# Does Premillennialism actually come from a LITERAL interpretation?



## Manuel (May 4, 2011)

I read this on another thread:



Osage Bluestem said:


> I'm premillennial. However eschatology is my weakest area. I was raised amillennial but I don't believe Riddlebargers arguments make much sense anymore compared with what scripture actually says. *I believe it must literal not symbolic or it just doesn't make sense.*


I hear this a lot from premillenialists, and yet I have never found one single passage in the Scriptures that interpreted literally will lead me to premillenialism, without reading them with a premillenialist predisposition and/or assumption; so what are the pasages in Scripture that I'm supposed to interpret literally that will lead me to premillenialism? Is Premillenialism really an eschatological position that stems from a literal interpretation of prophecy?


----------



## LawrenceU (May 4, 2011)

In a short answer, no. If it were it would be the historic interpretation of Scripture. It is not. Historically it is a rather novel ideal.


----------



## discipulo (May 4, 2011)

A starting point on the topic is that Premillenialism assumes that the mention of 1000 years in Revelation 20:2-7 means literally a period of 1000 years.

But the weeks of Daniel no longer mean literal weeks of 7 days. 

So the alleged premill literal hermeneutic is very inconsistent. 

I remember a booklet by a dutch Dispensational premil called Wim Malgo that said that the locusts in Rev 9 are helicopters. 

Premill + Dispensationalism, In my humble opinion, makes quite a mess out of Redemptive History.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 4, 2011)

As far as a literal 1000 year period, that is in Rev. 20, although it is very doubtful that it was intended literally. Once you accept a literal millennium, then you have to accept a literal reign of Christ on the earth, so in that sense you would be premillennial in that Christ must neccesarily come back prior to the start of the millennium.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 4, 2011)

The post apostolic fathers were premillennial. It seems it was the majority position actually until Augustine invented Amillenialism with his book the City of God in around 420AD! That's a long time after the apostolic age ended. It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts.


----------



## KSon (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts.


 
This is where a "Now covering head" emoticon would be most-appropriate.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> The post apostolic fathers were premillennial. It seems it was the majority position actually until Augustine invented Amillenialism with his book the City of God in around 420AD! That's a long time after the apostolic age ended. It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts



While it is certainly true that many early church fathers held to a premillennial view, it was certainly not the consensus or even neccesarily the majority. Most of the early supporters of premillenialism were Jewish converts whose view on this was heavily influenced by their understanding of Jewish prophecy. As for the actual apostles, we obviously do not know how they felt and I find it curious that we would somehow think it less likely for a Christian in 150 AD to misinterpret scripture than a Christian today. The point is that many people in early Christianity held to a premillennial view, and many did not, just as it is today. Your blanket assertion that all the post apostolic church fathers were premillennial is false and misinformed. It is also worth noting that the variety of premillenialism held by early Christians looks very little like the dispensational variety held today,which is truly a cult in itself In my humble opinion.


----------



## Fly Caster (May 4, 2011)

It's been interesting to be involved in a Bible study of Isaiah with a group of guys almost exclusively premillennial. Some things that I have noticed about the "literal" method of interpretation:

O.T. references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion, Babylon, etc. are to be taken "literally" but N.T. references defining Israel, Zion & Jerusalem as the Church are not.

O.T. references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion, Babylon, etc. are to be taken "literally" but some O.T. references to Edom refer to all nations opposed to God.

The "literal" interpretation is the most simple, straightforward, and easily understood, while the final outcome of the system looks like this--








... and the final outcome of my own more complex, complicated and confusing manner of interpretation looks like this--


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 4, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > The post apostolic fathers were premillennial. It seems it was the majority position actually until Augustine invented Amillenialism with his book the City of God in around 420AD! That's a long time after the apostolic age ended. It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts
> ...


