Questions for My Amillennialist Friends

We continue our discussion of the end times... specifically two different views of the Millennium. Justin posted some questions to Historic Premillennialists, I gave some answers, and he responded to my answers. Now, here are some questions for my friends who hold to the Amillennialist view.

1) Why do Amillennialists inconsistently interpret the phrase "came/come to life" in Rev. 20?
Here's the text in question, "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" (Rev. 20:4b-5). Is it likely that John uses this phrase in two very different senses (physical and spiritual) in such close proximity with no contextual clues that he is doing so? If those believers came to life in the spiritual sense, how can it be said of unbelievers that they come to life after the thousand years?

2) Why do Amillennialists insist on a spiritual/abstract reign of the saints, when the Bible seems to indicate something different?
Rev. 2:26-27 says, "The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father." These words to the church in Thyatira indicate that the authority to rule the nations is given to those who keep his works until the end. This goes along with 2 Tim. 2:12, where the condition for reigning with Christ is enduring.

In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he admonishes them for acting like they rule in this present age (4:8). Instead he says that he and the other apostles are exhibited as "last of all, like men sentenced to death," and "a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men," and "the scum of the world, the refuse of all things." This life is characterized by persecutions and sufferings as we eagerly await our redemption and the coming of Christ in glory. In chapter 5, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for judging those outside. Rather they are to judge those inside the church.

In what sense, then, do we reign with Christ and rule the nations?

3) Why do Amillennialists weaken the binding of Satan and how do they get around verses that indicate Satan still deceives and must be resisted?
Amillennialists insist on weakening the figurative binding of Satan in Rev. 20. The words that describe his binding include him being thrown into a pit which is shut and sealed. Further, Satan is described as being "in prison" so that he might not deceive the nations. After he is released, then he will be able to deceive them again. This binding seems much greater than just a "restriction" and it seems that Satan is still at work "blinding" unbelievers to the gospel.

"...the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ..." (2 Cor. 4:4).

"Be soberminded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world" (1 Pet. 5:8-9).

A bound and imprisoned dragon and a prowling and roaring lion are two very different images. Why do Amillennialists weaken the binding of Satan and how do they get around the previously cited verses?

4) Why didn't Jesus correct his followers in Acts 1:6-7?
Admittedly, this is not a strong question or argument (not really an argument at all). But, it is an interesting observation. The apostles asked Jesus if he would then, at that time, restore the kingdom to Israel. They were waiting for a physical kingdom in which Jesus ruled. This was the expectation of the Jews at the time. Of course, they got it wrong in that the Messiah first came as a suffering servant. But the apostles were still expecting a physical kingdom of which Jesus would be king.

It is interesting that Jesus doesn't correct them in their view of this. Instead he says that "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority..." If the kingdom was only spiritual, then you would expect him to say something like, "You still don't get it do you?..." Again, this isn't an argument from silence... just an observation.

I think it is helpful and right for us to study and discuss these issues, for the Bible clearly teaches about the end times. I am thankful for good friends who stir up thinking and living for God. In our disagreements, let's remember some things on which we agree. There are others, but here are several that may turn our hearts to doxology:

1) Christ will return physically in power and glory to render to each one what is due, and to gather his people to himself, 2) We will be changed and mortality will be swallowed up by life, 3) We should live for him with all our might, not knowing he may return at any time, 4) We have a message (the gospel) and a mission to make Jesus known to all nations, for everyone is in desperate need of the good news. 5) We want him to come soon and our hearts cry together, "Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22:20).

Footnote: In coming up with these questions, I've taken a lot from Russell Moore's chapter in Akin's "A Theology for the Church," especially pages 908-909.

Answers from a Historic Premillennial Friend

In the previous post here on R & R, Justin raised some questions for those who hold to the Historic Premillennial view of the end times. The questions are indeed challenging and have caused me to think and study. I've learned a lot about my agreements and disagreements with the Historical Premillennialist view. I'll try to summarize his questions so you don't have to go back and forth, and then give my answers.

