Auto Transcript
Note: This rough transcript was automatically generated by YouTube’s AI algorithm. We provide it here for your convenience, but know it will surely contain errors as it has not been proofread or edited by a human.
Welcome back to Sunday school and to our defending doctrinal distinctive series.
Today’s part two of our look at our church’s doctrine of the premillennial return of Christ. And I’ll be looking to address common questions and objections to this doctrine. Just for review, what do we mean by a premillennial return of Christ or premillennialism?
Well, we referring to that teaching in esquetology or the study of last things as to when Christ will return to the earth. Premillennialism is the teaching that Christ will return before the millennial kingdom. That is before the earthly messianic 1,000-year kingdom. Jesus will return before that to set it up and to extend its worldwide dominion.
Premillennialism opposes postmillennialism.
Postmillennial millennialism is the teaching that Christ will return after believers set up and rule over Christ’s kingdom in hisstead. He comes at the end of that kingdom to finish it, administer the last judgment, and begin the eternal state. That’s the postmillennial view.
Premillennialism also opposes a millennialism, which teaches that Christ will come in the future finally to judge the world and usher in the eternal state, but without a literal 10,000-year kingdom. This is because Christ’s kingdom, in their view, is spiritual or is already here in the church.
Now, my main assertion to you last time is that premillennialism is the teaching that best fits what the entire Bible has to say about the last days. And I presented to you a pyramid of biblical support for pre-millennialism.
The bottom layer, the most foundational layer of this pyramid argument is the kingdom mandate from Genesis 1:26-28, which can only be fulfilled by the perfect man, Jesus Christ, perfectly ruling over the earth from the earth.
The second layer of support is Old Testament prophecies of a future earthly messianic kingdom. These many and detailed prophecies have not yet been fulfilled. Nor can they be justly said to be fulfilled spiritually in the church or in Jesus first coming.
The third layer of Old Testament or the third layer of support is Old Testament prophecy of imperfect kingdom conditions. We have passages in the Old Testament clearly foretelling a messianic kingdom with far better conditions than we see now on the earth.
Yet not perfect. not perfect like we know will be the case in God’s eternal state. This is because Jesus coming kingdom has two phases. A first intermediate phase, a much better than now phase that we call the millennial kingdom which is then followed by the perfect eternal state. The fourth layer of support is New Testament prophecy of a future earthly messianic kingdom. And in the New Testament, as we saw this kingdom, Christ’s kingdom is still said to be future. It’s still coming.
It’s not yet fulfilled. Even after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, we’re told the kingdom is still coming.
And then the fifth and final layer of support is the explicit description of the millennial kingdom in Revelation 20.
And when you combine the text of Revelation 20 with the sequence of events in Revelation 19, it fits exactly with the expect expectation of Christ’s return and the kingdom from the Old Testament and New Testament.
So this is where we’ve already been, but let’s get to some questions and objections to this doctrine of premillennialism. And before that, allow me to pray.
Heavenly Father, we love you and we love your son and we love his kingdom. God, I pray that you would grant us more understanding about this kingdom and Lord, more understanding about the doctrine of premillennialism and help us not just to be convinced, persuaded theoretically of these things, but that it would inform our hope that it would grab our hearts and make us love you, worship you more, and look forward to being with your son Jesus in his kingdom. Amen.
Okay, first question.
What is the difference between historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism?
I clarified for you last time that the argument that I was presenting for premillennialism was particularly for dispensational premillennialism rather than historic. Okay, what’s the difference? Well, let me show you a handy chart which you might not be able to see from where you’re where you’re sitting. So, if you can’t, just check it out later.
Both historic and dispensational premill premillennialism fundamentally agree that Jesus will return before his earthly messianic 10,000-year kingdom to set it up and rule. The top one is uh it’s called post-tribulational premillennialism and that is historic premillennialism. And then you see pre-tribulational or dispensational premillennialism underneath it. So both of them agree that Jesus will return before his 10,00ear kingdom. But where they differ is what happens before that. What happens before Jesus return and setting up the kingdom. Generally speaking, there’s plenty of variation among different premillennialists around the world and across time, but generally speaking, historical premillennialists interpret the prophesied judgments of Revelation partly symbolically.
They see them as taking place now. The tribulation judgments are taking place now in the present age, but getting much worse in the period right before Christ’s return.
Historic premillennialists therefore also assert that the church will go through the judgments rather than be raptured away.
And historic premillennialists hold that though Israel will one day be saved nationally, Israel has no special role in the millennial kingdom because it is incorporated into the church.
Now, why is one view called historic and the other called dispensational?
Well, the answer has to do with when historically these two different viewpoints became prominent, which is part of my answer to the next question.
Isn’t dispensational premillennialism a relatively new teaching?
Why should we accept dispensational premillennialism over the amillennialism that the global church has believed in for most of its history?
Okay, we must be careful with well you’re going against what the church has always taught type of argument. This is the same argument that is routinely mustered out by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church against Protestantism. They say look for most of its history or from the beginning this is what the church has taught. We believe in baptismal regeneration or other things and you’re going against what the church has always taught.
Is the witness of church history worth considering?
Yes. Is there value to the adage, if it’s new, it’s not true, but if it’s old, it’s gold?