 
If we take what the actual apostles wrote literally then we arrive at premillenialism. John Macarthur is very good at explaining this. Welcome to Grace to You


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> If we take what the actual apostles wrote literally then we arrive at premillenialism. John Macarthur is very good at explaining this. Welcome to Grace to You



If you read what Jesus said in the gospels, you will see that premillenialism is untenable.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 4, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > If we take what the actual apostles wrote literally then we arrive at premillenialism. John Macarthur is very good at explaining this. Welcome to Grace to You
> ...


 
I don't understand how.


----------



## KSon (May 4, 2011)

I have found in my studies of eschatology the word "literal' is in no way helpful. The issue is one of hermeneutics, in particular which priority to you hold to with regards to the OT and NT:

1. The NT is read in light of the OT
2. The OT is read in light of the NT

To paint with a broad brush and say that amillers arrive at their conclusions through a lesser level of exegesis would be wrong (not saying you have). I would invite you to read some of the writings mentioned above, as well as some of the writings of Greg Beale, to see that Option #1 (favored by the likes of John MacArthur) has some issues when you look at the ways the NT, and the apostles in particular, use OT texts.

Some cursory searches of previous PB threads may prove profitable in this as well.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> I don't understand how.



You could read The Gospel in Revelation by Graeme Goldsworthy, or just read the gospels themselves. I think Jesus best summed it up when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The reason that the Jews crucified Jesus was because they were expecting a messiah who would overthrow the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom. Jesus made it clear that the kingdom was spiritual. People are now making the exact same mistake regarding his second coming, expecting an earthly kingdom. Let me say it again, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AND WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SPIRITUAL ONE!


----------



## Brandon1 (May 4, 2011)

Consider this from Justin Martyr,

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXX)

The early church is varied on this topic. It is true that the early church practiced pre-millenialism, however, read the early churches theology and see if its premillenialism is informed by a dispensational hermeneutic. Read Irenaeus "On Apostolic Preaching." Read Tertullian "Against Praxeus." These arguments against the Gnostics focus on the continuity of God's revelation from Old to New Testament and the importance of seeing biblical history as one part in a larger story.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 4, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand how.
> ...


 
I've been reading the gospels my whole life. I just don't see it. It is true that Christ has a spiritual kingdom but it is also true he will have an earthly one and all of the prophecies to Israel will be fulfilled. There is no other way to explain the temple in Ezekiel other than the premillennial model. Even Matthew Henry had no explaination for this. He called it the most difficult part of scripture. The reason for that is because Amillenialism and Postmillenialism can't explain it. It doesn't fit at all. I've never read a good explaination for it other than the premillennial model.


----------



## torstar (May 4, 2011)

1st Thess 4:

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with *a loud command*, with *the voice of the archangel *and *with the trumpet call of God*, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. 

This has always been given to me as the reason behind belief in a pre-trib, pre-mill Rapture. A secret dog whistle one whereby nobody knows what happened, but every believer disappeared, with 2 returns of Christ embedded here, with a delay between.

The 3 times I have asked someone to read it very carefully and honestly tell me just where I would find any of their view here, 2 admitted it doesn't even remotely exist and 1 got really angry. One pastor friend who teaches this view sheepishly admits it's just not there but his flock likes the thought of it.

I used to believe it till I read it for myself... patience is advised...

---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

Also, please do not confuse what would be called an "historic" pre-mill view with the "dispensational" pre-mill view.

I trust those who are cloaking their mixing of the two are not being deceptive...


