Eschatology Q & A: What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Different Millennial Views?

Lëmi asks (October 31, 2007):  "Could you explain briefly all the millennial positions pointing out their main strengths and weaknesses?"

Thanks for the question Lëmi.  Although I could write a book-length answer to your question (and hopefully will one of these days), I'll do what I can to give you as concise an answer as possible.

Lets start with premillennialism.  As for its strengths, there seem to be two.  One is the fact that Revelation 19 depicts the return of Christ, while Revelation 20:1-10 depicts the reign of Christ on the earth.  If these chapters describe consecutive events (a point with which I would take issue) then this would place the millennial age after Christ's return.  A second apparent strength is that a number of church fathers state that this was the teaching passed on to them by the eyewitnesses to the ministry of the apostles, although this was not the only view in the early church (see Charles Hill's Regnun Caelorum)--Click here: Amazon.com: Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity: Books: Charles E. Hill

There are several serious weaknesses with premillennialism.  The first weakness is that premillenniarians have to explain how it is that people make it through the return of Christ and yet remain in natural bodies.  Jesus taught that his return marks the end of the age (Matthew 13:39) and that after his return, people no longer marry or are given in marriage (Luke 20:34-36).  At Christ's return, he judges the world, making it tough for someone to be judged and yet not eternally condemned or rewarded with eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46).  This is especially problematic for premillennarians, since they claim that their view is based upon a "literal" interpretation of prophecy.  Where, then, is the one-thousand year gap between the return of Christ and the judgment (which, according to premillennarians takes place at the end of the millennium) when Jesus teaches that judgment takes place at his return?  Those who take the Bible "literally" find themselves having to insert a gap into the biblical text which isn't there. 

The other problem with premillennialism is, if it be true, there is a great apostasy on the earth after one thousand years of Christ's rule (Revelation 20:7-10).  If there cannot be people on earth in natural bodies during the thousand years (which supposedly comes after Christ returns), then who are the people who revolt against Christ at the end of the millennium?  And that after Christ's own rule?  It makes much more sense to see Revelation 20:1-10 as a description of the entire inter-advental age, since the scene takes place in heaven where the thrones are (vv. 1-6), before shifting to the earth in verses 7-10.

As for dispensational premillennialism, both the strengths and weaknesses of premillennialism generally apply.  But if we consider dispenationalism on its own terms, its main strength is a stress upon progressive revelation (the careful consideration of how God interacts with his people throughout the different stages of redemptive history).  We can also say that one of its strengths is its emphasis upon the imminent return of Christ. 

As for weaknesses, there are many.  One is that the presuppositions of dispensationalism (which, despite protests to the contrary, is a hermeneutic) cannot be sustained.  The belief that God has distinct redemptive purposes for Israel and for the Gentiles is highly problematic in light of a text like Ephesians 2:11-22.   Another serious problem with dispensationalism is the way in which the "literal interpretation" of Scripture is worked out in practice.  The dispensational stress upon "literalism" actually amounts to an Israel-centered hermeneutic, largely taken from the Old Testament prophets which then predetermines what the New Testament authors can tell us about Israel.

As I have argued elsewhere (Click here: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur), this approach is seriously flawed.  The New Testament presents a Christ-centered reading of redemptive history and reinterprets the place of Israel in that redemptive history in light of the coming of Jesus Christ, who is the true Israel.

As for postmillennialism, remember that both postmillennarians and amillennarians hold in common the idea that the millennial age precedes the return of Christ and the consummation.  So the structural strengths and weaknesses of each will be similar.  The essential difference between postmillennialism and amillennialism is in how we understand the nature and character of the millennial age.

Postmillennialism's greatest strength is the rhetorical stress upon optimism regarding the kingdom of God and its ability to transform the nations of the earth before Christ returns.  Postmillennarians extend the kingdom of God beyond spiritual matters (word and sacrament) to the transformation of culture--a point with which I would disagree.  Postmillennarians generally believe that Jesus returns to a saved earth, he does not return to save the earth (as amillennarians believe). 

This means that the biggest weakness of postmillennialism is the determination of the beginning of the millennial age--"when do the thousand years begin?"  Some have seen this in the conversion of Israel, the overthrow of Antichrist (usually defined as Romanism or Islam) and the conversion of the nations.  Obviously, these things have not yet happened.  Therefore, the biggest weakness of postmillennialism is the denial of an imminent return of Christ--which explains why so many postmillennarians are attracted to preterism, the understanding Christ returned in judgment upon Israel in A.D. 70.