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

Answer: Not all of Revelation is symbolic. Some things are taken literally and others symbolically. I think the problem is that amils tend to treat almost everything symbolically.

The binding of Satan in a great chain is symbolic. But, he is bound so that he literally cannot deceive the nations until he is released again.

And frankly, I don't see what's symbolic about "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended."

I also believe that the devil and all who follow him will be literally and eternally tormented. We should read literally things that were meant literally, and figuratively things that were meant figuratively. We might disagree on what those things are, but we agree in the principle.

Question 2. 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?

Answer 2: I'm not so sure that "everywhere else in the NT we are taught of one resurrection of both believers and unbelievers at the return of Christ."

First, we know that some of the dead already rose (Matt. 27:52-53, also Lazarus). I know these are exceptions, which is why there is a second.

Second, John 5:28-29 may indicate different resurrections, the resurrection of life for those who did good, the resurrection of judgment to those who did evil.

I don't know why the word "hour" must mean a literal hour... does that mean it will take a full hour, no more and no less? And "all" doesn't mean "all at the same time."

Third, Paul says in Phil. 3:11 that he earnestly desires the "resurrection from the dead." Does this makes sense if there is only a general resurrection? Does it make sense if he'd already been resurrected and reigning with Christ? The best way to make sense of this is to say that he is hoping for a separate resurrection unto life. There are other passages that also seem to indicate separate resurrections.

Question 3. Why do premillennialists add a third age to "this age" and "the age to come?"

Answer: There are a few reasons why premils add a third age to the mix. Some passages of Scripture indicate an age that is different from the present one and also different from heaven.

Isaiah 65:20 indicates an age in which people live out their days. Isaiah also speaks of a time when the "wolf will dwell with the lamb..." and "the sucking child will play over the whole of the asp..." and that in that day "the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant" (Isa. 11:6-11).

Also 1 Cor. 15:23-25 seems to indicate an order to the end... 1) "Christ the first-fruits," 2) "then at his coming those who belong to Christ." 3) Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father 4) after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."

(Arguments from Grudem's Systematic, 1127-1130)

Russ Moore says that "it seems that God's glorification of Christ entails a public vindication in the presence of his enemies, a final, visible subjugation of the rivals of Christ's throne (Ps. 110; 1 Cor. 15:24-28)" (Akin's Systematic, 912-913).

Question 4. How do my premillenialist brothers handle the renewal of the earth?

Answer: The renewal of the earth will come after the mil and after the final judgment. The new heavens and the new earth are inhabited only by God's people. The fact that the glorified Christ reigns physically over a fallen creation may present problems, but they are mainly philosophical problems, not textual. Each view has it's problems and this is one for the premils.

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?

Answer: I don't think I have a good answer for this yet, but here goes... The Thessalonians are being persecuted, but are standing strong in the midst of it. Paul's purpose in these verses is to assure the Thessalonian believers that those who are afflicting them will be repaid with affliction and that they themselves will be relieved when Jesus returns. I don't think he is laying out a time-table for these things, but just encouraging them that their "day" is coming. If you think I'm taking it too loosely... if you took this absolutely literally, the wicked would be receiving an "eternal destruction" on the "day" Jesus returned (how does that happen on a single day?)... and, they would suffer it "away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might," "when he comes" (how do they suffer away from his presence when he arrives?)... Anyway! I gave it a shot.

Question 6. 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?

Answer: As I said in Answer 4, each view has it's problems. This seems to be one of the biggest for those of us who hold to the historic premil. position. Russ Moore simply says that "The armies fighting against the returning Messiah at Armageddon are destroyed, but, presumably, this does not mean that every unconverted person is killed. The survivors of the nations--who submit to the rule of Christ--continue to live, marry, and repopulate the earth. The curse is rolled back though not completely reversed" (911).

What answers to you find legitimate? Where did I fudge a little? Have your fun and next I'll post some questions about the Amil position.