Yes. We must beware of complete novelty.
But what is the oldest authority to which we must ultimately look? Is it church history? No. What is it?
It’s the scriptures.
May God be found true, though every man be proved a liar. Romans 3:4.
Our consciences must ultimately be held captive to the scriptures, not church tradition.
Remember, there was already error and heresy in the apostolic church before the scriptures were even finished being written. If you want proof of that, just read the scriptures. Look at the things that the apostles and their associates were dealing with. So if that’s true in the Bible, why should we assume that the early church or the reformation church must have been perfect in their understanding and unpolluted in their understanding of doctrine?
Actually, church history is enlightening as to what extra biblical influences have partly shaped Christian thinking about Christ’s return.
And allow me to briefly sketch the history of esqueological belief in the church to make this point.
Though there has always been some variety in Christian thinking on esquetology, the early church between the first and fourth centuries was predominantly premillennial but of the historic pre premillennialism variety. Hence the name historic premillennialism.
Early Christians believe that Christ would come back to establish an earthly 10,000-year kingdom after the church suffered through an intense period of tribulation.
And why should this esqueological stance in the early church not surprise us?
Because that’s what they were experiencing. They’re like, it just keeps getting worse in the Roman Empire.
These emperor-led persecutions just keep getting worse. We must be heading towards Christ’s kingdom. It must be about to arrive. We’ve got to go through the tribulation first.
But in the 4th century, historic premillennialism began to give way to a millillennialism in the thoughts of many Christians. There was now the there was more and more the prevailing belief that Christ’s kingdom had already come and exists spiritually in the church. And for those of you who know your history, what great change took place for Christians in the 4th century?
Constantine gained control of the Roman Empire and he legalized Christianity.
Persecution against Christians stopped.
Add to that the increasing popularity by that time of an allegorical hermeneutic for studying the Bible, the bizarre speculations of some premillennialists as to what the kingdom would be like, and the heretical claims of other premillennialists that the promised kingdom had already arrived and premillennialism gradually came under disrepute.
To many Christians in the 300s and 400s AD, the doctrine of the chiliasts, which is what they were called back then, not premillennialists. The doctrine of the chilass didn’t seem to accord with reality and it seemed crassly materialistic compared to the spiritual interpretations of the amillennialists.
Thus the great Augustine of Hippo.
He was a chiliast but he became an amalennialist and his theology largely set the course for the medieval church including in esquetology.
The church would remain generally though not universally amillennialist through the medieval period and into the reformation period.
You might ask, well surely the great reformers like Luther and Calvin as they recaptured proper Bible interpretation, they would rediscover premillennialism, right?
Well, no. The reformers were largely content to accept the amillennialism of the medieval church. And they could do this because their literal hermeneutic was really what we would call today a redemptive historical hermeneutic or New Testament priority hermeneutic. The reformers were great at teaching New Testament passages in a plain sense way.
except for maybe Revelation. But whenever they encountered an Old Testament passage, especially foretelling the millennial kingdom, they did not interpret it according to its original context, but they spiritualized it according to New Testament truths.
Meanwhile, pre premillennialism once again came under suspicion during the reformation period because the doctrine became associated with radical anabaptists who preached violent revolt to usher in Christ’s return and kingdom.
So amalism remains dominant into the reformation period. By the modern period, however, or the 1700s, 1800s, premillennialism became resurgent and another esqueological point of view was on the rise and that is postmillennialism.
Though some of the English Puritans were already trending in a post-millennialist direction, the two theologians who brought this view to new prominence were Daniel Whitby and Jonathan Edwards. Yes, the Jonathan Edwards, the great American theologian.
Taking a s symbolic view of revelation and majoring on statements in the New Testament about the gospel being preached throughout the whole world in the power of the spirit. The early postmillennialists taught that the world was going to get better and better. The Protestant Reformation had kicked off a chain reaction leading to the decline of the papacy which Edwards saw as the antichrist.
With Antichrist defeated then in the Roman Catholic Church, true believers would now Christianize the whole world until the earth entered a golden age of peace and prosperity just like the prophets foretold.
In the end of it, end of which Christ would return.
And by the way, if you know your history, what other events of the 1700s and early 1800s would have encouraged optimism for the worlds in Christianity’s future?
First great awakening in the mid 1700s, the American Revolution, which amazingly was victorious, the second great awakening in the early 1800s, and then in the background, the enlightenment. Even people who were not true believers, they were looking at the scientific revolution and the new philosophical thought like we can make the world better if we just think about it, educate ourselves, practice science, we can fix all the problems of the world. And Christians reflected that in this new postmillennialism.
tellingly, postm millennialism would fall out of popular favor by the early 20 20th century as bleeer world realities such as the American Civil War, industrialization, urbanization, failed social reforms, they made people more pessimistic about the future.
As support for postmillennialism began to decline in the mid 1800s, a new form of premillennialism emerged from the theological system of John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. And this system was called dispensationalism.
Now, it wasn’t called dispensationalism at first, but it was later given that label because the teaching was marked by a view of different dispensations or ages of history in which God interacts with his chosen people differently.
Dispensational premillennialism. So, we’re talking about the esquetology of dispensationalism. It became marked by two clear features.
a obvious distinction between Israel and the church and a pre-tribulational rapture. That is the teaching that the church would be raptured from the earth before the tribulation judgments while God continued his plans with Israel.
