# How does a premillenialist respond to the "problem of evil" objection



## steven-nemes (Apr 28, 2009)

The argument put forward by Riddlebarger in A Case for Amillennialism, roughly stated : Jesus Christ teaches at the end of the age when he returns, the evil will be thrown away into the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth while the good will be taken away. How can there be evil in the millennium (the great apostasy at the end of it) if the evil people are thrown away at the coming of Christ?

Perhaps my argument is not as precise as it ought to be, but I"m sure someone will be able to adjust it if need be.


----------



## reformedminister (Apr 28, 2009)

I used to be a Dispensationalist. According to some Dispensationalists, in Matthew 25, we have the separation of the sheep and the goats. This is referred to as the judgment of the nations that takes place at the Second Coming, just before the Millennium. The sheep are supposed to represent those who were good to Israel during the Tribulation. They are allowed to enter the Millennium based on their treatment of Israel. The earth will be populated with resurrected saints and the sheep. When Satan is loosed at the end of the millennium, he will deceive the nations, which is made up of this "sheep", and of their offspring. It sounds kind of wacky if you ask me. I never did completely embrace it.


----------



## Bern (May 10, 2009)

Must admit, I've never heard that teaching. Sheep and goats always meant elect or non elect to me.


----------



## jogri17 (May 10, 2009)

The Tim Lahaye argument is that believers who survive the tribulation will have to die but will live longer due to Christ's earthly reign. They will have kids who will have kids, ect... and each person has the responsibility of ''accepting Christ''. So it will work the same way as now only they will have the benefit of knowing the truth with 100% for certain but many will still reject Christ as Lord.


----------



## Rangerus (May 10, 2009)




----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 24, 2009)

Jesus says at the resurrection there is no marrying and giving in marriage; if he takes the resurrection at the beginning of the millennium to be a literal resurrection of the bodily dead, then there won't be any marrying and having kids in the millennium.


----------



## BoldBeliever (Jul 22, 2009)

Simple: You must first understand the definition of MILLENNIUM.

The word millennium is a misnomer. The _chilioi_ (Rev 20) is actually a period of undetermined length. It could easily be written as thousands. If you try to take the millennium as a literal and exact 1000 years, you will get confusion. We all know who the author of confusion is. 

Once that is understood, then we can continue on. The Hebrews believed in the Olam Ha Ba or world to come. Jesus even mentioned it in his teaching on the resurrection and marriage. One of the things marked by the Olam Ha Ba was that Messiah's influence (reign) would be universal over the nations.

When did the Olam Ha Ba/Millennium start? 

Let's look at Mt 28:18 shall we?

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, *"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.*

Enter Melech Moschiach. Messiah the King. The reign of Messiah began at that statement. He then ascends to the throne of the Ancient of Days (Daniel) to _begin the reign_. 

Scripture never states that there will be no sin/evil in the World to Come. In fact, Jesus intimates that there _would_ be sin/evil in the World to Come when he tells the Pharisees that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this world or the world to come. That tells us there apparently are things that _will_ be forgiven in the world to come.

The over-literalists amongst us have done us a dis-service by trying to make the millennium out to be a golden age.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 22, 2009)

*Ξιλιο does not mean "thousands"*



BoldBeliever said:


> Simple: You must first understand the definition of MILLENNIUM.
> 
> The word millennium is a misnomer. The _chilioi_ (Rev 20) is actually a period of undetermined length. It could easily be written as thousands. If you try to take the millennium as a literal and exact 1000 years, you will get confusion. We all know who the author of confusion is.



Actually, the word χιλιοι is unique in that it always (in the LXX and GNT) occurs in the plural, and by itself, means 1000. Examples are Ex. 39:2, Judg. 8:26, Judg. 15:16, 2 Sam 19:18, Neh. 3:13, Dan. 12:11, Rev. 11:13.

The word can never mean "indefinite thousands." For that we need the word χιλιας. Numbers 31:5 illustrates both words - Out of the thousands (χιλιαδων, from χιλιας) of Israel, a thousand (χιλιοι) from every tribe.

Now, in a literary composition, 1000 years could be a figurative expression, but the word itself refers to a definite number and can never literally mean "thousands."

