Questions for My Historic Premillenial Friends

I hope Jim doesn't mind. He asked me to suggest a few critical questions to help him assess premillenialism. I've decided to do it here so Randy and anyone else interested can consider the questions as well.

There are several questions to ask, but here are just a few:

Question 1. Why do premillenialists continue to insist on a "literal" approach to Revelation 20 when...

a. The word semaino in Revelation 1:1 literally means "to signify", therefore instructing us from the very first verse of the book that that its contents are largely symbolic.


b. Over and over again John makes obvious the symbolic nature of his visions. We learn that lampstands represent churches (1:20), eyes represent the Spirit (5:6), incense represents prayers (5:8), a serpent represents Satan (12:9), heads represent mountains (17:9), horns represent kings (17:12), and waters represent people (17:15). And those are just the symbols that are interpreted for us. Alongside these we read of creatures full of eyes and six wings (4:6), a seven-eyed lamb (5:6), people talking to mountains (6:16), people washing robes in blood (7:14), locusts with human faces (9:7), lion-headed horses (9:17), fire-breathing prophets (11:5), a woman clothed with the sun while standing on the moon (12:1), a seven-headed dragon that pulls stars down from heaven (12:3-4), a serpent vomiting out a river (12:15), a seven-headed beast (13:1), frogs coming out of the mouth of a dragon (16:13), a blood drinking harlot (17:6), Jesus returning from heaven on a horse and with a sword in his mouth (19:11, 15), a 1,500 mile-high city floating down out of the sky (21:16), one tree bearing twelve different fruits (22:2) - and more.

While any of these things certainly could be real, the very fact that they appear in visions in an apocalyptic book give every indication that we should not assume so.

(This question is derived from post-millenialist Kenneth Gentry.)

Question 2. Considering that everywhere else in the New Testament we are taught of one resurrection of both believers and unbelievers at the return of Christ, why do premillenialists insist that all of these Scriptures must conform to Rev. 20's two resurrections rather than looking for a way for Rev 20 to conform to the rest of the New Testament? Especially when there are at least two exegetically defendable interpretations that make sense of Revelation 20's two resurrections and do not negate nor reinterpret the rest of the N.T. Didn't John himself record Jesus speaking of all people being raised on the same day in John 5:28-29?

"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."

There is simply no getting around that Jesus teaches that all people will be raised at the same hour, whether they be righteous or wicked. So how can premillenialists stick a thousand years in here? (since, as you know, historic premillenialists believe that believers will rise at the return of Christ and unbelievers at the end of the millenium)


Question 3. How do premillenialists deal with fact that all throughout the New Testament we are taught of "this age" and "the age to come"? In these passages, "the age to come" clearly refers to heaven (i.e., Mark 10:30). So Jesus and the Apostles split history from the advent of Christ into these two sections - today (this age) and eternal life (the age to come). Yet Premillenialists add a third age in the middle of these two. And on what grounds? Only Revelation 20. Again, premillenialists allow one passage in one book to reinterpret everything else the New Testament teaches. Why?

Question 4. How do my premillenialist brothers handle the renewal of the earth? After all, the Bible is clear that this world as we know it will be "baptized by fire" and made new. But will this happen when Jesus returns (before the millenium) or on the great day of judgment (after the millenium)? Either answer has serious problems. If you say before the millenium, then according to Revelation 20 you will have nations deceived by Satan and rebelling against Christ while living in the New Earth! If you say after the millenium, then yo have the glorified Jesus reigning physically over an earth still under the curse. Neither one of these is Scriptural (in my view). Does not the teaching of Scripture emphasize that Jesus will return and when He does all things will be made new and will be so forever?

Question 5. How do you guys handle 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, which says that when Jesus returns He will inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and that they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction? Is it not clear that these two events are meant to be held together - Jesus' return and His judgment on the wicked? How can we squeeze a thousand years between the two?

Question 6. Since premillenialists do not believe that chapter 20 is a seperate vision, but rather a continuation of chapter 19, then considering that every unbeliever is slain in the great battle at the end of chapter 19, who is left to be ruled over and deceived no longer in the millenium? If believers are going to rule with Christ in the millenium, and the wicked have been slain in the last verse of chapter 19, exactly who is being ruled over?

That's enough for now. I'll be happy to answer questions about the amil position, and would love to hear your answers to these. I know you guys are still considering these things, and I am happy to be able to say that whether you are pre, post, or amil, it is still an honor to call you my friends and co-laborers in the Gospel. I hope all this serves for edification, not just debate.