Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
If Historic Premills see no time delay between the rapture and the parousia, how do unbelievers get into their Millennium?
Question on Historic (post-trib) Premillennialism
- Thread starter Jimmy the Greek
- Start date
- Status
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Historic premils argue that believers rise to meet the Lord in the air and return to the planet to rule with him. The term used for meet the Lord in the air is the one used in Acts for the delegation going out to meet the Apostle Paul and accompany him back to Rome.
The question I have has to do with the mixing of resurrected bodies and natural bodies during the literal millennium envisioned by historic premils. Am I to believe that I will be living in my resurrection body next door to a person who still gets married, drives to work, procreates, raises his family, gets colds, takes vacations to Yosemite, contracts cancer, and dies? Wow! Do I get to know a man, his son, grandson, great grandson, great great grandson, etc. over the course of 1,000 years?
The question I have has to do with the mixing of resurrected bodies and natural bodies during the literal millennium envisioned by historic premils. Am I to believe that I will be living in my resurrection body next door to a person who still gets married, drives to work, procreates, raises his family, gets colds, takes vacations to Yosemite, contracts cancer, and dies? Wow! Do I get to know a man, his son, grandson, great grandson, great great grandson, etc. over the course of 1,000 years?
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
1. It seems obvious from Scripture that at the parousia Jesus will judge the quick and the dead. At that time unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction, 2 Thess. 1:8-10.
2. Both historic and dispensational premills see the millennium populated to some extent with unregenerate natural people, who participate in the final rebellion at the end of the 1000 years.
3. The dispensationalist explains the natural people in the millennium as the offspring of those who were saved in the 7 years between the rapture and the parousia.
4. But the historic premill has no such luxury in his explanation since the rapture and parousia are concurrent. Thus my question. How do unregenerate natural people get into the historic premills millennium.
5. This is aside from the troubling thought that Dennis raised: of co-existence of glorified saints and unregenerate in the millennium. Not to mention the fact that all premills see evil and death continuing after the second coming.
2. Both historic and dispensational premills see the millennium populated to some extent with unregenerate natural people, who participate in the final rebellion at the end of the 1000 years.
3. The dispensationalist explains the natural people in the millennium as the offspring of those who were saved in the 7 years between the rapture and the parousia.
4. But the historic premill has no such luxury in his explanation since the rapture and parousia are concurrent. Thus my question. How do unregenerate natural people get into the historic premills millennium.
5. This is aside from the troubling thought that Dennis raised: of co-existence of glorified saints and unregenerate in the millennium. Not to mention the fact that all premills see evil and death continuing after the second coming.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Jim, I missed the point of your OP. My understanding (from several decades as an historic premil before coming to my senses) is that Jesus comes back to earth to set up his kingdom and the judgment occurs at the end of the millennium. Therefore, you have the mixture you describe. Dispensationalists not only multiply the "comings" of Jesus, they also do the same with the final judgment. Don't ask me to rationalize the "rough edges." It does not make any sense to me.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Yes. This is becoming a quite established position in NT scholarship even among those not connected with historic premils (e.g., Wright, GB Caird, others)
Yes, but Isaiah 65 hints at longetivity which will probably have some effect on human sickness.
Why not? We have to make a distinction between what we find humanly incredible and what is actually logically impossible. Plantinga's Possible Worlds Semantics is helpful at this point.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Jesus returns, sets up his kingdom, believers are transformed. Unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King, but we have no reason on the premil scheme on why they must be born against or immediately go to hades.
You say "troubling" I say there in the text. There is a difference between what we consider "normal" and what is in fact logically possible.
Nicholas Perella
Puritan Board Freshman
Maybe this could be differently phrased. I say this because unbelievers are a rebellion against King Jesus. That is what unbelief toward God is: rebellion against God.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Dennis: “Historic premils argue that believers rise to meet the Lord in the air and return to the planet to rule with him”
Jacob: “Yes. This is becoming a quite established position in NT scholarship even among those not connected with historic premils (e.g., Wright, GB Caird, others)”.
Jacob, actually Caird, in his The Revelation of Saint John, along with almost all other contemporary amils, have believers’ bodies rise to meet the Lord in the air (those still living when He returns will rise body and soul) and transformed into resurrection bodies; in Rev 19:14 Caird has those overcoming saints return with Him as He destroys assembled unregenerate humankind, including the beast and false prophet (19:20) who have declared war on Him—on His body, the church—referring to “all men, both free and bond, both small and great” (19:18). Again it is stated, after the casting of beast and false prophet alive into the lake of fire (19:20), “And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh” (19:21).