Dispensational premillennialism soon became quite popular in America partly due to the ministries of evangelist DL Moody and steady Bible writer CI Scoffield.
Today in American evangelicalism at least you can find adherence of all four escatological views main esqueological views though postmillennialism remains in the minority.
Now what are some important takeaways from this church history sketch? Well first hopefully you’ve noticed this.
Generally speaking Christian esquetology has not been strictly based on God’s word but has been heavily influenced by the cultures and circumstances in which Christians find themselves.
We cannot therefore simply say well the earliest view must be correct or the majority view must be correct.
We must instead be extra careful to make sure that our view is truly based on the Bible and not just culture and circumstances.
Second though a late comer dispensational premillennialism is the only one that emerges from a consistently applied literal hermeneutic.
All other main forms of millennialism, they require some level of allegorism either of revelation and or the Old Testament prophets.
And then third, you may have noticed dispensational premillennialism has gained certain negative associations that are not due to the teaching itself, but due to the extreme positions or actions of some of its adherence. That’s true historically, and I’d say it’s still true today. There are some things associated with this doctrine that actually aren’t part of it that some people don’t like. Anyways, that’s all the time I have for this question right now.
But a related question for number three.
John MacArthur once called himself a leaky dispensationalist.
What does that mean? And would Calvary hold to a similar theological position?
Okay, so probably most of you know who Pastor John MacArthur was. Influential pastor at Grace Community Church in Los Angeles, California, founder of the Master Seminary, where I received my formal training.
John MacArthur used this label and explained this label and several sound bites that you can find on the internet.
Basically, what he meant by being a leaky dispensationalist is that he was dispensationalist in his esquetology, but he didn’t necessarily buy into the whole theological system of dispensationalism.
In one clip, I heard Pastor MacArthur say the following. Here is my dispensationalism.
Israel and the church are different.
That was it.
So, if that’s what’s meant by a leaky dispensationalist, then yeah, the elders at Calvary take a similar stance. While we are dispensational premillennialists, we don’t hold to the whole theological system of dispensationalism like it’s seven dispensations or whatever.
Actually like pastor MacArthur we here at Calvary are a bit of a exotic hybrid animal. We are reformed in our sotiology that is in our understanding of the doctrine of salvation and God’s sovereignty in salvation. But we are dispensational in our esquetology. We are pre-tribulation rapture premillennialists.
Normally those two doctrinal stances don’t go together. If you’re reformed, you’re on millennialist or reformed in your salvation understanding. Well, if you’re dispensational or esquetology, well, then you’re not necessarily reformed.
But we are we are those two things and we don’t embrace a millennialism. Well, how can that be? Well, that’s because we want our doctrine to be informed by the study of scripture itself rather than by a tradition or an impressively organized theological system.
Not necessarily saying that we’re perfect in every single area, but until you show us from the scriptures, until we learn it from the scriptures, we’re not just going to go with the system, nor are we going to follow tradition.
So, we are content to be this hybrid, this grouping of reformed sitiology with dispensational esquetology.
Okay, speaking of MacArthur’s quote, fourth question, are the church and Israel really separate?
How does such a teaching fit with the New Testament teaching of Jew and Gentile being fellow inheritors in Christ’s church? Is the New Testament constantly emphasizing Jew and Gentile coming together? We’re all one. We’re all fellow inheritors.
So why are we saying that the church and Israel are separate?
Well, this is a common objection from amillennialists against dispensational premillennialists. You see, amillennialism is an outgrowth of superessionistic theology.
Superessionistic theology. What is supersessionism?
Also called fulfillment theology or replacement theology. Supersessionism is the teaching that the church supersedes Old Testament Israel as the new people of God. Consequently, the church is the new spiritual Israel and the fulfillment of all God’s original designs for Israel.
Superersessionism is a huge topic and is at the heart of the debate between dispensational premillennialists and amalillennialists.
There’s no way I can offer a thorough critique of superessionism right now, but I will present a briefly outline response and I’m borrowing this from Dr.
from Michael Lockach as I was taught in his theology course at seminary.
Here’s a briefly outlined response as to why the New Testament while stressing Jew and Gentile unity in the church does not teach supersessionism that the church becomes the new Israel. Got six points here. Number one, the church is never called Israel in the New Testament.
Rather, even after the eklesia, the church is born, the New Testament writers are careful to maintain the distinction between ethnic national Israel and the church.
The title Israel is used 73 times in the New Testament. And outside of a couple of disputed verses, it is always clearly used of ethnic Jews. Israel refers to ethnic Jews. Now, what are the two disputed verses? Galatians 6:16 is one.
Galatians 6:16 says, this is the close of the book of Galatians or near the close. And those who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God.
Okay, the supersessionist interpretation of this verse is that the and in Galatians 6:16 is epexetical, which means that it has the sense of even. It’s just further describing the group that was just mentioned. So those who walk according to this rule, which in context would be the Galatian Gentiles, they are seen as the same as the Israel of God.
Uh peace and mercy be upon those who walk upon the walk with this rule, even the Israel of God.
Thus, the New Testament church must be the new Israel of God.