----------



## Steve Curtis (May 4, 2011)

Eusebius traces the history of chiliasm to Papias (circa 130): “The same author [Papias] presents other accounts... among them, indeed, he says that there will be a period of about one thousand years after the resurrection of the dead when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth. I suppose that such ideas came to him through a perverse reading of the apostolic accounts... he is responsible for the fact that so many ecclesiastical writers after him, relying on the antiquity of the man, held the same opinion; for instance Irenaeus, and whoever else may have held the same views." (_History of the Church_: 3, 39, 11)


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> I've been reading the gospels my whole life. I just don't see it. It is true that Christ has a spiritual kingdom but it is also true he will have an earthly one and all of the prophecies to Israel will be fulfilled. There is no other way to explain the temple in Ezekiel other than the premillennial model. Even Matthew Henry had no explaination for this. He called it the most difficult part of scripture. The reason for that is because Amillenialism and Postmillenialism can't explain it. It doesn't fit at all. I've never read a good explaination for it other than the premillennial model.



Israel, the temple, and the new Jerusalem are all the same thing in the NT, the church of Christ.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 4, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > I've been reading the gospels my whole life. I just don't see it. It is true that Christ has a spiritual kingdom but it is also true he will have an earthly one and all of the prophecies to Israel will be fulfilled. There is no other way to explain the temple in Ezekiel other than the premillennial model. Even Matthew Henry had no explaination for this. He called it the most difficult part of scripture. The reason for that is because Amillenialism and Postmillenialism can't explain it. It doesn't fit at all. I've never read a good explaination for it other than the premillennial model.
> ...


 
It gives specific building plans and even details activities. I see no way to spiritualize it. Spiritualization here ignores the text.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------




torstar said:


> [/COLOR]Also, please do not confuse what would be called an "historic" pre-mill view with the "dispensational" pre-mill view.
> 
> I trust those who are cloaking their mixing of the two are not being deceptive...


 
Indeed. I was hoping someone would mention that there are different views on that. Some intermingle like Macarthur.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> It gives specific building plans and even details activities. I see no way to spiritualize it. Spiritualization here ignores the text.



The entire book of Revelation is very detailed, and yet it is very symbolic in nature. The genre of Hebrew prophetic literature is always like this. D.A. Carson teaches a class on Revelation at Trinity and before he lets his students even begin to dig into Revelation, they have to read at least 1000 pages of this type of literature so that they can understand the genre before trying to interpret.


----------



## Fly Caster (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> It gives specific building plans and even details activities. I see no way to spiritualize it. Spiritualization here ignores the text.



Does one have to be a 'literalist' to recognize that God, in building a "building fitly framed together" growing into His "holy temple," would have a specific plan and detailed activities?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Osage Bluestem said:
> ...


 
Sproul points out that many atheists will read the Gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus prophecied that His Kingdom would come in the first century. I am out the door so I cannot post the specifics, but look at Luke 9:27, Matthew 24 (This generation will not pass....), John won't taste death until Christ returns, etc. Taking these verses literally would show that premillennialism is an impossibility. These verses have to be explained in some other way.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 4, 2011)

I don't think we will ever agree completely on this issue, so maybe we should follow the lead of John Piper and become "panmillenialists"if we just have patience, then everything will "pan"out.


----------



## Claudiu (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Osage Bluestem said:
> ...


 
Luke 24: 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

To say that there is still an earthly Kingdom would be to make the same mistake the Jews made in Jesus' time, for which he rebuked them. More importantly, it would be going contrary to Jesus' words when he says "that all things must be fulfilled."

---------- Post added at 08:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 AM ----------




Manuel said:


> I read this on another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No. As others have mentioned, it is not a consistent literal interpretation. Kim Riddlebarger says something along the lines of premillenialists being "literalistic" (not sure if this was the right word) but not "literal."


----------



## Fly Caster (May 4, 2011)

We can clear up a lot of this by heeding the wisdom stated in Chapter 1 of the WCoF:



> IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.



I see this as the crux of the matter-- a question to be decided before we are ready to pick up the banner of any position. Is the first rule of interpreting scripture that we always apply a 'literal' meaning, or is the first rule that we apply other scripture to determine meaning?