Thus is seen, a) “GB Caird, [and] others” (I don’t know Wright’s view) do not have believers return with Christ to rule on the earth at that point, but to accompany Him as He wars in the great battle called Armageddon. After this is the final judgment at the great white throne as seen in Rev 20:11 ff. I gather that after this is the marriage supper of the Lamb and the placing the saints on New Earth as the commencement of our eternal honeymoon with our Husband Lord.
And, b) there is no one left after Armageddon, for the unregenerate have been slain—all of them. And then raised, with all other inhabitants of Hell, to stand before the Judge. There are no survivors of the parousia to people the earth, which earth will be burned up and made new as the Creator-Redeemer prepares the new dwelling place of His beloved.
________
Jim: “the troubling thought. . . of [the] co-existence of glorified saints and unregenerate in the millennium.”
Jacob: “You say ‘troubling’ I say there in the text”
Jacob, what text? Will you try to explicate Isaiah 65:17 ff. to that effect? Where the LORD is speaking of the eternal state Isaiah is seeking to depict in language and imagery of his time? The LORD prefaces that section with,
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create
__________
Leslie, here’s a brief view of Historic Premil by Dean Davis, author of the excellent Amil work, The High King of Heaven (he had earlier given me permission to post two brief sections from his book that deal with Historic Premillennialism). Two acronyms he uses are NCH = New Covenant Hermeneutic, and OTKP = Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy. The first section is:
____
1. Historic Premillennialism
This view is called premillennial because it teaches that Christ will come again before a thousand year reign upon the earth. It is called historic because, according to some, it was the dominant view of the early Church, and also because, in various forms, it has appeared throughout much of Church History.
There are two kinds of Historic Premillennialism (HP). The first may be called New Covenant (or Christian) Historic Premillennialism (NCHP). Its chief characteristic is that it places the Church at the center of the millennial scenario. Here, OTKP is fulfilled under the New Covenant, whether in the Era of Proclamation, the Millennium, or the World to Come. Accordingly, NCHP does not anticipate the exaltation of ethnic Israel in the Millennium, or a return to OT ordinances such as Temple worship, animal sacrifices, and Jewish Feasts. Rather, the Millennium is that stage in Salvation History where Christ’s Kingship is publically vindicated and celebrated in a renewed (but not yet perfected) world, and where His faithful New Covenant people are rewarded by sharing in His earthly reign.
All of the ante-Nicene premillennarians were of this persuasion. They include Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Montanists, and Lactantius. After Augustine, NCHP was eclipsed for over a thousand years by amillennialism. However, in the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] and 18[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries a number of Protestant thinkers embraced it once again. They include Johann Alsted, Cotton Mather, Philipp Spener, Joseph Bengel, John Gill, Joseph Mede, and Charles Wesley. In the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, many premillennarians began to experiment with a more literal interpretation of OTKP, and therefore showed a lively interest in God’s plans for ethnic Israel. In time this trend led to the triumph of Dispensational Premillennialism, with its unprecedented focus upon Israel’s millennial glory. However, since the mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century a large number of evangelicals, following the lead of theologian George Ladd, have rejected Dispensationalism and returned once again to the classic NCHP. Prominent among them are Clarence Bass, Jim Hamilton, Carl Henry, Robert Mounce, Grant Osborne, J. Barton Payne, and John Piper. Arguably, this is now the majority position of American theologians. If, then, it is essential conformity to Ante-Nicene premillennialism that makes one a “true” historic premillennarian, these men are the rightful heirs to that mantle.
There is, however, a second form of HP. Again, it arose primarily in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, when many evangelicals, adopting a more literal interpretation of OTKP, began to assert that God will fulfill certain OT promises by restoring and exalting ethnic Israel, both prior to and during the Millennium. Their company is impressive. It includes David Baron, Andrew and Horatio Bonar, Franz Delitzsche, Frederick Godet, Robert M’ Cheyne, George Peters, Charles Spurgeon, Samuel Tregelles, and Nathaniel West. Because of its interest in the future of ethnic Israel, we may call this view Old Covenant (or Jewish) Historic Premillennialism (OCHP).
