I have often heard premillennialists use the idea of prophetic perspective in explaining the absence of a millennium in second coming passages and the apparent consummation of all things and general resurrection at the second advent in such passages. After all, amillennialists do use prophetic perspective in OT passages when the prophet sees both comings as one, inserting an at least two millennia gap into the text. Could not the epistles and gospel writers have this same prophetic perspective, seeing two resurrections and two judgments as one which is later explained and clarified in John's apocalyptic vision in Revelation 20? What are the problems with this reasoning without simply resorting to the other problems of premillennialism such as where the nations come from?

This is a great question by Adam Olve. Was it ever answered?

Thanks!

If Christ's millenial reign is a period 1000 years, why are we still here in 2009 AD?

Dr. Riddlebarger

Thank you for an extremely interesting blog. Beeing a salvation army officer I have just recently found that our international headquarter has published a book titled "the Rapture"
( http://www.theraptureandthebible.org.uk/ ). I'm waiting for amazon to send me the book, but from what I've read I fear that this is plain dispensationalism.

I am not surprised to find this view among members of the salvation army, however it shocks me that our international headquarter publishes such a view since (as far as I now) our church never had a fixed theology on Jesus second coming (apart waiting for his return and the final judgment). Therefor, I am determinded to write an article for some of our internal magazines to argue strongly against this view. My question is therefor:

Where can I find good arguments against the dispensationalist interpretation of the rapture / 1. tess 4. ?
(I plan too search your blog very well for argument, and I am already familiar with N. T. Wrights arguments trough this blog:
http://castleofnutshells.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/investigating-the-rapture-by-tim-lahaye/

sincerely,
Helge Byre Myklebust,
captain in the Salvation Army,
Harstad, Norway

My question is concerning Acts 1:6-7 and Ephesians 2:7

ACTS 1:6-7
When asked before his crucifixion about his earthly kingdom in Israel by the pharisees and Pilate Jesus answered them in a negative sense, telling them his kingdom had already come not with signs but was in their midst, or when spoken to Pilate telling him His kingdom was not of this world, why then when asked this question after his resurrection by his disciples here in Acts 1 does he not rebuke them but rather tell them it is not for them to know the times which God has fixed?

EPHESIANS 2:7
"So that in the coming ages"
If there are only 2 ages, the present age and the eternal not yet age, why does Paul mention multiple ages here? I ask because my historic premill friend is stating that Paul is mentioning another age, which to him makes sense to be the 1000 year reign of Christ age.

I am squarely an Amill and appreciate your knowledge and insight into these deeper things of God's word, I feel the Acts 1 passage is perhaps the strongest argument a Premill or Dispensationalist have and I am very much looking forward to your response.

Soli Deo Gloria
~Evan

Is Postmillinalism for all intensive purpouses dead and if so how does one deal with Theonomy?

I am on board with amillennialism but would like to know how you explain the first resurrection's (taken in a spiritual sense) relationship to the martyrdom for not taking the beasts mark or worshiping his image. It seems that this is why they are not living in the first place not because of being dead in sin. This is the one difficulty I keep coming up against.

Michael G.

Dear Dr. Riddlebarger,
My pastor preached a sermon this week on the difference between the Second coming and the Rapture. One of his main points was that Christs foot touches the Mt of Olives in Zechariah 14. He said that it would like Christians stepping into an elevator to go up, but then coming back down. He also referenced Revelation 19, and said that it says nothing about being caught up. Any of your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hi Dr. Riddlebarger

About three weeks ago I started listening to your Amillennialism 101 lectures, and was really enthralled by them. I've really enjoyed them. They're fantastic. Thank you, for them.

This question pertains more to covenant theology than it does to amillennialism itself, but if covenant theology falls, so goes amillenialism. Furthermore, I felt comfortable asking this when I saw you answer a dating question related to Revelation.