As for amillennialism, it has no weaknesses whatsoever, since it is the biblical position (I'm being facetious).  In all seriousness, Amillennialism's strength is its understanding that imminent return of Christ is the consummation of all things and marks the fullness of both the kingdom of God and the age to come.  Christ will return to judge the world (Matthew 13:36-43; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9), raise the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; 1 Corinthians 15:54-57) and make all things new (2 Peter 3:3-15).  He does not return to set up a kingdom (as in premillennialism), but to usher in the eternal state and create a new heaven and earth--the final consummation.

The biggest weakness of amillennialism is in the details--what does John mean by the binding of Satan?  Can we really say Satan is bound now? (I say "yes").  What about the first resurrection in Revelation 20?  Is John referring to regeneration, or the bodily resurrection?  These things require a fair amount of explanation, especially since most American evangelicals know only the premillennial view.

 

That's a very brief answer.  For more information, I would suggest my two books:  A Case for Amillennialism (Click here: Riddleblog - A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End), and Man of Sin (Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist), or the book by Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Click here: Amazon.com: The Bible and the Future: Books: Anthony A. Hoekema)

Why Doesn't John Mention the Destruction of the Temple in Revelation?

Joyce asks the following question (September 2007):

I am wondering why, with all the destruction of Jerusalem, and "no stone left on top of another" in the temple --why would John write the Book of Revelation and never even mention these events? I would think, when writing to the seven churches, it would have been important for John to note the fulfillment of the prophecies Jesus made concerning the temple as an encouragement and as a warning of the coming of similar tribulation--if, in fact, John was talking about some tribulation other than what they had already lived through.

My question is, then, what proof is there that John wrote Revelation sometime in the 90's rather than sometime before AD70?"

__________________________________ 

Joyce:

Great question!  On the face of it, this seems like a powerful argument for an early date for the Book of Revelation (i.e., before AD 70).  But upon closer inspection, I think the case for the traditional dating (about AD 95) holds up quite well.

There are a couple of important things to consider when trying to determine the date of the Book of Revelation.  First, there is no "proof" by which to date of the Book of Revelation one way or the other.  There is however, a great deal of internal and external evidence which, in my estimation, points strongly toward the traditional date of about AD 95.  The evidence adduced for an early date by Gentry and others is not nearly as strong as appears at first glance.  I deal with this extensively in my book The Man of Sin (Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist).  I also deal with this in an Academy lecture given at Christ Reformed Church, which can be found here: Click here: Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures).  Scroll down to the lecture "Problems for Preterists." 

Second, the date of the Book of Revelation does not effect my interpretation of Revelation, one way or the other.  As a Reformed amillennarian, I hold to the modified idealist (eclectic) position advocated by Beale, Johnson, and others.  My position is not dependant upon the dating of Revelation.  On the other hand, if the Book of Revelation was written after AD 70 the preterist position collapses.  I get the sense that preterists develop their view from the Olivet Discourse and secondarily from 2 Thessalonians 2, and because of that understanding then have to prove that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.  For a host of reasons I spell out in my book, I don't believe that you'd come to the early date based upon an objective look at the internal and external evidence.  I think preterists have already painted themselves into a corner elsewhere, and then have to prove the early date of Revelation to make their interpretive scheme work.   

Third, an argument from silence is exactly that--a silent argument.  The absence of any mention of the destruction of the Temple can be explained in one of two ways.  One is that Revelation was written before the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed (on the early date interpretation).  The other is that Revelation was written to the churches in Asia Minor nearly twenty-five years after the destruction of the temple, and this was not a theological or pastoral issue for these churches (the traditional dating).  In fact, as Beale and others have argued, the only time the Temple is mentioned in Revelation (Revelation 11:2), the passage cannot be referring to the Temple in Jerusalem.  Neither the context of the passage nor the historical circumstances of the Gentiles occupying the outer-court for 42 months, allow for this to be a reference to the Jerusalem Temple.  I discuss this in my book as well (Man of Sin, 181-183).

Fourth, as Colin Hemer documents, the historical situation of the seven churches as depicted in Revelation 2-3 fit much better with the traditional date of Revelation--about AD 95.  Especially important in this regard are the churches in Ephesus (which is depicted as losing its first love--a situation which wouldn't make sense if Revelation were written before AD 70), and the church of Laodicea (which John depicts as wealthy.  But since an earthquake completely devastated the area in AD 61, its hard to imagine this could be the case, if Revelation were written before AD 70.  It is much more likely that John is speaking of a later period).  To check out Hemer's book,Click here: Amazon.com: The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (The Biblical Resource Series): Books

I hope that helps!
 