In championing the 'literal' method, Charles Ryrie criticizes the Covenantal method with the following:



> The first is this: as a result of the covenant of grace idea, covenant theology has been forced to place as its most basic principle of interpretation the principle of interpreting the Old Testament by the New. So Berkhof writes, "The main guide to the interpretation of the Old Testament is certainly to be found in the New". Ladd, too, wrote that "the present writer is ready to agree with the amillennialist that there is only one place to find a hermeneutic in the New Testament."
> Of course, there is everything right about letting the New Testament guide us in our understanding of the Old Testament, but there is everything wrong about imposing the New Testament on the Old. And that is exactly what the covenant theologian does un-der the guise of a basic hermeneutical principle that tries to make Christ all in all but that in reality is guilty of superimposing Him arbitrarily on the Old Testament. He does the same with the doctrine of the church and with the concept of salvation through faith in Christ.



I don't want to assume to much, but it's pretty clear that by "imposing the New Testament on the Old" he means looking at the more-clear NT to interpret the less-clear passages of the OT. It's obvious that he is stating that one should employ the literal method and discard the method of interpreting the OT with the NT.

I fear that this strikes a blow against the Divine authorship of scripture. When one interprets the OT without refernence to the NT, he is going to end up with contradictions in his conclusions between the OT and the NT-- contradcictions which must either be reconciled with dual, seperate meanings (Israel always means Israel in the OT although it means the church a select few NT passages) and the inherit confusion that goes with it, or which must be reconciled by allowing unbelief in acknowledging that there are indeed contradictions in scripture.

We honor the Author of Scripture by acknowledging that it is it's own best interpreter. God is the author of scripture, but He is not the author of confusion. As it's author, it is His prerogative to designate it to be it's self-authenticating authority concerning it's interpretation. To protest that interpreting parts in light of clearer parts is in fact "to impose" is to assume that the book consists of divided parts compiled by divided authors held together by a divided cord.

There is still much that we can learn-- and I am but beginning my journey-- but I have to humbly reject the arguments behind the 'literal' method as unworthy. It sounds good-- it sounds noble-- in the face of unbelief and much Criticism today. But in looking more closely, I'm convinced that the Rerformers and the Divines got it right, and that the principle of applying scripture to scripture is the only safe guard against rampant unbelief and rampant confusion in circles of belief today.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 4, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...


 
I believe that in saying this generation will not pass away he meant that their teachings would remain in the world and relevant.

---------- Post added at 11:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------




Fly Caster said:


> We can clear up a lot of this by heeding the wisdom stated in Chapter 1 of the WCoF:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I believe we should employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic while observing the law of non contradiction regarding all of the 66 books of the bible. Using this method is what convinced me the doctrines of grace were truely biblical.


----------



## nwink (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> I believe we should employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic while observing the law of non contradiction regarding all of the 66 books of the bible. Using this method is what convinced me the doctrines of grace were truely biblical.



Heb 12:22 "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, "

I Cor 10:1-4 "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

I could give more examples, but how does one with a wooden-literal hermeneutic understand these verses? In being consistent, wouldn't they have to charge Paul with allegorizing/spiritualizing OT concepts/truths?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 4, 2011)

nwink said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > I believe we should employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic while observing the law of non contradiction regarding all of the 66 books of the bible. Using this method is what convinced me the doctrines of grace were truely biblical.
> ...


 
We don't do it like that. If a passage is obviously spiritual like these are then that is indeed the plain meaning of the text.


----------



## nwink (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> We don't do it like that. If a passage is obviously spiritual like these are then that is indeed the plain meaning of the text.



But were these things "obviously spiritual" when only reading the OT text?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 4, 2011)

nwink said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > We don't do it like that. If a passage is obviously spiritual like these are then that is indeed the plain meaning of the text.
> ...


 
Those things literaly happened. But had a spiritual meaning that was later explained. So on reading the OT it is indeed taken literally that The rock gushed water etc...

It takes a knowledge of the whole bible to arrive at a doctrinal position on any subject in order to ensure the law of non contradiction was observed.