While there are significant differences among them, most Old Covenant premillennarians would endorse the following sketch of Salvation History. In OT times God promised, prefigured, and prepared for an eschatological Kingdom that would appear in three stages: The Church Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Millennium, and the World to Come. The mission of the Church will advance in history infallibly, though with great difficulty. Towards the end of the age, the world will plunge into deep spiritual darkness, thereby triggering the rise of the Antichrist, a brief season severe persecution, and the apostasy of many professing believers. Then Christ will come again. When He does (or shortly before it), the great mass of Jews will be converted. Acting in judgment, Christ will destroy the Antichrist and his followers, and then confine Satan to the abyss. Acting in redemption, He will resurrect the saints of all time (or the martyrs alone), glorify living believers, partially lift the curse from the earth, and welcome believing Jews and the spared children of unbelievers into the Millennium. Now begins the theocratic stage of the Kingdom, when God’s eschatological David reigns over Israel and the nations. His kingship emanates from earthly Jerusalem, where (according to some) a glorious new Temple is situated, commemorative animal sacrifices are offered, and the ancient Mosaic feasts are observed. Though it is indeed a season of universal peace, the Millennium ends, mysteriously enough, with war: Released from the abyss, Satan uses his deceptive powers to incite a global rebellion against Christ and the saints. However, God immediately steps in so that fire falls from heaven, the rebels are consumed, and Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire. This brings on the (final) Consummation, wherein God raises the wicked dead (and, according to some, the millennial saints), judges the world in righteousness, destroys the present cosmos with fire, and creates new heavens and a new earth. Thus begins the third stage of the Kingdom, in which Jew and Gentile dwell together with God forever as a single glorified Church in the World to Come.
Shorn of its emphasis on ethnic Israel and the (partial) restoration of Mosaic ordinances, this is how NCHP views Salvation History as well.
Observe from our time-line that by opting for a future Millennium both forms of HP require two each of the great eschatological events, whether last battles, comings of Christ, resurrections, judgments, or cosmic transformations. In the pages ahead we will inquire as to whether the NT actually confirms this complex version of the Consummation, and, indeed, the entire HP scenario.
[end first section]
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
And here is section two of Dean Davis' remarks on Historic Premil, also from his High King of Heaven:
_______
Appendix 1
A CRITIQUE OF HISTORIC PREMILLENNIALISM
THIS IS THE first of four appendices in which I offer brief critiques of the main eschatological options before evangelical Christians. My purpose here is not to repeat the arguments and evidences discussed in the body of this book. Rather, I simply want to model what I regard as the most fruitful method for examining different eschatological perspectives, whether old or new.
This method, which reflects the underlying issues of the GETD, involves asking four questions of each eschatological option. They are:
1) What is its view of the nature and structure of the Kingdom of God?
2) What is its view of the nature and structure of the Consummation?
3) How does it interpret OTKP: basically literally, in terms of ethnic Israel and a future Mosaic theocracy; or basically spiritually, in terms of the Church and the spiritual reign of God introduced by the New Covenant?
4) What is its view of the Revelation in general, and of Revelation 20 in particular?
With the help of the time-line shown below, let us use these helpful questions to critique Historic Premillennialism. You may wish to review the material on HP in chapter 3, where I distinguish between New Covenant and Old Covenant HP.
View of the Kingdom
From our time-line we learn that HP envisions the Kingdom as entering history in three stages: the Church Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Millennium, and the World to Come. However, in our journey we found that the NT demurs. Apart from the much-disputed Revelation 20, it says nothing whatsoever about a future millennial stage of the Kingdom. Also, its didactic eschatology completely rules out premillennialism, since it has the Kingdom entering history not in three stages, but two: the Era of Proclamation and the World to Come.
Additionally, NT teaching about the nature of the Kingdom shows that OCHP cannot possibly be true. This is because the two-staged reign of God is a creation of the New Covenant, with the result that the citizens of the Kingdom worship, not in this or that earthly mountain, but in spirit and (New Covenant) truth. There will be no return to the temporary and typological institutions of the ancient Mosaic theocracy.
View of the Consummation
Historic premillennarians look for two distinct Comings of Christ—one at the end of the present evil age, and the other at the end of the Millennium. This complex scenario raises thorny questions. At the first Parousia, who will be judged and who will be allowed to enter the Millennium? How realistic—or biblical—is it to assert that the children of unbelievers will become the nations over which Christ rules? What happens to the millennial saints when they die? Will they immediately receive their resurrection bodies, or will they wait in heaven as disembodied spirits until the second resurrection at the end of the Millennium? How is it that Christ’s glorious millennial reign ends in near universal rebellion against him and his people? And finally, does Scripture really permit us to look for what HP requires: two resurrections, two judgments, and two cosmic transformations, all separated by a thousand years?
Such questions tell us that something is fundamentally wrong with HP. In the course of our study, we learned what it is: The NT consistently looks for a single consummation centered on a single parousia, resurrection, judgment, and cosmic transformation. Therefore, it is the doctrine of a future Millennium that shatters the simplicity of the biblical picture, and opens the door to confusion. Perhaps, then, premillennarians would be wise to re-visit their interpretation of Revelation 20, for by moving it into the present, as amillennialism does, all confusion disappears!