"What Do You Mean When You Speak of the `Lens of the Old Testament?'"

Joe asks the following question (October 29, 2007):

"I am reading your messages on Revelation (Click here: Riddleblog - Sermons on the Book of Revelation (pdf), and right at the beginning something jumped out at me. You say that we must interpret this book through `the lens of the Old Testament'. Isn't this the position that dispensationalists use to justify their interpretation. That is, all prophesy in the New Testament must be interpreted by the Old Testament. Can you elaborate, please?"

___________________________ 

 
My Answer:

Joe, thanks for the chance to clarify this.  I believe that the Book of Revelation is, in one sense, God's answer to all the redemptive-historical loose ends of both the Old Testament and the first advent of Christ.  I see the scope of Revelation's various visions as covering the entire inter-advental period, each from a different perspective.  Dennis Johnson quite helpfully describes this phenomenon as different camera angles on the same event.

When I say that we need to see Revelation through "the lens of the Old Testament," I simply mean that when John uses some particular symbol (say "locusts") the reference is to the Old Testament--in the case of locusts to the Book of Joel.  My sense is that those who heard the Book of Revelation read in the churches, and who were steeped in the Old Testament, would have immediately understood what John was talking about, because they knew to find the explanation of the symbol in the Old Testament. 

For many of our dispensational friends, however, this is not the case.  They take John to be trying to describe some modern technology which did not exist in the ancient world.  Hal Lindsey, for example, thinks John saw a Bell UH-1 Huey helicopter and since such a thing was beyond his comprehension, John described this amazing flying thing as looking like a locust--which, in a way, it does.  But is John trying to describe an as yet unknown technology?  Or is he using an image drawn from the Old Testament to make a point about the suffering of God's people before Christ comes back?

I would say that the key to understanding John is to go back to the Old Testament and see what locusts do when they swarm--they destroy everything.  Joel presents locusts as a form of judgment.  Lindsey, on the other hand, says this is a picture of a modern technology unknown to the ancients.  But it is obviously a judgment motif, because that is how the figure appears in the Old Testament.

One of my primary concerns with the dispensational hermeneutic is that the Old Testament "interprets" the New Testament, a concern which lies at the heart of your question.  The title of John Walvoord's famous commentary on Daniel makes my point--Daniel:  The Key to Prophetic Revelation.  According to dispensationalists, Daniel lays out the basic prophetic pattern and then John follows along behind in the Book of Revelation. 

Reformed amillennarians hold that Daniel was told to seal up the scroll, because he could not understand these things before the coming of Christ.  John is ordered to open that same scroll in the Book of Revelation because he will tell us--in the clearer light of the coming of Christ--about those things to which Daniel had been referring, but which were still hidden in type and shadow until Christ came.  Now that Jesus has indeed come, and has died for our sins and was raised from the dead before ascending on high, John is given this vision to explain to God's persecuted people how Christ's triumph over death and the grave impacts the future course of history so as to bring all things to their final consummation.

This is why I think Walvoord and the dispensationalists have it backwards.  The Apostle John tells us what the prophet Daniel means, not vice-versa.

I hope that helps! 

An Interesting Question

David Neal asks an interesting and important question:

"When are reformed writers going to start writing books in language that the average person can understand. They are plenty of good books out there on eschatology but I can't give many to may friends because they are over their heads. It seems to me if the message is going to get out, it is going to have to be understood. I am speaking for myself also. It seems to me we should be trying to reach the masses."

David, as someone who has written extensively on this subject, let me address some of the reasons why books on eschatology tend to be difficult.  Then, I'd like some feedback from regular readers of this blog on a couple of things (see below).

First, most of us who write on eschatology do so because there are already many books written on the subject expressing nutty or erroneous ideas which demand a response.  Most writers take the sensationalist approach and attempt to tie current events directly to the Bible.  These books tend to be the easiest to understand because they appeal to recent headlines.  But such writers mistakenly come to the Bible looking for evidence that the latest headline can be explained by Scripture.  They tend to avoid the hard work of comparing Scripture with Scripture and then developing a comprehensive picture what Scripture itself says about the course of history in light of God's gracious promises. 

Other writers begin with a number of faulty presuppositions which color everything they say or do when they write about end times (i.e., dispensationalists). My published writings are addressed to those Christians who have already read much of this stuff and who want to consider other (and I would argue, more biblical) options.  This means that I am writing books for people who already know the lingo and who already have some basic understanding of the issues.