But this interpretation is weak for several reasons. First, as noted, the normal use of Israel in the New Testament is for ethnic the ethnic nation of Jews. So why should this one verse be the only exception?
Second, the Greek word for and kai, it usually has the sense of and rather than the epexetical sense of even. So why are we reaching for the rarer sense here in this verse? Why can’t it just be and talking about two different groups?
Third, the immediate context and the context of this letter is the Judaizing menace in the Galatian church. That is, there were Jewish Christians teaching Christian Gentiles that those Gentiles better keep the law of Moses or they’re going to lose their salvation.
And by the end of the letter, Paul has thoroughly repudiated the Judaizers. But in these closing words, he acknowledges that not all the Jewish believers in Galatia have taken up this Judaizing stance. So Paul pronounces a blessing on two different but related groups. Peace and mercy upon the Gentiles who walk according to the apostles rule rather than the rule of the Judaizers. And peace and mercy upon the Jews, the Israel of God who do likewise.
This interpretation makes better sense than the supersessionistic one.
The other disputed verse is Romans 9:6.
Romans 9:6 reads, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” The supersessionist interpretation is that Paul’s distinguishing between two Israel. The first Israel is the Israel of God composed of believing Jews and Gentiles. It’s the church. It’s the new Israel. And the second Israel that is ethnic and not necessarily believing Israel.
But again, this superstition, the supersessionist interpretation is unjustified. Paul is indeed making a distinction here in Romans 9:6, but not one involving the church. Paul is saying within ethnic Israel there are believing Jews who are in one sense the true Israel and the real inheritors of God’s ancient promises to Israel.
And this sense would be the exact same as Paul’s in Galatians 6:16 that I just argued for. There’s no need to import a supersessionist idea into Romans 9:6 or into Galatians 6:16. All right, so this is the first point. The church has never called Israel the New Testament. Two, the New Testament affirms a future for the nation of Israel and thus cannot also have the church be the new Israel.
Several passages I can point to as examples and some of them some of them are paralleled. So you see it in Matthew, but then you see it repeated in Luke or uh something like that. In Matthew 19:28, Jesus promises his disciples that they will rule over the 12 tribes of Israel after the coming restoration.
Okay? So there is a there must be a future for Israel because the disciples are going to be ruling over them. The 12 tribes in Matthew 23:37-39 and it’s Luke parallel. Jesus warns Jerusalem or Jesus promises Jerusalem that it will be judged for rejecting God’s prophets, including the Messiah, your house is left to you desolate, but also that it will one day be restored so that the inhabitants will one day say to the Messiah, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Okay, if he’s going to promise both of those things, then there must be a future for Israel.
And Luke 21:24, Luke 21:24, Jesus says, “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” That little word until is key because it means there must be a future for Israel.
There won’t Jerusalem and by extension the nation of Israel, it will not always be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles.
And then Acts 16-7, which are verses that we covered last time. From Acts 1:6-7, the disciples ask Jesus after 40 days of teaching about the kingdom of God whether Jesus is about to restore the kingdom of Israel.
And though Jesus tells the disciples not to worry about God’s timing, Jesus does not correct their expectation, which strongly suggests that there is a future for the nation of Israel that’s separate from the church.
Three, the New Testament explicitly affirms that the covenants and promises still belong to the nation of Israel.
Romans 9:3 and4. Romans 9:3 and4. This is Paul.
For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the temple service, and the promises.
Notice the word belongs in the text I just read to you. It’s present tense, not previously belonged to. Belongs currently. Despite the inauguration of the church, despite the Jewish nation’s ongoing unbelief, the covenants and promises, Paul says, still belong to the nation of Israel.
Four, the doctrine of election ensures Israel’s continuing role in the plan of God.
Consider, why did God choose Israel in the first place?
Did they earn their way into God’s favor, God’s selection?
No. Deuteronomy 7:7 to8 clarifies that Israel was the weakest of all peoples when God called them.
Yet they were the ones on whom God chose to set his love.
In Romans 11:1-2, Romans 11 1-2a, it reaffirms God’s special choice of the people of Israel.
Paul says there, I say then, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be. For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he forneew.
Now notice twice in these two verses Paul says that God has not rejected his people.
Not merely believing individuals among his people, the remnant of Israel that Paul will go on to describe in verse 5 of Romans 11, but rather God has not rejected his entire people, the people of Israel.
And notice also he calls these people Paul describes these people as the people whom God forneew and forneew is a loaded term in the New Testament when describing God because it does not refer to simple fornowledge as amazing as that would be that God forneew all of Israel’s sin and rejection and yet still chose them. No, God’s fornowing in the New Testament is only used of those beloved by God and destined for salvation.
As one theologian said, to be for to be fornown by God in the New Testament is to be for loved by God.
And Paul says Israel is fornown. The people of Israel are fornown for loved by God as a chosen people.
They are elect.
This divine election therefore of a whole people distinct from the church.
It cannot fail. Just as divine election and salvation cannot fail, so God’s divine election of the people of Israel.
For one day being redeemed and used by God according to his original purposes, it cannot fail. The faithfulness of God demands it.
Five, Romans 11:26 explicitly affirms a salvation future for national Israel.
Romans 11:26, “And so all Israel will be saved.” Can you get a clearer statement in the New Testament about Israel’s future salvation?