View of OTKP
I rejoice that advocates of NCHP are inclined to interpret OTKP much as amillennarians do: as veiled revelations in which God used OT language and imagery to speak “mysteriously” about spiritual and physical blessings unveiled by Christ and the New Covenant. To paraphrase their Master, they are not far from the truth of the Kingdom!
I wonder, however, how they can preach and teach from OTKP. In particular, how can they discern which predictions are actually fulfilled in the Millennium? Is Isaiah 11:6-9 fulfilled in the Millennium? Since it says nothing of a thousand years, how can they be sure it does not speak “mysteriously” of the World to Come? And what of these premillennial favorites: Isaiah 65:17-25 and 66:22-24? Here the situation is even worse, since the prophet positively affirms that latter-day “Jerusalem”, and the world it will inhabit, will endure forever (65:18, 66:22)!
It appears, then, that NCHP is shut up to Revelation 20 alone for its knowledge of the Millennium. This should make its proponents very uneasy. Do they really want to hang so great an eschatological bundle on so tiny a peg? Again, doesn’t this kind of problem invite a thorough re-examination of the meaning of Revelation 20 beneath the light of NT eschatology?
As for the followers of OCHP, we remember that they interpret OTKP basically literally; that they view these prophecies as photographs of the future of ethnic Israel and the nations living together in the Millennium.
We have seen, however, that this approach plunges the biblical interpreter into a great thicket of difficulties: apparent contradictions, historical anachronisms, a future return to the Mosaic Law, and a losing battle with the NT doctrine of the Kingdom. Happily, we also saw that the apostles do not interpret OTKP in this manner. Yes, they understood that God meant “simple” Messianic prophe*cies—prophecies fulfilled prior to Pentecost—to be interpreted basically literally, and then to be used in the global proclamation of the Gospel. But they also understood that true OTKP’s—prophecies fulfilled after Pentecost—must be interpreted by a skillful use of the NCH, and therefore as being fulfilled in Christ, under the New Covenant, and among the New Covenant people of God: the Church of all times, comprised of Jew and Gentile. Let us be glad of it, for here alone do we find the way of escape from the maddening historical and theological contradictions into which OCHP would plunge us all.
View of the Revelation
Whatever their approach to the Revelation as a whole, all historic premillennarians agree that chapter 20 speaks of events that occur after the Parousia. We have seen, however, that this futuristic reading of Revelation 20 immediately brings them into conflict with the rest of the NT, which pervasively sees the Kingdom as coming in two simple stages, separated by a single Consummation at the return of Christ.
There is, however, a way of escape. We came upon it in Part 4 of our study, where we learned that Revelation 20 is actually one of six visionary cycles, all of which describe the period of time between Christ’s first and second advents. This was particularly evident from the striking similarities between chapters 12 and 20. Moreover, once we recognize that “the first resurrection” of 20:4-6 is spiritual rather than physical, it is easy to see how Revelation 20 symbolizes the course of the Era of Proclamation, and how the whole book now harmonizes perfectly with the rest of the NT.
Summing up, we find that HP entangles the biblical interpreter in inescapable conflict and confusion. When, however, we receive from Christ the Master Keys to the GETD, all difficulties are resolved, and the one true eschatology of Scripture rises like the sun in its strength. I pray my premillennial brethren will receive those keys, and so enter into the joy of the amillennial dawn.
[end of section 2]
____________
The beauty of Dean's book is that it's main focus is the New Testament's (i.e., Christ's and His apostles') hermeneutic method of interpreting prophecy. Little wonder Sam Storms said of it, "the most sweeping and comprehensive book on eschatology that I’ve ever encountered. The scope of this book is simply breathtaking." This is the only book I know almost exclusively focused on the simplicity and beauty of eschatology rightly understood.
_______
Appendix 1
A CRITIQUE OF HISTORIC PREMILLENNIALISM
THIS IS THE first of four appendices in which I offer brief critiques of the main eschatological options before evangelical Christians. My purpose here is not to repeat the arguments and evidences discussed in the body of this book. Rather, I simply want to model what I regard as the most fruitful method for examining different eschatological perspectives, whether old or new.
This method, which reflects the underlying issues of the GETD, involves asking four questions of each eschatological option. They are:
1) What is its view of the nature and structure of the Kingdom of God?
2) What is its view of the nature and structure of the Consummation?
3) How does it interpret OTKP: basically literally, in terms of ethnic Israel and a future Mosaic theocracy; or basically spiritually, in terms of the Church and the spiritual reign of God introduced by the New Covenant?
4) What is its view of the Revelation in general, and of Revelation 20 in particular?