Second, not everything in the Bible is easy to understand.  On the one hand, biblical eschatology is as simple as "Jesus Christ is coming again to judge the world, raise the dead and make all things new."  We could stop right there.  But you know that Scripture itself doesn't stop at this simple confession.  Jesus speaks of the future  in difficult ways (especially in the Olivet Discourse).  Paul speaks of the future (especially in his two letters to the church of Thessalonica).  Peter speaks of the end of the world in the third chapter of his second letter.  And then there is the Book of Revelation.  This is not an easy book to understand.  The structure of the book is complicated--it is an epistle, it contains prophecies and it utilizes a difficult literary genre, apocalyptic.  This means the subject of eschatology as presented in the Bible itself is difficult and requires careful thought and biblical exegesis.

Third, there are some basic resources on this topic which you might consider.  You can start with the helpful charters prepared by Mark Vander Pol (Click here: Riddleblog - Eschatology Charts).  There are introductory articles by others (Click here: Riddleblog - Links to Helpful Books, Essays, and Charts, as well as stuff I have written (Click here: Riddleblog - Theological Essays -- scroll down to the essay, "What's A Thousand Years Among Friends."  You can also read my sermons on Revelation (Click here: Riddleblog - Sermons on the Book of Revelation (pdf)

Fourth, I would simply ask you, "do you have a hobby, or any other special interests?"  "Do you have a specialized vocabulary at work?"  If you can say  "yes" to any of these, I would challenge you to realize something already obvious--virtually all aspects of life require that we learn technical terms or a specialized vocabulary.  Why shouldn't Christians be willing to learn the language of the Bible and theological discourse?  If you have watched enough baseball to understand the "infield fly rule," or enough football to understand the "fair-catch signal" on a punt, then you've invested enough time and energy on these things as it would take to master the biblical and theological terms required to understand most books on eschatology, including mine. 

Fifth, it is my experience that Reformed amillennialism is much simpler (conceptually) than is dispensationalism.  Part of the problem is that Reformed Christians speak about things (especially eschatology) in ways quite different from most evangelicals.  I found Reformed amillennialism tough at first because I was raised a disepnsationalist and it just sounded "different."  In a sense, I had to unlearn the eschatology of my youth, and then learn a whole new Christ-centered hermeneutic and a new approach to reading Scripture.  And yes, this is a lot of work!  And it took some time and effort.  But it was well worth it when huge portions of the Bible suddenly came alive for me.

Now, for those who regular readers, is there be any genuine interest in (or is there a real need for) a series on this blog entitled something like "Amillennialism 101" in which I would explain the basic terms and set out the primary biblical evidence for Reformed Amillennialism? 

This would be done in a very simple and non-polemical format.  If there is a need for this, I'd be willing to tackle it.  But don't just say "yes" unless there is truly a need.  What things should be included?  What format would be the most useful? Mr. Neal makes an important point in this regard and there may be some good ways to address it.

Let me know what you think in the comments section. 

Eschatology Q & A

Eschatology Q & A

A couple of you have asked questions recently about my book on the Antichrist, The Man of Sin.  You can read more about it here, if you are not familiar with it. (Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist). 

In light of my recent review of Hank Hanegraaff's Apocalypse Code (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code") , I thought this might be a good time to answer them.

___________________________ 

Scotty asks (August 20)

Hi Kim,

Having just read your excellent book "The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist", your position is that a final "Man of Sin" is yet to appear in God's Temple (the Church) at the very end and in concurrence with the "falling away" (if I read correctly).

My question regarding your position is this: How do you see this unfolding in such a divided worldwide Church made up of hundreds if not thousands of denominations, affiliations, and beliefs?

In other words, no one entity currently has such mass influence over all Christians worldwide to bring about such apostasy. The only platform I can see any possibility of this occurring in is the Roman Catholic Church (through the Pope). Is this what you're alluding to or is there another scenario you envision?

Thanks.

My Answer: 

Scotty, I do believe that Scripture teaches that immediately before the end of the age and the return of the Lord, there will be a mass apostasy within the church (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Revelation 20:7-10).  When I speak of the church here, I am speaking of the visible church around the world.  This would be all those church bodies which formally confess the content of the Apostle's Creed.

As you note, I believe that in the Thessalonian letter Paul is not speaking of the Jerusalem temple, but of the church. That this is not fulfilled by the events preceding the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. is very clear in verse 8 of 2 Thessalonians 2, where Paul ties the revelation of this "man of lawlessness" specifically to the time of final judgment (I would recommend that you read G. K. Beale's fine commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians for the exegetical specifics of this).