Here goes:

Was circumcision in the Old Covenant given to the elect and their children, or to ethnic Israel? If it was to the elect, then why were some children born to non-elect Israel circumcised (I'm assuming this happened, but it seems pretty obvious that it would)? If it was to ethnic Israel, why is it said that baptism replaces it, when baptism is for those in God's covenant?

The deeper issue I'm facing is that I think that circumcision was given to ethnic Israel (because, it seems that all Abraham's male descendents were circumcised). In that case, either the Church replaces ethnic Israel, as baptism replaces circumcision (i.e., replacement theology), or a different covenant is given to believers, as a different sign (baptism) is given to believers (i.e., dispensationalism). Neither of these are really the covenant theology you describe.

I guess the solution is that circumcision really was meant for only the elect and then it spread to all ethnic Israel, even unbelieving Israel, out of the children not understanding that the promise was for the spiritual seed, not the physical seed.

What do you think of all this? Any ideas about a better solution? I hope to hear from you or read it in one of your Q&As.

In Christ
Pete

Dear Dr. Riddlebarger,

I read your book "A Case for Amillennialism," and I was so inspired. When I began studying Eschatology, I had numerous questions regarding what aspects of Eschaology have already taken place, which one's are currently taking place, and one's that are still yet to pass, but so much more is clear to me now. You made things so clear in your book about the already/not yet concept, the course of redemptive history, and the two age model, and I'd like to thank you for all your wonderful work, because it has helped me understand so much. I believe Amillennialism makes the most sense regarding Eschatology, and I would like to share the good news I've learned from your book with other classmates, especially with a few of my close Premillennial friends. They don't understand how many theological errors Premillennialism truly presents, and they have a false idea of what Amillennialism truly is as well. I would like your advice on how to go about presenting Amillennialism to them in a reasonable and understanding manner.

Dr. Riddlebarger,
I've enjoyed your sermons on eschatology and actually listen to them as I fold laundry at home with the kids. I have friends who are Messianic Jews, and they contend that Jews are being saved in record numbers. They see this as a definite sign of the end times (also tied to the feast of trumpets?). . .Israel is even granting full recognition to messianic Jews living there, which has garnered "hate" crimes against this group. Would you consider that their assessment of Jews coming to belief in Christ is accurate?
Thanks -- I'm an avid fan of White Horse Inn (and a partner to boot)
Martha Spurlock
Louisville, KY (home of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, but NO Reformed congregations)

I just got donereading Hendricksen's commentery of The Book of Revelation. My question is does there need to be eschatlogcal anti christ couldnt the antichrist be anti christian politcal power? In short does it nescerlly have to be a future being couldnt it just be a system?

Hello!

I remain convinced of the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 1-35 of the Olivet Discourse, but not so convinced of the Preterist interpretation of Revelation, and a lot of that is due to the date issue, which you critiqued so well in your "A Problem for Preterists".

Is there any contradiction in holding to your modified idealist approach to revelation but an orthodox preterist approach to the Olivet Discourse? And is there anyone of importance that has held such a position?

I an looking for an answer: John (rev 21) sees a new heaven and new eartn coming down.

Then he sees the New Jerusalem coming down.

These events cannot be future from us because people are already drinking from that river of life which is in the midst of the city. In other words the gates have already been opened!

Since it seems that the river is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit (John 7:38/Is.55:1 notice that the lord exhorts all to drink freely from that river), and since the new jerusalem=the bride=the church (rev 21:9-10/22:17), should we not also view the new heaven and earth as a metaphor (possibly for the new covenant)?

On what basis is it to be understood as literal in Rev 21?

If it is future why are people drinking from that river?

Why does the Spirit (river) and the Bride (new Jerusalem) exhort people to come and drink freely? Is this not the call of the gospel?