With the help of the time-line shown below, let us use these helpful questions to critique Historic Premillennialism. You may wish to review the material on HP in chapter 3, where I distinguish between New Covenant and Old Covenant HP.
View of the Kingdom
From our time-line we learn that HP envisions the Kingdom as entering history in three stages: the Church Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Millennium, and the World to Come. However, in our journey we found that the NT demurs. Apart from the much-disputed Revelation 20, it says nothing whatsoever about a future millennial stage of the Kingdom. Also, its didactic eschatology completely rules out premillennialism, since it has the Kingdom entering history not in three stages, but two: the Era of Proclamation and the World to Come.
Additionally, NT teaching about the nature of the Kingdom shows that OCHP cannot possibly be true. This is because the two-staged reign of God is a creation of the New Covenant, with the result that the citizens of the Kingdom worship, not in this or that earthly mountain, but in spirit and (New Covenant) truth. There will be no return to the temporary and typological institutions of the ancient Mosaic theocracy.
View of the Consummation
Historic premillennarians look for two distinct Comings of Christ—one at the end of the present evil age, and the other at the end of the Millennium. This complex scenario raises thorny questions. At the first Parousia, who will be judged and who will be allowed to enter the Millennium? How realistic—or biblical—is it to assert that the children of unbelievers will become the nations over which Christ rules? What happens to the millennial saints when they die? Will they immediately receive their resurrection bodies, or will they wait in heaven as disembodied spirits until the second resurrection at the end of the Millennium? How is it that Christ’s glorious millennial reign ends in near universal rebellion against him and his people? And finally, does Scripture really permit us to look for what HP requires: two resurrections, two judgments, and two cosmic transformations, all separated by a thousand years?
Such questions tell us that something is fundamentally wrong with HP. In the course of our study, we learned what it is: The NT consistently looks for a single consummation centered on a single parousia, resurrection, judgment, and cosmic transformation. Therefore, it is the doctrine of a future Millennium that shatters the simplicity of the biblical picture, and opens the door to confusion. Perhaps, then, premillennarians would be wise to re-visit their interpretation of Revelation 20, for by moving it into the present, as amillennialism does, all confusion disappears!
View of OTKP
I rejoice that advocates of NCHP are inclined to interpret OTKP much as amillennarians do: as veiled revelations in which God used OT language and imagery to speak “mysteriously” about spiritual and physical blessings unveiled by Christ and the New Covenant. To paraphrase their Master, they are not far from the truth of the Kingdom!
I wonder, however, how they can preach and teach from OTKP. In particular, how can they discern which predictions are actually fulfilled in the Millennium? Is Isaiah 11:6-9 fulfilled in the Millennium? Since it says nothing of a thousand years, how can they be sure it does not speak “mysteriously” of the World to Come? And what of these premillennial favorites: Isaiah 65:17-25 and 66:22-24? Here the situation is even worse, since the prophet positively affirms that latter-day “Jerusalem”, and the world it will inhabit, will endure forever (65:18, 66:22)!
It appears, then, that NCHP is shut up to Revelation 20 alone for its knowledge of the Millennium. This should make its proponents very uneasy. Do they really want to hang so great an eschatological bundle on so tiny a peg? Again, doesn’t this kind of problem invite a thorough re-examination of the meaning of Revelation 20 beneath the light of NT eschatology?
As for the followers of OCHP, we remember that they interpret OTKP basically literally; that they view these prophecies as photographs of the future of ethnic Israel and the nations living together in the Millennium.
We have seen, however, that this approach plunges the biblical interpreter into a great thicket of difficulties: apparent contradictions, historical anachronisms, a future return to the Mosaic Law, and a losing battle with the NT doctrine of the Kingdom. Happily, we also saw that the apostles do not interpret OTKP in this manner. Yes, they understood that God meant “simple” Messianic prophe*cies—prophecies fulfilled prior to Pentecost—to be interpreted basically literally, and then to be used in the global proclamation of the Gospel. But they also understood that true OTKP’s—prophecies fulfilled after Pentecost—must be interpreted by a skillful use of the NCH, and therefore as being fulfilled in Christ, under the New Covenant, and among the New Covenant people of God: the Church of all times, comprised of Jew and Gentile. Let us be glad of it, for here alone do we find the way of escape from the maddening historical and theological contradictions into which OCHP would plunge us all.
View of the Revelation
Whatever their approach to the Revelation as a whole, all historic premillennarians agree that chapter 20 speaks of events that occur after the Parousia. We have seen, however, that this futuristic reading of Revelation 20 immediately brings them into conflict with the rest of the NT, which pervasively sees the Kingdom as coming in two simple stages, separated by a single Consummation at the return of Christ.