Since the Roman church at the time of the Reformation fit the bill in many ways, I think the Reformers were largely correct to make the identification between the man of lawlessness and his particular blasphemy with the papacy. But in God's providential timing, the restraining power associated with the recovery of the gospel, prevented the Roman church from succeeding in snuffing out the Reformation and subsequent success of the gospel of free justification sola fide. 

In other words, the papacy of that age manifested many of the signs mentioned by Paul, but was prevented (restrained) from overcoming the gospel through the use of church authority and state-sponsored military power (Spain, France, and Austria, specifically).

I'm with Geerhardus Vos on this one. There is a certain sense in which the only way we will know what is entailed here, is when it actually happens before our eyes. Therefore, we need to be very cautious about speculation in this regard, lest we become Reformed versions of Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey.

That being said, if the "composite photograph" I discuss in my book is a faithful summary of biblical teaching, this final apostasy could involve a resurgent Roman Catholic persecution of Protestants (but this is not likely), or some form of apostasy wherein professing believers bow the knee to a political leader (the false prophet, who directs the world to worship the beast, which is the God-hating civil government), bent on wiping out the church, having been empowered by the dragon (Satan) to do that very thing.  This could be a secular state, trying to wipe out all religion.  It could be an Islamic state trying to wipe out Christianity . . . who knows?  I sure don't.  But if I'm alive when it happens, I am sure that I (as well as all other believers) will know what is going on!

I really don't think we can say any more than this. But we certainly don't want to say less, either.

________________________

Jeff asks (June 2, 2007)

Dr. Riddlebarger-

Just finished "Man of Sin" and found it very helpful. Thanks for all the work and study.

My question is this...why would the great "Abomination" refer to the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple if (due to Christ's sacrifice) the temple was no longer a place of true religious ceremony? Wouldn't that make the temple's religious significance disappear,and then mean that to "desecrate" it would be no different from mistreating any other place? Maybe it is just semantics.

Thanks, Jeff

My Answer: 

Let me put it this way. When Christ died on the cross, the temple veil is dramatically torn from top to bottom. This dramatic opening of the most holy place to the light of day is filled with important symbolism, not the least of which is that the sacrifices in the temple and the work of the high priest are from that moment on, rendered obsolete in light of Christ's final (once for all) sacrifice for sin. Therefore, whatever sacrifices occur in the temple and whatever role the high priest attempts to play after Christ has died, is no longer an act of worship, but an act of blasphemy.

Once Christ dies for our sins, the temple becomes Ichabod and its activities an "abomination" to the Lord. All of this culminates in the tragic Diaspora of the Jewish people and the eventual destruction of the temple by the armies of Titus in 70 A.D.

To put it another way, Christ's sacrifice does away with the temple's role in redemptive history, making way for that horrible complex of events in which Gaius (Caligula) sets up an image of himself in A.D. 40, and when the temple becomes the place where those zealots resisting the armies of Titus in the inner and outer court are mercilessly slaughtered as described by Josephus. 

The point is not so much when the "Abomination" occurs (the exact moment), but that it does occur, as seen in the culmination all of these events.  The temple of YHWH is rendered desolate and an abomination to God.

Hope that helps!

Eschatology Questions

Jason asks:  Kim, I have read your book, `A Case for Amillenialism' and greatly enjoyed it, and have read over and over your section on the olivet discourse, however having that paradigm in view, I'm still not sure what to make of Matthew 16:28. I have read commentaries which explain this to be speaking of the transfiguration which follows in all the gospels, however I dont think this is what Christ had in mind, because it was merely six days later, and doesnt make sense in light of his implication that some WOULD die before this "coming of the Son of Man". I am interested in what your take on this verse is.

Thanks, Jason.

Jason:

Your question gives me a chance to remind my readers that a number of questions  on eschatology have been asked and answered.  These are posted under the heading (Answers to Questions About Eschatology--Archives).  Here's my reply to a similar question

In Luke’s Gospel, the context for the saying, “But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God," is the cost of taking up one’s cross and following Jesus. The same is true in the gospel parallels–Mark (8:34-9:1 and Matthew 16:24-28). In this saying, Jesus states that some (not all) of Jesus’ disciples would die before the kingdom of God comes (or as we read in Matthew 16:28, “his kingdom”). The point is that this group (the some) will see something (the kingdom coming in power) before they die. I’m not sure how much more we want to read into this.

While it is not incidental that this saying occurs immediately before the transfiguration, it cannot be fulfilled by the transfiguration, since Jesus speaks of the likelihood that some (but not all) of those to whom he is speaking would die before his words come pass. The transfiguration does not fit with this. That being said, the transfiguration is one of the first glimpses of what it means for the kingdom to come in power as Jesus appears in glory.