-----Added 7/22/2009 at 01:58:17 EST-----

Oops, I forgot to answer the OP. All Premillennialists have to have some way of getting living, breathing mortals into the Millennium. Dispensationalists do this through the "tribulation saints." They missed the Rapture resurrection, so now they have to wait for the one at the end of the Millennium. They don't place a resurrection at the second advent. 

Historic Premills I'm not as sure of, but Grudem argues that some of the Antichrist's forces will surrender, and Jesus won't kill them. Quite counter-intuitively, we now have only unbelievers populating the kingdom. 

I personally find this problem to tell heavily against premillennialism.


----------



## BoldBeliever (Jul 22, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> BoldBeliever said:
> 
> 
> > Simple: You must first understand the definition of MILLENNIUM.
> ...



Charlie, there is chilias and there is chilioi. I have been given to understand that chilias is the number 1000 whilst chilioi means thousands. The idea of thousands of years rather than exactly 1000 years certainly makes sense, since Christ began to reign at the Ascension. I went back and looked up chilioi again, just to make sure I didn't make an error. Chilioi doesn't mean 1000, but a thousand. Now how that plays out in Greek, I can't say. Perhaps someone with greater Greek skills can explain the usage in Rev 20. It seems from this vantage point that if God meant exactly 1000 years He would have had John use chilias. 

If one of the pastors or a Greek scholar can explain the nuance in language it would certainly help.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 22, 2009)

BoldBeliever said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > BoldBeliever said:
> ...



Ed, χιλιοι by itself never means thousands. It is a unique form that always occurs in the plural, yet always means exactly 1000 except when combined with another number. I gave you a whole list of passages exemplifying that. Beyond that, you could just look at a lexicon:

Friberg: as a cardinal number one thousand 
Louw-Nida: thousand 
Thayer: a thousand
LEH (Septuagint): a thousand, one thousand
BDAG: a thousand
Middle Liddell: a thousand

The other word, χιλιας, means 1000 in the singular. In the plural by itself, it can mean (indefinite) thousands. For example, the "thousands of Manasseh" in Deut. 33:17, or the uncountable thousands in Rev. 5:11.

So, if the word in Rev. 20 were χιλιας, I could agree with you. But there is no support anywhere in the extant Greek literature for χιλιοι meaning (indefinite) "thousands." It either means exactly 1000 or has an accompanying number specifying how many thousands.


----------



## BoldBeliever (Jul 23, 2009)

OK, I see the point. I'm still not convinced that the 1000 years is a literal thousand however. Perhaps it's an expression? Like 'Tenno Banzai' in Japanese (may the Emperor live ten thousand years) or Hitler's 1000-year Reich, or an exasperated parent saying to a child "I've told you a thousand times."

Since Christ began to reign at the Ascension, and there have been 2000+ years since, I can see no other possibility. Pre-millennialism doesn't have much to commend it. A-millennialism is a misnomer; obviously there is a millennium, it's a matter of semantics how to define it. That leaves post-millennialism, or as I call it, post-Magogism.

Post-millennialists seem to forget that there is a brief period of time AFTER the Christian era in which the godless, influenced by Satan (as Gog to their Magog), rebel and come to battle the Church (ideologically and I suppose possibly even physically through worldwide persecution). The whole world will not be converted, but it will/has been influenced by Christ and his teaching. There is considerable evidence in my opinion that we may be at that point in history right now. 

Thanks for explaining chilioi/chilias Charlie.


----------



## KMK (Jul 23, 2009)

BoldBeliever said:


> Scripture never states that there will be no sin/evil in the World to Come. In fact, Jesus intimates that there _would_ be sin/evil in the World to Come when he tells the Pharisees that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this world or the world to come. That tells us there apparently are things that _will_ be forgiven in the world to come.



Could you clarify what you mean by 'world to come'?


----------



## BoldBeliever (Jul 23, 2009)

The term world to come (Olam ha Ba) refers in Judaism to the reign of Messiah when the knowledge of the LORD covers the earth as the waters cover the seas. The Jews of Jesus' day would have recognized the term I'm sure. It roughly corresponds to what we think of as the millennial reign.


----------

