In my previous post I began explaining why I believe in
Amillennialism by stating my seventeen main reasons. Beginning with this post I
want to look at those reasons in more detail. I will focus on the first.
To begin, I believe Amillennialism is the best explanation
for the end-times since...
1. It appears that the New Testament
understands the so-called “millennial” language of the Old Testament as being
fulfilled in the age-to-come (the new heaven and new earth), not in a future
literal millennium.
In other words, those passages that some understand as
referring to a literal future 1,000 year rule of Christ on earth that is
distinct from the future new heaven and new earth is instead understood by the New
Testament authors as referring to the future eternal state, the new heaven and
new earth of Revelation 21-22.
Let’s start with Isaiah 65:17-25. Though a hard passage, most likely what we
have here is a figurative depiction of the future new heaven and new earth.
After all, that is exactly what v. 17 states, and what reason do we have to
distinguish verses 18ff. from that assessment? In Revelation 21-22 the Apostle John
seems to take this language as referring to the future new heaven and new earth.
This means that most likely Isaiah 65:20 (“No more shall
there be in it an infant who lives but a few days…the young man shall die a
hundred years old….”) is speaking of long life that, in light of Is. 25:8,
means there will be no death in this future age. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 15
Paul sees Isaiah 25:8 fulfilled at the second coming of Christ, i.e. when
resurrection takes place—not 1,000 years later. We conclude, then, that Isaiah
65 is most likely using covenantal pictures (of long life as God’s reward)—God’s
covenant of grace will be completely fulfilled and its blessings consummated. The
key in this chapter is that Isaiah is using covenantal language and affirming
the covenant will be ultimately fulfilled for God’s people.
Another passage many see as referring to a future literal millennium,
Isaiah 11, appears to engage in prophetic foreshortening or telescoping
prophecy wherein Isaiah is given a picture of the future which includes the
Messianic age (New Testament Church age) moving right into the
age-to-come. Of course, it is possible
to posit a millennial reign thrown in here as well, but it is not demanded.
When one grasps the reality the age-to-come is a new heaven and a new earth,
it is most probable this language refers to the age-to-come by using
this-world, i.e. this-age language, esp. since Is. 65:17-25 uses the same kind
of language to refer to such a period and since Rev. 21-22 clearly has some
this-world, this-age language to help describe the age-to-come.
Ezekiel 40-48 speaks of the building of an end-times temple.
Rather than this referring to a future millennial literal rebuilding of the
temple, there are a number of reasons to believe that the New Testament sees
these chapters fulfilled in Jesus Christ as the ultimate temple (John 2:19) and
partially fulfilled in this age in those united to him (the New Testament
Church—1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16), who fulfill the ultimate purpose of the
temple (1 Peter 2:4-10)—that being the calling of the nations to the true God
(1 Kings 8:41-43). Additonally, since these chapters speak of sacrifices, it
becomes very problematic to see them as literal. Based upon New Testament revelation that
affirms Jesus Christ is the ultimate sacrifice to whom these old Testament
sacrifices pointed (Mt. 5:17; Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 8-10), how can there be a
return to sacrifice (at least in any way God puts his stamp of approval on)?
After all, the real and ultimate sacrifice, Jesus Christ, has already come!
And, if the sacrifices are not literal, why would we understand
the temple as literal? Addition- ally, it appears that Revelation 22 takes this
language and applies it to the New Heaven and New Earth as the ultimate and
complete fulfillment (See Ezek. 47:12).
Some (especially Premillennialists) suggests that to
say the Old Testament uses language of its day to refer to future events that
would not be literally fulfilled discredits the Old Testament. However,
Westminster Theological Seminary professor, Greg Beale, gives the following
illustration as an answer. It is based on a father in 1900 promising his son a
horse and buggy when he grows up and gets married.
During
the early years of expectation, the son reflects on the particular size of the
buggy, its contours and style, its beautiful leather seat and the size and
breed of horse that would draw the buggy. Perhaps the father had knowledge from
early experimentation elsewhere that the invention of the automobile was on the
horizon, but coined the promise to his son in terms that his son would
understand. Years later, when the son marries, the father gives the couple an
automobile, which has since been invented and mass-produced. Is the son
disappointed in receiving a car instead of a horse and buggy? Is this not a
‘literal’ fulfillment of the promise? In fact, the essence of the father’s word
has remained the same: a convenient mode of transportation. What has changed is
the precise form of transportation promised. The progress of technology has
escalated the fulfillment of the pledge in a way that could not have been
conceived of when the son was young. Nevertheless, in the light of the later
development of technology [corresponding to the redemptive impact of the coming
of Christ], the promise is viewed as ‘literally’ and faithfully carried out in
a greater way than earlier apprehended.”[1]
Bottom-line, as we allow the New Testament to give a clearer
picture of all those things to which the Old Testament looks forward, I believe
we are to understand the so-called “millennial” passages as not having
reference to a literal millennial reign that is distinct from the future new
heaven and new earth.
But there are sixteen more reasons I think this. We will
continue looking at these in the next post.
[1] G. K. Beale, The
Temple And The Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology Of The Dwelling Place Of
God (Downers Grove,: IVP, 2004),
352-53, cited in Storms, Kingdom Come, 211-12.
No comments:
Post a Comment