There is, however, a way of escape. We came upon it in Part 4 of our study, where we learned that Revelation 20 is actually one of six visionary cycles, all of which describe the period of time between Christ’s first and second advents. This was particularly evident from the striking similarities between chapters 12 and 20. Moreover, once we recognize that “the first resurrection” of 20:4-6 is spiritual rather than physical, it is easy to see how Revelation 20 symbolizes the course of the Era of Proclamation, and how the whole book now harmonizes perfectly with the rest of the NT.
Summing up, we find that HP entangles the biblical interpreter in inescapable conflict and confusion. When, however, we receive from Christ the Master Keys to the GETD, all difficulties are resolved, and the one true eschatology of Scripture rises like the sun in its strength. I pray my premillennial brethren will receive those keys, and so enter into the joy of the amillennial dawn.
[end of section 2]
____________
The beauty of Dean's book is that it's main focus is the New Testament's (i.e., Christ's and His apostles') hermeneutic method of interpreting prophecy. Little wonder Sam Storms said of it, "the most sweeping and comprehensive book on eschatology that I’ve ever encountered. The scope of this book is simply breathtaking." This is the only book I know almost exclusively focused on the simplicity and beauty of eschatology rightly understood.
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am staunchly amill in my eschatology, but I see the historic premill view in a much better light than the dispensational view, especially those who believe the church(which Christ hung, bled, and died for) to be a parantheses, an intercalation in God's plan for Israel. Yuck!
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
But my point is that there is every reason that unbelievers "immediately go to hades" at the return of Christ. For which see Matt. 13:41-42, 24:39, and Paul in 2 Thess 1:8-10:
" ... Those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ... will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be ... marveled at among all those who have believed"
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Sure. I understand that. The premillennial is just giving due weight to Isaiah 24-27 and Revelation 20 (and possible 1 Cor. 15:20-28).
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you, Jacob. I will look into the Isaiah passages.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And to be clear, I am not arguing for the truth of premillennialism exegetically. I am merely trying to show logical coherence.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Jacob, with respect to your saying, “And to be clear, I am not arguing for the truth of premillennialism exegetically. I am merely trying to show logical coherence”: Apart from sound exegesis there can be no “logical coherence” in the discerning of Scripture. And Scripture is truth (John 17:17).
What weight does Isaiah 24-27 have in support of the premil view?
What weight does Isaiah 24-27 have in support of the premil view?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Logical coherence simply means that my propositions do not internally contradict one another within my system. The original objection was not whether premil's exegesis was correct, but how can they affirm (a) in light of (b). I suggested that there was no contradiction between (a) and (b).
Isaiah's Small Apocalypse is simply another place where premillennialists go for their views. Contra to what people think, Revelation 20 is not the only place. (Ladd was very, very wrong in saying that).
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Can you show where in Isaiah 24-27 you would go to support your views?
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
From what I have heard, Ladd never explained the existence of unregenerate humans in his millennial view, he just assumed it was true. I am not arguing for or against Historic Premill (although I am Amill). I am just asking how they logically get unregenerate people into thier millennium. Still havent heard an answer. But alas, Jacob is the only one answering for them here on the PB and I am reluctant to belabor the point. I have spent some time searching online to no avail.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Isaiah 24:21ff
On that day the Lord will punish
the host of heaven, in heaven,
and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
22 They will be gathered together
as prisoners in a pit;
they will be shut up in a prison,
and after many days they will be punished.
If the final punishment of the unregenerate happens simultaneously with other events, then it's hard to explain "the many days."
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
My suspicion is that Ladd didn't really care. While he became the representative of Historic Premil, most premils thought he was just another amillennialist (and most of his exegesis tends to go that route).
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Thanks for your responses, Jacob, you really do put heart and effort into it! Though the passage in Isaiah 24:21-23 is a very wobbly peg to hang the premil schema on!
E.J. Young wisely says, “It is well to ask when the ‘many days’ [of Isa 24:22] begin, for the proper answer to this question will enable us to ascertain the purpose of the phrase.” (Commentary on Isaiah, Vol 2, p 180.)
When does this passage from Psalm 2 refer to?
Why do the heathen rage,
and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder,
and cast away their cords from us. (Psalm 2:1-3)
We see it first fulfilled in Acts 4 when the apostles and their fellows prayed as they did in verses 23-39, quoting Psalm 2:1-2, referring to what befell Jesus a little while before.
We see another fulfillment at the very end of the church age, after the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] trumpet sounded in Rev 11:18, where Psalm 2 is clearly alluded to:
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
The kings of the earth “shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison” (Isa 24:22) as they die all during the church age, as well as those—the entire mass of unregenerate, kings included—who war against the LORD and His Anointed at Armageddon, immediately prior to the white throne judgment.