Hello Dr. Riddlebarger,
My question is regarding the amillenial interpretation of Jesus' self defense against the Pharisees recorded in Luke 11:14-23 and Matthew 12:22-32.
Amillenialists seem to jump on Matthew 12:29 and claim that it teaches that Jesus has bound satan (sometimes tying it into Revelation 20).
My first question is, given the hermeneutic rules of interpreting parables, isn't that a complete misuse of the passage? Given that the the issue is about Jesus' source of power and the amazing statement that it is the power of God that is casting out demons, not being in league with satan... The punch of the parable seems to be that Jesus is more powerful than satan (so the parallel passage in Luke doesn't mention binding but instead uses the word 'overpowering'), and to use the parable to make a theological point about satan being literally 'bound' is to abuse the passage. Could you please tell me how amillenialists defend this unusual and unique usage of metaphorical language?
Thank you in advance.

Dr. Riddlebarger,

I have been a dispensationalist for years. However, I have become increasingly convinced, from my study of Scripture, as a pastor, that the N.T. church is, at least in some sense, the true people of God and the goal to which O.T. redemptive history pointed. I now see much more continuity in God's program and present fulfillment of O.T. prophecies regarding Israel. However, I have not been convinced, at this point, by the arguments for amillennialism (I do plan to purchase and read your book soon). At the same time, I do see some significant problems with premil., so I am still open. I understand that one of the arguments for an amil. understanding of Rev. 20:1-10 is the fact that the thrones seem to be thrones set in heaven. The saints are seen reigning with Christ in the present, in a spiritual sense. My question is this, what do you make of verses like Matt. 19:28 and Rev. 2:26-27? The first indicates the apostles reigning over the tribes of Israel. The second certainly seems to indicate a political rule of believers over nations of the earth. This is, by any millennial interpretation, a quotation from Psa. 2 relating to Messiah's future (then) reign over the nations of the world, which seems to be a prominent theme of the whole book of Psalms and a significant part of O.T. theology as a whole. So, do you assign these passages to this age or to the new earth or both? In either case, in what way could the saints be said to be reigning or judging over nations, including the tribes of Israel?

Dear Dr. Riddlebarger,
I have been reading " A case for amillenialism", and I find it refreshing and challenging.
I have studied briefly Romans 9-11 prior to reading your chapter entitled "Romans 11--Is there a future for Isreal?".
I agree with most of your points, but I am curious about your analysis of Romans 11.26.
Why is the interpretation of 11.26 not simply this, that "all Israel" consists of all true believers of all ages and all ethnicities, and is not limited to national or ethnic Isreal?
Paul stated in Romans 9.6-8 that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham: but,"In Isaac your seed shall be called". That is , those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted as the seed".
During the time of the old covenant, righteousness was imputed to those who believed in the promise of God- that He would send a Messiah who would deliver people from the power and consequence of sin. The new covenant is the same, only with the Messiah having been revealed, and those who believe, being made righteous by imputation. True Israel ("all Israel" of Ro. 11.26) is comprised of all who believe in the same promise. Not so?

Hello:

I have seen that there is a great deal of emphasis amongst premillennialists on the seven feasts of Israel and how they are prophetic. They see that Passover is prophetic of the crucifixion, Unleavened Bread of Christ's burial, First Fruits of His resurrection, and Pentecost of the pouring out of the Spirit. I think the reasoning is pretty solid on the prophetic nature of these first four feasts. However it is the three fall feasts where I am uncertain. Premillennialists see the Feast of Trumpets as a prophecy of the Rapture, the Day of Atonement as a prophecy of the Second Coming and Tabernacles as a prophecy of the Millennial Reign of Christ. How would the Amillennialist view these feasts? I could see Trumpets being a prophecy for the Rapture/Day of Resurrection, Day of Atonement a prophecy for Judgment Day, and Tabernacles the inauguration of the Eternal State. Would you agree or is all this Feast stuff nonsense?

I do not understand Matthew 27:52-53. Who are these "holy" people, where were they and why are they out of the tomb now? I thought they were already in heaven?

Hello Dr. Riddlebarger,

I have a Literature professor (Bible as Lit.) who says, along with many other scholars, that the apostle Paul believed that the end of the world was at hand and it would occur in his lifetime. How should we respond to this idea and the texts they refer to demonstrate it? This idea in my opinion contributes to unbelief.