----------



## Romans922 (May 4, 2011)

This seems to be a wasted thread so far. One person says, "I Believe this because the early church fathers believed it" ANother says, "I believe this because the apostles believed it." One person responds, "But you are wrong, Jesus agrees with me." It's like a bunch of squabbling children.

Most everyone is speaking here like the atheist who believes in evolution, at least that is my opinion. You ASSUME too much, and PROVE too little. 


Prove something people, quit name dropping and use the Scripture, give some facts.


----------



## Claudiu (May 4, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> This seems to be a wasted thread so far. One person says, "I Believe this because the early church fathers believed it" ANother says, "I believe this because the apostles believed it." One person responds, "But you are wrong, Jesus agrees with me." *It's like a bunch of squabbling children*.
> 
> Most everyone is speaking here like the atheist who believes in evolution, at least that is my opinion. You ASSUME too much, and PROVE too little.
> 
> ...


 
Quit name dropping like that? (see bold)

As far as I can see people are pointing to scripture. I know Luke 24 is a passage used to show the fulfillment's of prophecy in Jesus.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 4, 2011)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/premillennialism-westminster-confession-faith-52471/

Please, I know you guys are trying hard, there is a lot of misinformation on this thread. I recommend a good slow read in the post above to gain some historical insight on Chilaism, Dispensational Premillennialism, and Premillennialism. 

These doctrines have very significant implications concerning how we see the Kingdom of God. I will say this. Dispensationalism is not tolerated here. It is not biblical nor is it confessional. John MacArthur is a Dispensationalist. 

Read Rev. Winzer's posts on Chilaism and you will gain a good insight into the early Church and the differences between what is taught today and the historic Church. Take some time to learn this. It is worth the time. You can start reading his posts concerning historic Chiliasm and how it is not like our modern day premillenialism here. http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/premillennialism-westminster-confession-faith-52471/#post678162

Thanks guys.


----------



## christianhope (May 4, 2011)

> There is no other way to explain the temple in Ezekiel other than the premillennial model. Even Matthew Henry had no explaination for this. He called it the most difficult part of scripture. The reason for that is because Amillenialism and Postmillenialism can't explain it. It doesn't fit at all. I've never read a good explaination for it other than the premillennial model.



David, you should read Patrick Fairbairn's commentary on Ezekiel, his preliminary discussions on Ezekiel 40-48 are quite enlightening on this topic. Charles Spurgeon stated in his commenting on commentaries that Fairbairns work on Ezekiel is the best on the book. 

It's a difficult vision for sure, but Fairbairn notes that a literal interpretation on the vision is untenable because of the physical impossibilities the text would require, the vague use of "Gog and Magog" in the previous chapters 37-39 and also the fact that Ezekiel states that he received these revelations as 'visions of God' (Ez. 40:2) I would encourage you to check this view out even if it's to aid you in understanding an opposing view. 

Fairbairn did a lot of work seeking to explain prophecy and how it should be interpreted. If you're looking for a scholarly work that is very thorough on how the Bible treats prophecy (the Bible is the chief book on hermeneutics) then I'd recommend Fairbairn's "interpretation of prophecy" as well. He does an excellent job. I've read his interpretation of prophecy and have been going through his commentary on Ezekiel. God bless you in your studies!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 4, 2011)

Let's first stop here and let Dave get a grip on the difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Please. This is very important. He needs to learn this first in my estimation.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 4, 2011)

A quick google search brought up this chart that looks helpful (albeit simplified).


----------



## Manuel (May 4, 2011)

discipulo said:


> A starting point on the topic is that Premillenialism assumes that the mention of 1000 years in Revelation 20:2-7 means literally a period of 1000 years.


Assuming a literal interpretation of the 1000 year does not necessarily lead to premillenialism, you still have to assume that Christ came before the literal 1000 years, something that the text doesn't say.