Of course, supersessionists will say, “Well, this just refers to spiritual Israel. All the elect Jews and Gentiles in God’s new spiritual Israel will one day be saved.” But this interpretation is just special pleading.
As already noted, the New Testament only uses the term Israel to refer to ethnic Jews. Furthermore, the previous 10 references to Israel in Romans 9:11 must refer to ethnic Israel. So why would Paul suddenly refer to spiritual Israel in Romans 11:26?
Finally, and most importantly, the whole flow of thought in Romans 11 demands that verse 26 refer to national Israel.
Because what is Paul’s main point? That God’s election of Israel has not failed.
The partial hardening of Israel from God is just temporary and it is accomplishing a great good. It is so that God can bring the Gentiles into salvation also.
But is that it? No. Romans 11:15. For if there that is Israel’s rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Now, did you catch that? Paul’s implying that Israel’s acceptance of God and his Messiah will happen one day. And it will be like life from the dead for the world.
And consider how good Israel’s rejection of Jesus has been for the world. We’re all saved because of that. The the gospel came to the Gentiles because of that. And yet he says, “It’s going to be so much better when Israel accepts, when Israel believes.” Paul repeats this idea in verse 25, right before verse 26, that informs what verse 26 must be about. And as if that weren’t enough, what right after that statement in verse 26, what does Paul say as he goes into verse 27? Paul cites Old Testament prophecy about how Israel, Zion, Jacob will one day be saved as a nation.
So, no, all Israel in Romans 11:26 is not the church. It’s all Israel, the nation finally saved and restored to be what God has always meant for them to be, a blessing to the whole earth.
Six, the use of certain terms for the church when those terms were previously used for Israel does not automatically mean that the church is Israel.
In 1 Peter 2:9-10, we see some descriptions that were previously used of Israel used to describe New Testament believers. Believers are, Peter says, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, the people of God.
Those were all things that were said of Israel before.
However, it does not follow that using these same descriptures means that the two groups are now the exact same.
Rather, it just means that the things that Israel was, the church is now, too.
Or at least in these particular descriptors. To say that another way, the people of God may expand without all those people becoming Israel.
Galatians 3:7 and Galatians 3:29, they also describe Christians as sons of Abraham and Abraham’s descendants, which supersessionists take as proof that Christians are now spiritual Israel.
Look, you’re descendants of Abraham and Abraham was the father of Israel, so you are now Israel.
But this interpretation forgets Romans 4:9-12. Romans 4:9-12, which stresses that Abraham believed and was accounted righteous when while uncircumcised.
Which then Paul explains this enables Abraham to be the father of faith for the uncircumcised, the Gentiles, and because he was later circumcised, the father of faith to the circumcised, to the Jews.
In short, being a spiritual son of Abraham does not make you a spiritual does not make you spiritual Israel because Abraham is the father in terms of faith of both Jew and Gentile.
Okay, so that’s my brief argument, my outline defense.
In conclusion, if the New Testament indeed maintains such a clear distinction between the church and Israel, what business has any theological system or esqueological belief have in erasing that distinction?
Only dispensational premillennialism properly maintains the biblical distinction between Israel and the church.
Okay, my last prepared question and then we might have time for some extras.
Doesn’t premillennialism represent a cosmic step backwards in God’s plan for the world? I mean, why would God bring all peoples to worship him in spirit and truth in the church and then go back to a millennial kingdom with ethnic distinctions, temple sacrifices, and material prosperity?
Isn’t that a step backwards?
This is an important question, and it is a common objection to premillennialism.
I remember even while I was in seminary, I had classmates struggling with this idea.
Is God going backwards?
Let me give a multi-part response to this question.
Once again, one, we must be careful to let God explain to us from his word what he thinks is proper and not impose on him and his word what we think is proper.
This concept is basic to Christianity and it’s part of why we glory in the cross.
That’s not natural. According to 1 Corinthians 2, the world sees no wisdom or glory in the cross of Christ. But we do.
And why is that? Is it because we’re naturally smarter, naturally holier than other people?
No. It’s because God has graciously revealed that glory to us. We have allowed him to teach us, or rather, God has worked in our hearts so that we we want him to teach us. And now we we cannot help but say, “The way you’ve done it, God, is glorious. It’s way more glorious than anybody could have come up with.
God caused us to give up our own ideas as to what salvation or God should be so that we embrace what he’s actually done as perfect.
We must take a similar approach to esquetology.
You cannot look at a passage of the Bible, some prophecy, and say, “Well, surely God cannot mean this because this is too” and then fill in the blank.
Do your proper exes Jesus of the passage. Compare it to other scriptures, but ultimately let God explain to you from the text what he’s doing and why.
Don’t bring assumptions. Especially don’t bring a theological tradition or system and then impose it on the text because this must be what God would do.
Along these lines, I always remember something that Pastor Greg said to me years ago. I don’t remember the conversation, but I remember the quote.
He said, “When it comes to theology, you can either be biblical or you can be consistent. You cannot be both.” That is to say, if you have a nice, polished, fully satisfying theological system in your mind, you’re probably not being completely biblical.
Yes, the Bible does agree with itself.
