a critical question that the first century churches undoutedly had: namely, what happens to those Christians who suffer and die under persecution for the name of Christ? Answer: They are presently reigning with Christ!
Moving on, John 5:28-29 says "Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."
You make the point that the word hour should not be constrained to mean a literal hour. I agree. However, it more difficult for me to see how it could be stretched to refer to a period of more than a thousand years!
You suggest that other passages (i.e., Phil. 3:11) support the idea of two resurrections. However, every millenial position recognizes that there will be two distinct resurrections - a resurrection of believers to eternal life and a resurrection of unbelievers to eternal death. The difference is over whether these two resurrections occur simultaneously or separated by a millenium. Thus, Phil 3:11 no more supports the premil position than it does the amil. We all agree that the resurrection Paul seeks is the one of believers to eternal life.
Concerning the third "age" added by premillenialists, you make several points. There's not a lot we agree on here. Your Isaiah reference (65:17-20) is commonly used as Old Testament evidence of a millenium. The passage describes a new earth, but since the passage mentions death, it is assumed that heaven cannot be in view. However, the New Testament apostles do not seem to share this assumption. Both Peter (2 Peter 3:13) and John (Revelation 21:1) draw from this passage not to describe a millenium, but eternity with God in glory. The real issue with this and other Old Testament prophet passages is that premillenialists fail to recognize that heaven is being foreshadowed the way other things are foreshadowed in the OT: using earthly types. Isaiah uses the picture of a perfect kingdom and declares that it is coming - but he uses earthly types, because the heavenly realities have not yet been revealed.
As for 1st Corinthians 15:23-28, doesn't this passage argue for amillenialism as much as against it? After all, when you put the pieces of the passage together as a timeline, what you get is: a. Christ rose from the dead, b. God has subjected all things under Christ, c. He must reign until all His enemies are defeated, d. Christ returns, e. His people are raised, f. Thus death is defeated (cf. v.54-55), and the end has come (i.e., Judgment Day). The passage does not mention the resurrection of unbelievers at all. Berkouwer says:
"The train of thought in 1 Corinthians 15:23f. is not the series: Christ's resurrection followed by the resurrection of believers, and finally by the general resurrection. The emphasis is on being in Christ and th epower of His resurrection. The interpretation of the sequence "epeita...eita" [both translated as "then"] as a Pauline reference to a millenium smacks of being too much influenced by Revelation 20."
Leon Morris agrees that we should not read anything about the resurrection of unbelievers into this text: "He speaks of two 'orders' only, Christ and believers; then he moves on to the final phase, and says nothing about the lot of unbelievers."
My response is getting too long for anyone to enjoy reading, so let me only very briefly repond to your last three answers:
You take the position that the renewal of the earth will take place after the millenium - at least a thousand years after Christ's return. You note that there are philosophical problems with having a glorified Christ physically reigning over a fallen world. We agree on this. There are theological problems as well. However, you suggest that there is no textual problem. Let me suggest that there is at least one that comes to mind: 2nd Peter 3:1-13. I believe if you study this passage closely, you will see that it assumes that the renewal of the earth takes place when Christ returns - not many centuries later.
As for your response to 2nd Thessalonians 1, I think it would be very difficult to read verses 6-7 and not conclude that both God's affliction on the wicked and His relief for the righteous are both presented as appearing with Christ in His coming. To read a millenium into this makes Paul's word almost deceptive, or even erroneous. (Is that too strong?)
Finally, as for who exactly will be ruled over in the millenium, you suggest that only the armies - not everyone - is destroyed at the end of chapter 19. My real goal in the question, of course, was to make us consider more carefully whether it is right to see chapter 19 flowing chronologically in to chapter 20. I'm sure I'll get to address this more fully later. For now let me point out that in 19:15 Jesus comes to "strike down the nations", and in 20:3 Satan is bound so that he will not "deceive the nations any longer." Yet how can Satan deceive nations that have been destroyed? The word "struck down" in 19:15 literally means "to smite" or "to kill". How can dead nations be deceived?
Well, there you go. While we seek to understand these things, we can rejoice in our agreement that our Savior is coming back, in glorified body, to bring us to Himself, that where He is we may also be!!
No comments:
Post a Comment