---------- Post added at 07:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 PM ----------




Osage Bluestem said:


> The post apostolic fathers were premillennial. It seems it was the majority position actually until Augustine invented Amillenialism with his book the City of God in around 420AD! That's a long time after the apostolic age ended. It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts.


The point of the thread is that both Amillenialism and premillenialism interpret some passages literally and other symbolically, and that a literal interpretation of the Scriptures (if such a thing is possible) will not lead you to premillenialism. My point is that premillenialim must be assumed_ a priori_ and then searched for in the Scriptures assuming that it's there. So what are the passages that interpreted literally will lead me to premillenialism without the need of assuming first that premillenialism is there?


----------



## Peairtach (May 4, 2011)

Well I think premils believe that chapter 19 only refers to Christ's literal and physical return, and that the events of chapter 20 chronologically follow the events of chapter 19.

As a postmil, I'd disagree.

They also have Ezekiel's Temple and Zechariah 14 to play with. 

The point is that they are interpreting clear passages such as the Upper Room Discourse in John and the fact that Christ said before His Ascension that all power in Heaven and on earth had been given to Him, by apocalyptic passages, instead of _vice versa_.

If Christ now has all power in Heaven and on Earth, and the Holy Spirit has been given, He can bring about millennial conditions on Earth, and also fill Heaven, by His Word, His Spirit, His Church and His Providence as a process in history.

If He came back to an unrenewed Earth, that would be to bring him down from His hyper-exalted position and to bring Him into a state of quasi-humiliation.



> Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, (Phil 2:9, ESV)



No-one could be converted after Christ returned to Earth.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 4, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> I believe that in saying this generation will not pass away he meant that their teachings would remain in the world and relevant



I understand and respect that interpretation, but premillennialists cannot champion the title of "the only literal eschatological view" and interpret the passage as you just did. The passage does not say that the teaching of this generation will remain in the world. It says that this generation will not pass (which seems to be describing death) before they see all these things (referring to some pretty bad stuff) come to pass. 

Every eschatological view interprets literally at times and non-literal at other times. I think it is improper to state otherwise.


----------



## Manuel (May 4, 2011)

Somebody said that "against a fact there is no argument", well, here is a fact: there is only one passage in the entire Bible where the Millennium is mentioned, Rev 20:1-10; in that passage there is no mention of Christ returning to the earth to establish a kingdom for 1000 years; that passage doesn't say that the Millennium takes place on the earth; it doesn't say that during this period there will be peace on the Earth; there isn't one single reference to any the OT Scriptures that are usually interpreted as referring to the Millennium; the regeneration of the Earth is not mentioned either; all those things must be assumed first, and assuming those things will contradict the literal interpretation of the Scriptures in other passages. So, I still don't see how it's literal.


----------



## jayce475 (May 5, 2011)

Manuel said:


> I hear this a lot from premillenialists, and yet I have never found one single passage in the Scriptures that interpreted literally will lead me to premillenialism, without reading them with a premillenialist predisposition and/or assumption; so what are the pasages in Scripture that I'm supposed to interpret literally that will lead me to premillenialism?



Essentially your question sounds like "how do I interpret scriptures in way that gives premillenialism without reading them like a premillennialist?" Which isn't all that different from "how do I understand the bible without believing in it?" Our "predisposition", i.e. our presupposition (which is to us biblical), is precisely what leads us to premillenialism and we do not have an issue with it.

On a side note, I feel that the tone in this thread could be a bit more irenic.


----------



## Manuel (May 5, 2011)

jayce475 said:


> Essentially your question sounds like "how do I interpret scriptures in way that gives premillenialism without reading them like a premillennialist?" Which isn't all that different from "how do I understand the bible without believing in it?" Our "predisposition", i.e. our presupposition (which is to us biblical), is precisely what leads us to premillenialism and we do not have an issue with it.