Scripture cannot be broken, but it has plenty of details that we do not fully understand. It has plenty of surprises as to what God has chosen to do. So, if you fit all of that cleanly into your system, you’ve probably chopped off a few pieces. You probably smoothed out some rough edges to make it fit so nicely. We have to beware of doing that.
Let’s let God be God. Let’s let him teach us what he’s going to do.
Two, beware Christian Plattonism affecting your esquetology.
What is Christian Platonism? Multiverse of Platonism. What is Plonism? It’s the philosophy of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who most famously taught that there is a perfect world of mental forms that was different and separate from the imperfect world of matter in which we all live.
If you can’t follow what that even means, don’t worry about it. Just know that the practical effect of Plonism was dualism.
Plonists learned to see the material world as inferior and even evil while the spiritual world was superior and good.
In the third and fourth centuries of the church, platonism found its way into Christianity, especially by way of the allegorical hermeneutic. The allegorical hermeneutic itself was a style of interpretation popular in Greek philosophy that looked for hidden spiritual meaning over the literal one. in texts.
Christian Plattonism in the third and fourth centuries, it began to undergur many of the church’s attitudes and practices going into the medieval period period. This is why many Christians were driven towards aeticism and celibacy.
This is why Christians look for extra spiritual meanings in the Bible beyond the literal. And this is partly why Christians turn from premillennialism to a millennialism. Because after all, doesn’t the Bible teach that the spiritual is superior to the material?
But actually, let me ask you, does the Bible teach platonic dualism?
Yes, you’re actually going where I was looking to go, Mark. So, you mentioned that in second Corinthians.
Second Corinthians does talk about the things that are unseen are and and eternal are superior to the things that are seen and temporal. Yes, there are certain ways in which Platonic dualism does seem to fit the scriptures and this is why Christians integrated it in the early centuries.
The Bible does teach that you are not to neglect the spiritual for the material, nor should you sacrifice the eternal for that which is merely temporal.
But what does the Bible say about physical enjoyments like food or sexual intimacy in marriage? Does it say h I suppose we can allow these for you unspiritual carnal people out there? Is that what the Bible teaches? No. It says enjoy these to the glory of God. Stop forbidding these out of some false spirituality or vain aestheticism.
And consider where the Bible says that we’re going. What is the final destination of the redeemed?
Is it heaven?
No. What is it?
It’s earth. It’s the new earth.
And what will be our makeup on this new earth? Will we be freed as our true selves as disembodied spirits?
No. What will we be instead?
We will be souls and resurrected bodies.
Indeed, our makeup from the beginning as humans has been a mysterious mixture of body and soul. We are not souls trapped in a body like Plato taught. We are body and soul. This is why there’s a a a level of anxiety almost when Paul in the New Testament talks about our need for resurrection. We want to be clothed. We don’t want to stay unclothed. We need those bodies. We need those glorified resurrected bodies.
I say all this because I don’t want you to get caught in the error of many Christians over the centuries to believe that God’s plan has been to gradually free us from this physical world into a timeless spiritual existence.
Many otherwise sound preachers have taught that our ultimate destiny is just the beific vision. The beific vision like a blessed vision. That is to say that where we’re going is that we’re just going to arrive at this place where we stare at and are thrilled by the glory of Christ in a moment of worship that never ends.
That’s it. That’s what eternity is going to be all about. We’re just going to be looking at Christ. Time’s going to stop and we’re just going to be so fully satisfied.
Is that what the Bible teaches?
No. The Bible does not say that we are destined for some mysterious ether.
before an actual city on an actual earth where there’s physical delights like rivers and trees, dazzling gold and jewels and food and drink.
Didn’t Jesus promise his disciples in the last supper, I will not drink this fruit of the vine again until I drink it new with you where in my father’s kingdom in the kingdom of God. Jesus himself is going to eat and drink with us in the coming kingdom.
Now of course these physical things are not what the millennium or the eternal state is all about. There is some truth to the botific vision idea because it is eternity is all about Christ. It is all about the trinity. We will be fundamentally enjoying the trinity in worship forever as we rule and reign with Christ.
But these material things in the coming kingdom which the Bible clearly says will be there, they are not a replacement of God. They’re not to detract from our worship of God. They assist in the worship of God. Just as the material things are meant to do right now, premillennialism with this expectation of an earthly kingdom and bumper crops and animals at peace with one another instead of a merely spiritual kingdom that only exists in the heart of God’s people. This is not a step back in God’s plans that we better spiritualize because that’s that’s no good. No, it’s a purposeful progression for this body soul creation that God has made and called mankind.
God has destined us. He has foretold us that we are going into a kingdom that is both physical and spiritual as that corresponds to what God made us to be, what God made us as. We are physical and spiritual beings and all that will be ultimately to the glory of God. And honestly, that’s a lot easier to look forward to than some abstract spiritual existence. It’s really hard to get excited about this idea of we’re just going to stare at Jesus and time’s going to stop. That’s totally different than anything that we know now. It’s definitely going to be different than the things we know right now, but there will be some things that are familiar and yet so much better.
And that the scripture gives us that for our hope. Okay, that’s two points so far. I think I have two more. Three, even if we don’t immediately understand why God goes back to Israel and certain Israelite institutions, the Bible’s abundant testimony is that he will in faithfulness to his promises.