With regard to the angelic beings who fell, spoken of in Isa 24:21, “the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high” binding them throughout the age, to be punished at the eschaton, is this not confirmed by 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 [cf. John 12:31, Col 2:15] ?
Is it not, on the face of it, far more in accord with other parts of God’s word, to say that Isa 24:22,
“And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited”
refers to the vast bulk of the rebels all through the church age consigned to the pit—the abyss where the devils are likewise consigned—all awaiting the final Judgment? Though there is a full loosing of the devils at the very end of the age, in fulfillment of the Lord’s decrees (Rev 20:1-3, 7-9; 9:1-21).
There are no unregenerate survivors of Armageddon; “glorified millennial saints” walking the yet [mildly?] cursed earth with unregenerate survivors is but dark fantasy conjured up through neglecting to interpret Old Testament Kingdom prophecies with a New Covenant hermeneutic such as Christ and the NT writers display. These old ghosts of earlier error die hard.
E.J. Young wisely says, “It is well to ask when the ‘many days’ [of Isa 24:22] begin, for the proper answer to this question will enable us to ascertain the purpose of the phrase.” (Commentary on Isaiah, Vol 2, p 180.)
When does this passage from Psalm 2 refer to?
Why do the heathen rage,
and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder,
and cast away their cords from us. (Psalm 2:1-3)
We see it first fulfilled in Acts 4 when the apostles and their fellows prayed as they did in verses 23-39, quoting Psalm 2:1-2, referring to what befell Jesus a little while before.
We see another fulfillment at the very end of the church age, after the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] trumpet sounded in Rev 11:18, where Psalm 2 is clearly alluded to:
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
The kings of the earth “shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison” (Isa 24:22) as they die all during the church age, as well as those—the entire mass of unregenerate, kings included—who war against the LORD and His Anointed at Armageddon, immediately prior to the white throne judgment.
With regard to the angelic beings who fell, spoken of in Isa 24:21, “the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high” binding them throughout the age, to be punished at the eschaton, is this not confirmed by 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 [cf. John 12:31, Col 2:15] ?
Is it not, on the face of it, far more in accord with other parts of God’s word, to say that Isa 24:22,
“And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited”
refers to the vast bulk of the rebels all through the church age consigned to the pit—the abyss where the devils are likewise consigned—all awaiting the final Judgment? Though there is a full loosing of the devils at the very end of the age, in fulfillment of the Lord’s decrees (Rev 20:1-3, 7-9; 9:1-21).
There are no unregenerate survivors of Armageddon; “glorified millennial saints” walking the yet [mildly?] cursed earth with unregenerate survivors is but dark fantasy conjured up through neglecting to interpret Old Testament Kingdom prophecies with a New Covenant hermeneutic such as Christ and the NT writers display. These old ghosts of earlier error die hard.
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
Steve, I neglected to thank you for your informative reponses. I appreciate the effort!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I do not find Young's analysis convincing, nor do I "hang the thread" on Isaiah 24 (side note: this represents a problem for interpretation. Anytime a premil is asked to find another proof-text besides Revealtion 20, we find it only to be told that isn't sufficient to build an entire scheme, which we never planned to do. Imagine if Covenant Theology were run through the same hermeneutic of suspicion! /end side note)
As I've said several times, I am not trying to defend the exegesis, but merely showing that given my exegesis, these aren't logical contradictions.
Kim Riddlebarger has said elsewhere that these discussions depend on prior hermeneuitcal presuppositions. I agree. I will go a step further. They depend on presuppositions concerning what is possible in ontology.
As I've said several times, I am not trying to defend the exegesis, but merely showing that given my exegesis, these aren't logical contradictions.
Kim Riddlebarger has said elsewhere that these discussions depend on prior hermeneuitcal presuppositions. I agree. I will go a step further. They depend on presuppositions concerning what is possible in ontology.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And Steve, you know I love you even though we disagree. You do a lot of great work for the kingdom.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Jacob, I have respect and affection for you as well, but this is swordplay between friends, and we must have at it.
I’m sorry but your approach to defending the Historic Premil is sort of like an ER doctor with a patient, running around giving him all sorts of shots and treatments, combing the hair of the patient, and tidying his gown, but the patient appears to be a corpse and the doc just keeps repeating “There are no logical contradictions in my efforts!”
The ER of sound doctrine is no place for philosophy, when what is at stake is a vision of the future based upon Scripture. In this ER all that matters is a hermeneutic that can stand up to sharp critical scrutiny.