There can be no doubt then that Jesus is speaking of things yet to come, i.e., the resurrection and Pentecost, things which amount to his own vindication–i.e. as his own suffering will give way to his vindication, so too will the suffering of all those who follow him. Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke: New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983), 377-379.

As Carson points out, it is vital that we understand that the kingdom comes in stages–D. A. Carson, “Matthew” in Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 252. Thus the solution to the question raised by preterists may be a simple as the fact that the transfiguration is the first of a number of events which occur in the lifetime of the twelve which reveal the power of the kingdom and God’s judgment (in the form of covenant curses) upon disobedient Israel. This would include the cosmic signs which accompanied our Lord’s death (including the temple veil being torn from top to bottom), the resurrection, the ascension, and then Pentecost, along with the rapid growth of the church and the gospel spreading among the Gentiles (cf. Carson, Matthew, 382).

While the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70 is surely an indication that a time of desolation has come upon Israel and is a manifestation of God’s glory and judgment, this event points ahead to the final judgment at the end of the age, just as Jesus follows his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, with cosmic signs which announce that just as it was in the days of Noah, judgment will come upon the whole world (Matthew 24:28-44).

The Binding of Satan

Eschatology Q & A:

Erancal asks (November 16, 2006):

"This goes to the question of the meaning of the `binding’ of Satan in Revelation 20. Does Jude 6, in which fallen angels are said to be in everlasting chains in darkness awaiting the final judgment, have any relevance to Rev. 20 (see also 2 Peter 2:4)? If so, how?"

Dr. Riddlebarger’s answer:

Erancal, the simple answer to your question is "probably not." The reference in 2 Peter 2:4-6 to angels being kept in chains in Tartarus (ESV, "hell") until the judgment, also has a time reference: "when they sinned." This would place the binding of such angels at the time of Satan’s fall, or else as Peter indicates in verse 5, at the time of Noah. More than likely, this refers to the time of the fall of Satan in ages past. Jude likewise speaks of these angels being bound until the day of judgment. This is possibly the subject of Isaiah 24:21-22. Other than this scant mention, there are no others texts which speak to this (that I know of). So, at the time of Satan’s fall, or at the time of Noah and the flood, a number of fallen angels were bound, and are presently awaiting the time of final judgment. Anything more is pure speculation.

Does this binding of fallen angels relate to Revelation 20 and to John’s reference to the binding of Satan? Probably not directly, although the same kind of thing might be in view (by comparison). According to Revelation 20:3, the purpose of Satan being bound is "so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended" (ESV). The timing of the binding of Satan, it seems to me, is directly tied to Christ’ victory over death and the grave in his resurrection. Jesus has already told us in Revelation 1:18 that "I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades." Whether or not Christ is the angel who is said to bind Satan in Revelation 20:1-3, the fact of the matter is that it is the resurrection which gives him the keys (authority) over Death and Hades, which is the abode of the dragon (Satan). Thus Christ’s authority (through the preaching of the gospel) is that which binds Satan during the course of this present age. I refer you to the outstanding discussion of this in G. K. Beale’s commentary, Revelation, New International Greek Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 984-991.

David Betz asks (January 11, 2007):

"I've considered myself an Amillennialist for some time now, but the other day I had a random realization: if Satan is bound for a specific purpose, he is still bound. What I'm picturing here is this: if a man goes to prison for burglary, he is prevented from burglary, but also from murder, rape, and many other things. I know this is one of the many forms of the `If Satan is bound, why is there 'evil'?’ problem, but this is one that's been confusing me for a little while now. The best explanation I can come up with is that even though the man is in prison for burglary, he can still blaspheme and affect the outside world in some way (and even rape INSIDE prison), but that doesn't seem to answer it completely because what Satan seems to be doing is very close to what he is prevented from doing. That is, his actions seem to be of the same 'form', unlike how different burglary (physical action) differs from blasphemy (verbal action). I'm sure one explanation would be what I had just stated, but it really makes me doubt my Amillennial position, because I'm not reading the text to mean `bound Satan to keep him from deceiving the nations, though he really does anyhow.’ It seems to be a binding of degrees, but *successful* binding doesn't really seem to have degrees in my mind."

Dr. Riddlebarger’s Answer:

David, this is a great question! Let me paraphrase the essence of it. "If Satan is presently bound and prevented from deceiving the nations, why is it that the nations are presently deceived?" Either Satan is bound or he isn’t. It is not a matter of degrees.