The Bible’s clear. The people of Israel will again be brought back into their land as in a second exodus from all the corners of the world. There will again be a kingdom in Jerusalem with a temple and priests and animal sacrifices. There will again be yearly religious feasts like the feast of booze. There will again be the concepts of ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness related to God’s temple.
And you say, “But why?” We don’t get a full explanation in the Bible, but we do learn in detail that this is what God is going to do.
And to that response, I must quickly add one other observation.
God, this is number four. God will not truly go back to what Israel used to be because restored Israel will be different.
Don’t get the impression that dispensational premillennialism means that Israel will be like it was in the old covenant.
Not at all. rather as Jeremiah 31 prophesied, Israel will finally be under the new covenant. That’s kind of an amazing thing. We we we glory in the new covenant as New Testament Christians, but do you realize the passages that foretell it are speaking about Israel, including Jeremiah 31?
So, we’re not going back to the old covenant. Israel is proceeding into the new covenant just like God foretold it would. What does that look like? Well, from what God reveals in the Bible, some features of the old covenant or life under the old covenant return, but with some pretty clear differences.
Case in point, the description of millennial Israel in Ezekiel 40 to48.
If you’ve never read these chapters, Ezekiel 40-48, they are so interesting.
They seem at first glance just to be a tedious retelling of the temple and the sacrificial system one day being restored for repentant Israel.
Except they aren’t because on closer examination, the details have all changed. The temple measurements are completely different than what they were earlier in the Old Testament. The sacrifice rules are different than what was earlier in the Old Testament. The topography of Jerusalem is completely different than what it was in the Old Testament. Even the tribal allotments of the different tribes of Israel, they are different than what they were in the Old Testament. Oh, and God himself is dwelling in and ruling from Israel’s temple.
So don’t misunderstand the restoration of Israel in the millennial kingdom is not really going back again. It’s a progression forward.
Yes, in fulfillment of certain things that were never totally fulfilled for Old Testament Israel, but not the same as before. It’s different. It’s better.
It’s under the new covenant rule of Christ.
A lot of people struggle in particular over the return of animal sacrifices in the millennial kingdom. Isn’t Jesus the once and for all sacrifice? Why are we having animal sacrifices again?
Well, certainly these new animal sacrifices, they’re not going to ignore or compete with Jesus once and for all sacrifice for his people. Again, this is going to be Israel under the new covenant. That’s basic to the new covenant. Jesus said, “This is the new covenant in my blood.
these animal sacrifices are not going to compete with that. But what exactly these sacrifices will mean or what they’re for, I don’t know if we can fully say. There are some good people who who’ve thought about this well and they’ve offered different theories, but I don’t know if we can fully say. But what we can say is it’s not going to be like it was before. It’s going to be different. It’s going to be better.
And the amazing thing is that we will be there to see it.
Don’t misunderstand from all I’ve shared with you thus far. It’s not like when we get to the millennial kingdom, church goes to the sideline and now Israel gets the spotlight for a thousand years. Oh no, we’re going to be part of this worldwide kingdom, too, just as Jesus promised his disciples who, by the way, were part of the church. You will judge the 12 tribes of Israel in the restoration. We’re going to be part of that administration as well. Where exactly how exactly? I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t fully tell us. But we’re going to be part of that kingdom. Yes, we the church, we Jews and Gentiles in the church today.
And just consider, maybe this comes up too. Well, why a thousand years? Like what’s the whole point of that?
In our existence, in church history, we have seen the impact of generational generational wickedness on the peoples and cultures of the world.
This is one of the reasons why Solomon can say in Ecclesiastes, “What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is I forget what the second one is,” you can’t fix problems in the world easily because they have become embedded across generations.
You have to time travel or you have to begin new policies, but then say it’s probably not going to change things for maybe a hundred years.
But in the millennial kingdom, we’re going to see the opposite. Wouldn’t it be awesome to behold the impact of generational righteousness on the peoples and cultures of the world?
And not just over a century, but over a span of 1,000 years.
The Lord has some special glory to put on display in the millennium that we haven’t seen yet. So, we should look forward to that and not dread that or be apathetic about that as if that were some kind of backwards step.
Okay, that’s it for my prepared questions.
We do have a little bit of time left.
What are some additional questions that you have based on what I’ve said or just your own study descriptures asking for questions first if you have comments and come back later? Arthur?
Yeah, my question is this.
Um in the Old Test a stranger or gentile wanted to join Israel and they had circumcised and interestingly on my mother’s side for fathers were slaves to Jews household every always had my dad forced them to circumcise her sons.
So question is if a person was circumcised would you in mind would they be considered partition question let me see okay to repeat your question you talked about family history involving those who were enslaved to Jews required to be circumcised.
And your question is, they come under the covenant of Abraham.
If you’re circumcised, do you come under the covenant of Abraham?
And are you considered a Jew?
I would say if I’m totally understanding the question, not necessarily because while circumcision is required to become a Jew, not everybody who who practiced circumcision was a Jew. Apparently, there were cultures in the ancient world who practiced circumcision, but they weren’t Jewish. It was one of the marks of being Jewish, but it doesn’t necessarily make you a Jew. There’s there’s more to it than that than circumcision. Remember that in the New Testament, one of the concerns of Jewish Christians is that if you were Jewish and didn’t get circumcised, that somehow you were turning your back on your heritage. But that’s not the case. You can be Jewish and and you can be ethnically Jewish and realize that you don’t have to be circumcised anymore.