I mention one remark of Young that is quite to the point and you deflect the common sense of it by saying his analysis is not convincing—I didn’t even bring anything of his analysis into the discussion. I but said, in effect, we do well to look at the context of the “many days” saying, when it might have begun.
This is a discussion between you and me (and Jim), not what transpires between amils and premils elsewhere in the universe or digital domains.
“Hermeneutics of suspicion”? What I suspect is the corpse is dead—it shows no sign of spiritual life, no sign of intact Scriptural coherence, just assertions that “logically” it is coherent, which assertion is not sufficient to maintain it is Scripturally alive. Them's just words.
“Hermeneutical presuppositions” by their nature must be built upon the word of God. They must be internally intact, that is, coherent and self-sustaining by demonstrating they rightly and adequately fulfil the Scripture. When differing “hermeneutical presuppositions” clash, the victor prevails by demonstrating the inadequacy of the Scriptural coherence of the other—meaning, it just doesn’t hold together—it has fatal internal contradictions.
You seem to dance around rather plain exegesis with philosophical remarks which are really beside the exegetical points. They cannot bring the patient back to life.
I’m sorry but your approach to defending the Historic Premil is sort of like an ER doctor with a patient, running around giving him all sorts of shots and treatments, combing the hair of the patient, and tidying his gown, but the patient appears to be a corpse and the doc just keeps repeating “There are no logical contradictions in my efforts!”
The ER of sound doctrine is no place for philosophy, when what is at stake is a vision of the future based upon Scripture. In this ER all that matters is a hermeneutic that can stand up to sharp critical scrutiny.
I mention one remark of Young that is quite to the point and you deflect the common sense of it by saying his analysis is not convincing—I didn’t even bring anything of his analysis into the discussion. I but said, in effect, we do well to look at the context of the “many days” saying, when it might have begun.
This is a discussion between you and me (and Jim), not what transpires between amils and premils elsewhere in the universe or digital domains.
“Hermeneutics of suspicion”? What I suspect is the corpse is dead—it shows no sign of spiritual life, no sign of intact Scriptural coherence, just assertions that “logically” it is coherent, which assertion is not sufficient to maintain it is Scripturally alive. Them's just words.
“Hermeneutical presuppositions” by their nature must be built upon the word of God. They must be internally intact, that is, coherent and self-sustaining by demonstrating they rightly and adequately fulfil the Scripture. When differing “hermeneutical presuppositions” clash, the victor prevails by demonstrating the inadequacy of the Scriptural coherence of the other—meaning, it just doesn’t hold together—it has fatal internal contradictions.
You seem to dance around rather plain exegesis with philosophical remarks which are really beside the exegetical points. They cannot bring the patient back to life.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
My understanding in the OP was about logical consistency, which is what I was addressing. If I tried to address both the truth or falsity of historic premil and loggical consistency, the thread would get unwieldy.
Nicholas Perella
Puritan Board Freshman
I do not see the logical consistency of what you, Jacob, said above. I thought you might have tried to phrase it differently. As Mr. Rafalsky said, only God's written Word is logically consistent, and to try to demonstrate without God's Word a logical consistency will in this fallen world be futile. The inconsistencies will arise without the standard, who is God, to back them up. Which I am sure this must be not unknown to you.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In epistemology there are at least two approaches: coherentism and correspondence. Coherentism says a system can be true if it logically coheres. That is a necessary condition for truth but not a sufficient one. You are confusing the two.
"Only logically consistent" with respect to what? Are you a Clarkian? I think you are confusing the final source of theological authority with a system.
In any case, that claim is simply false. For example:
* Heliocentrism is logically self-consistent, yet the Bible doesn't teach it.
*geocentrism is logically self-consistent, yet is wrong.
*Hegelianism is logically self-consistent--indeed, that is the very point of Hegel's Logic, yet it is obviously wrong.
"Only logically consistent" with respect to what? Are you a Clarkian? I think you are confusing the final source of theological authority with a system.
In any case, that claim is simply false. For example:
* Heliocentrism is logically self-consistent, yet the Bible doesn't teach it.
*geocentrism is logically self-consistent, yet is wrong.
*Hegelianism is logically self-consistent--indeed, that is the very point of Hegel's Logic, yet it is obviously wrong.
Nicholas Perella
Puritan Board Freshman
I am not referring to general revelation, which is still based on God and His ways. I am referring to what God has revealed to us by His written Word in contrast to the statement of yours I quoted. To answer one of your questions: logically consistent in respect to God and His written Word. I am asking for you to demonstrate how your statement is logically consistent which it can only be in accord with God's written Word. Unless you are trying to tell me you know outside of His written Word as to how "unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King".
- Status
Similar threads