A couple of things need to be said here. First, the answer is not to use analogies like you have done above. The situation described in Revelation 20 only makes sense in light of biblical imagery (especially that from the Old Testament). Instead, simply trace out the course of redemptive history and you’ll see what John means.

Recall that Satan was instrumental in the Fall, and then according to the early chapters of Genesis, rapidly deceived the entire world. Remember Enochville (cf. Genesis 4:17)? How about Babel and Ninevah? What about Babylon? Egypt? The Assyrians? The Moabites? These are nations who fell under Satan’s sway and marshaled their resources against the people of God. Then, there’s the mass apostasy among the Israelites, both in the wilderness and in the promised land. The Jews never fulfilled the commission given them in Isaiah 49:6, "I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." Because of unbelief Israel was repeatedly subject to godless Gentile nations and hauled off into captivity. You get the point. We could go on and on.

Fast-forward to the New Testament. When Jesus appeared on the scene, his public ministry did not begin until he had first bested Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). As we all know, Jesus messianic mission appeared completely thwarted on Good Friday, but by Easter Sunday, it was clear the Satan’s "victory" was instead a total defeat. Jesus now becomes the light to the nations and the true Israel. He fulfills that mission which both Adam and Israel failed to accomplish. Indeed, the gospel message "binds" the Devil and all his works. God’s people are commanded to make disciples of "all nations" (Matthew 28:19), and told that this gospel must be preached as a witness to "all nations" (Matthew 24:14). Not only will Jesus be with his people until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20), but the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ’s church (Matthew 16:18). This is how we must understand the consequences of Satan’s being presently bound. It is a reference to the success of the gospel.

Therefore, the presence evil and unbelief in the present age does not mean that Satan is not yet bound (the standard premillennial objection). It is the inevitable success of the missionary enterprise which is the proof. Under the present circumstances Satan cannot use empires and nations to completely thwart the mission of church. He will try, certainly. But how long did Hitler’s thousand year Reich last? Contemporary situations, (i.e. the People’s Republic of China which seeks do this), serve as a great illustration. A recent news article pointed out that many thousands become Christians every day in China, despite the efforts of the government to stamp out Christianity! Remember, the biblical writers are not millennarians. The kingdom can grow and thrive all the while things appear to be getting worse (cf. Revelation 11 and the account of the two witnesses). Kingdom success does not necessarily translate into economic, cultural, and religious progress as our postmillennial friends contend. Kingdom success does mean the spread of the gospel and the effectual call of all of God’s elect--a multitude so vast they cannot be counted.  In some cases, there is a corresponding effect upon the culture.  In some cases there is not.

Remember too that according to John, Satan will be released for a short time before the end, when he will be allowed to deceive the nations for one brief last period in an organized political, economic, and military sense against the church (Revelation 20:7-10). But until then, he is bound and cannot deceive the nations. The gospel will go to the ends of the earth! While Satan rages like a wounded animal, he does so because he knows his time is short (1 Peter 5:8 with Revelation 12:12).

Therefore, the answer to your conundrum is to be found in what is meant by "deceive the nations." When viewed against the backdrop of redemptive history, it is clear that this is tied to the missionary enterprise, and the success of that mission is clearly what is in view (not the absence of all evil and unbelief).

I hope that helps!

Isaiah 65:17-25? Earthly Millennium? Or Eternal State?

Eschatology Q and A.

Question 1:  One of the trickiest passages to interpret from any eschatological viewpoint is Isaiah 65:17-25--especially verse 20.  What is your view on the meaning of this passage?

Question 2:  I was glad to see the question re: Isa. 65:17-25, particularly v. 20.  I remain convinced that the amil position easily does most justice to the whole counsel of God. It seems to me that there's nigh-well an avalanche of problems with the pre-mil (and post-mil) position(s), as well as a comparable avalanche of passages supportive of the amil (two age) scheme. Furthermore, regardless of the meaning of Isa. 65:20ff (and parallels), I see nothing in these verses that matches what's going on in Rev. 20:1-10. Just as the Isaiah passage says nothing about a millennium, so Rev. 20 says nothing about people bearing children, building houses, etc.

But the precise meaning of Isa. 65:20ff eludes me, in terms of what the best way of understanding Isaiah's point is. Is Isaiah conflating something in the present age with something in eternity? Or is he simply speaking non-literally so as to employ language in a way that accentuates the glorious conditions of the new heavens and earth? I anxiously await your response!

________________________________________

Kim Riddlebarger’s answer:

According to dispensationalists, Isaiah is referring to the millennial age on earth during the 1000 year reign of Christ after his return to earth (cf. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, 487-490). For reasons we will soon explore this cannot be the case.