Does that mean that does that mean you you continue to have the Jewish culture?
I don’t know. I guess I’ll just stick with my my early answer, which is just because you get circumcised, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re Jewish.
What What will be any sorts of requirements or teaching about circumcision in the millennial kingdom?
I’m not totally sure. I’d have to think about that question more. Dwayne, I don’t know if you have a comment on that or if you have a separate question.
Okay, go ahead.
Yeah, that’s a good question and I’m going to plead a little bit of ignorance there. But Dwayne is bringing up in the Ezekiel passage that I just mentioned, Ezekiel 40 to48, it mentions that God is ruling in Jerusalem from the temple. But it also mentions a prince who seems to have some kind of rule as well. But the prince is not God. And I think he has to offer sacrifices and do other various things. So who’s the prince?
I don’t know if we can say for sure. I I know one of the theories that I’ve heard is that this is perhaps resurrected or perhaps just a descendant of the Davidic um the Davidic line that you do have a another ruler who will rule in Jerusalem also but is not Jesus and doesn’t do the exact same things that Jesus does. Now again, we’re talking about something that’s different and not fully explained in the Old Testament, but more to the point of we’re not really going backwards. We’re progressing forward in some new things that God is going to do. But I don’t know how to fully answer that question.
I think it’s one of those one of those mysteries that remains. But I think you had another one.
question.
All right, Dwayne’s question.
Okay, Dwayne’s question is, will there be any unbelievers who enter into the millennial kingdom? Because what about the sheep and the goat judgment? We know that there’ll be unbelievers at the end of the kingdom because of the final satanic rebellion that God judges before the last judgment in the eternal staple.
Will there be unbelievers who enter into the kingdom?
I have to think about that question more. I I can’t remember the the placement of the sheep and the goat judgment in the escatological timeline.
Okay, I have to think about that more, look at that more because I I’m right now not confident in my answer regarding that. But trying to think about what I do know and remember.
I’m just going to say I don’t know. I have to come back to that question.
That’s good. I think we have time for one more. Yeah. Cheryl.
Okay, good question, Cheryl. So, yeah, so I’m going to repeat it. So, Cheryl’s question is what Ezekiel foretold uh in Ezekiel 40 to48 is that before Revelation 21 and the description of the new heavens and the new earth? I would say yes. So the timeline from Revelation 19 to 21, it it is informative. This isn’t just, oh, we’re taking different views of this from different angles and maybe go back to the beginning. That’s the way that many who take a symbolic interpretation of Revelation see it. They say, “Oh, Revelation 20 is just a new perspective on what was talked about in the previous chapters.” No. Revelation 19 talks about the final things that going to happen before Jesus returns the earth. Then it describes Jesus return. Then it describes the millennial kingdom. Then we have at the very end of the passage that I I talked about last time, Revelation 20 1-10. What concludes after that is the final satanic rebellion, the last judgment, and then the then we go into the eternal state, the new heavens and the new earth. And then Revelation 20 and 22 is the description of that place. And tellingly, I believe is in Revelation 21, it talks about some of the imperfect things that we know from the Old Testament still existed in the intermediate millennial kingdom phase.
They’re gone. Death is gone. Sin is gone. Uh pain and sorrow, they are completely gone. So yes, I would see the description of Ezekiel and other Old Testament passages prophesying the millennium. That would be or have to be a little bit careful talking about the Old Testament passages because some of them do seem to be talking about the eternal state and some of them do seem to be talking about the intermediate phase. But Revelation 40-48, I’m sorry, Ezekiel 40-48 does seem to be talking about that intermediate phase.
Okay, I’m sure there are more questions.
If there are some that I didn’t get to that you think of later or that you didn’t get to ask right now, let me know. Submit it to me and maybe we can come back to it in the elder Q&A which we’ll do at the very end of this course.
I am going to come back later and present an overview of and a defense for a pre-tribulational rapture because that is something that I’ve I’ve mentioned is often part of dispensational or that is part of dispensational premillennialism.
But I want to give a whole separate discussion to that issue. We’re not going to do that next time. We’re actually going to split that discussion with two lessons from Pastor Greg talking about another escatological reality that is important but also extremely controversial. And that is the doctrine of eternal punishment. Hell and eternal punishment. Is it real? Is it annihilationism? Is it eternal conscious torment? We’ll talk about our church’s stance on that and give an overview in defense. Let me end our time today with prayer.
Lord God, I have sought to present these things as your scripture teaches them, and yet I confess there’s a lot that I don’t understand. There’s a lot of mystery that still remains, yet what you have declared is sufficient for us. And wow, it is so glorious. God, you are faithful. You are faithful to your church and you are faithful to Israel.
Though you have given her a certificate of divorce for a time, you will, as Hosea says, come back and woo her, and you will betro her to you forever in righteousness. So Lord, we look forward to seeing that. We look forward to seeing your purposes fulfilled and the whole earth renewed in the government of the Messiah on the earth. But Lord, help us to be faithful until you come and help us to encourage one another with the hope of where we’re going in Jesus name. Amen.