According to postmillennarians, this passage this passage refers to the latter day glory of the church on the earth. John Jefferson Davis writes, "the blessings of the church’s latter-day glory spoken of in Isaiah 11:6-9 are reiterated and expanded in Isaiah 65:17-25. The intensified period of spiritual blessing produces conditions in the world that are termed `new heavens and a new earth.’ (V. 17). This refers to the dramatic moral renovation of society rather than to the eternal state, since Isaiah speaks of a time when children are still being born (v. 20), when people are still building houses and planting vineyards (v. 21) and engaging in their earthly labors (v. 22). Paul uses similar language when he says that salvation in Christ is like a `new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17), or again in Gal. 6:15, `for neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.’ The conditions of health and temporal peace of which Isaiah speaks in 65:17-25 are not the essence of the gospel, but they are properly the consequences of the gospel when its impact is intensive and extensive in the world. The message of reconciliation with God also produces as its fruit reconciliation between man and man and even with the natural order itself. It should also be noted that 65:17-25 makes no reference to the Messiah’s physical presence on earth. In the latter days, God desires to create in Jerusalem (the church) a rejoicing (v. 18). But the realities of verses 18-25 refer neither exclusively to the eternal state nor to the time following the second advent, but rather to the messianic age when Christ still rules at the right hand of the Father in heaven." (Cf. John Jefferson Davis, The Victory of Christ’s Kingdom: An Introduction to Postmillennialism [Canon Press], 37-38).

For four important reasons, I think both the premil and postmil interpretations stumble badly.

First, as Motyer points out, Isaiah 65:1-66:24 is a chiasm, in terms of its structure. This simply means that the logic of the passage flows from the opening verse (Isaiah 65:1–A1) and the final verses (66:18-21-A2)–both of which deal with those who have not heard nor sought the Lord–toward the middle of the chiasm, i.e. A1 (65:1), B1 (vv. 2-7), C1 (vv. 8-10), D1 (vv.11-12) E (vv. 13-25), D2 (66:1-4), C2 (66:5-14), B2 (66:15-17), A2 (18-21). In this case, Isaiah 65:13-25-E is the middle of the chiasm, and is therefore the central theme of the entire prophecy and speaks of the joy of the Lord’s servants in the new creation. This means that the central truth (or high point) of this entire prophecy is found in the middle of the chiasm, not the end (vv. 66:22-24), which speaks of Jerusalem as the center of the world. (See J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary [IVP], 522-523).

The point is this. The key part of the whole passage is the section in question (vv. 17-25) which deals with the new creation with its Zion. Steps A1-D1 and A2-D2 must be fulfilled before the hoped-for reality (E) comes to pass. Given the structure of the prophecy as a whole, the climax of the passage is the eternal state (the new heavens and earth), not a half-way redeemed earth in which people experience life-extension, only to die later on.

Second, verses 17-20 of Isaiah 65 are composed of two poems. One is a poem of the new creation (vv. 17-18b), the other is a poem of the city and its people (vv. 18c-20). As Motyer points out, "throughout this passage Isaiah uses aspects of present life to create impressions of the life that is yet to come. It will be a life totally provided for (13), totally happy (19cd), totally secure (22-23) and totally at peace (24-25). Things we have no real capacity to understand can be expressed only through things we know and experience. So it is that in the present order of things death cuts off life before it has begun or before it has fully matured. But it will not be so then" (Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, 530). In other words, metaphors are used of things neither we nor Isaiah can fully understand. The poetic structure surely points in this direction.

Third, as Meredith Kline points out, the language here reflects covenantal blessings now magnified in light of new heavens and earth. These blessings take us well beyond the natural order, but can only be understood in light of the natural order (Kline, Kingdom Prologue,152-153).

Fourth, is Isaiah telling us that as a result of the spread of the gospel ("moral renovation" in Jefferson’s terms), people will live longer, only to die? Where does the gospel promise long life? It promises eternal life! In fact, isn’t the whole point of prophecy clearly stated in verse 17. "I will create new heavens and a new earth?" This is a time subsequent to Revelation 20:1-10, which describes the binding of Satan and the reign of the saints in heaven after suffering upon the earth, only to end in a great apostasy before the final judgment. Both pre and post millennarians must assign this prophecy to the same period of time as Revelation 20. But given the chiastic structure and use of metaphor, isn’t it far better to see Isaiah 65:17-25 as describing the same time frame as Revelation 21, which is clearly describing the eternal state? I certainly think so.

_______________________

More questions and answers are archived here, Click here: Riddleblog - Answers to Questions About Eschatology