My question is: where does the Bible says LITERALLY that Christ is going to set up an earthly millennial kingdom at his coming? Answerso far: NOWHERE. The only biblical answer so far is that the temple prophecy in Ezekiel necessitates an earthly millennial kingdom, but no explanation has been given for this. Premillennialism is not really a LITERAL interpretation of the Scriptures, is an interpretation based on certain presuppositions that I have to have before I open the Bible, that will lead me to take certain things in a literalistic manner and symbolize others; that's the point.


----------



## Manuel (May 5, 2011)

Some biblical examples



> Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.


This is one of the Old Testament passages interpreted as referring to the Millennium, allegedly, a literal interpretation of it will lead me to premillennialism.

To me the literal interpretation is this: During Christ's kingdom the increase of peace will have no end.
This is the Premillennial interpretation: The peace will end after a thousand years and the world will see the greatest war ever conceived by human beings.

The premillennial interpretation doesn't sound very literal to me; as a matter of fact, it seems to contradict the literal interpretation to force Revelation 20:1-10 (a passage that does not say anything about the increase of peace, nor does it make any reference to any prophecy in Isaiah whatsoever) into this Isaiah prophecy. 

Another example:


> Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war *any more*.


Literal interpretation: weapons shall be destroyed forever and there will be no more war EVER.

Premillennial interpretation: Weapons will be destroyed but only for 1000 years, after this they will take the plowshares and their pruninhooks and turn them into swords and spears again, and the nations will lift the sword up against other nations again, and they will learn war again.

the premillennial interpretation seems to contradict the literal interpretation again and raises a lot of questions: the passage in Revelation 20 says that the nations in the four quarters of the earth will go to war and the number of them is like the sand of the sea; this is a lot of people, how long will it take to build an arsenal this big after all the weapons have been destroyed? how long will it take to train all this people to go to war? Who will organize these armies on different nations and make them come as one against Jerusalem? will there be a second Antichrist? Will this be a worldwide rebellion or there still be mortal people loyal to Christ? if so, what's going to happen to them, are they going to just watch with their arms crossed how half of the world rebels against Jesus, or are they going to be killed? If they are killed is there going to be a second "first resurrection" (third for dispensationalists) where the Millennium martyrs are going to rise? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## discipulo (May 5, 2011)

discipulo said:


> A starting point on the topic is that Premillenialism assumes that the mention of 1000 years in Revelation 20:2-7 means literally a period of 1000 years.
> 
> But the weeks of Daniel no longer mean literal weeks of 7 days.
> 
> ...



Manuel, I just mention this as a starting point, obviosuly I was not making a thorough critique of the chiliastic movements, it was just to keep the thread going,

a bump ahead so to speak 

I think your attempt to say that Dispensational Premillenialists have an apriori hermeneutics to read Eschtaology, which is not consistently literal, is basically true.

That's why I mentioned the chiliasm and the weeks of Daniel. 

Don't you think you can interact a bit better with other posts? At times you seem to disagree with those you agree with. Just saying....


----------



## Manuel (May 5, 2011)

> Don't you think you can interact a bit better with other posts? At times you seem to disagree with those you agree with. Just saying....


I'm fighting my cat, discipulo, she wants to type at the same time I do, that's why 

---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------




discipulo said:


> Manuel, I just mention this as a starting point, obviosuly I was not making a thorough critique of the chiliastic movements, it was just to keep the thread going,



I agree with you, they try to literalize the 1000 years in Revelation and then alegorize the 70 weeks in Daniel, that's very inconsistent, but the point in my original reply to your post is that interpreting the 1000 years in Revelation as 1000 years literally does not equal premillenialism, I'm not trying to disagree with you, just pointing out that I would not arrive at a premillennialist interpretation just by assuming that the 1000 years are literal, because premillennialism requires other beliefs, not just that.


----------



## Peairtach (May 6, 2011)

You're right that there is no mention in Revelation 20 of Christ setting up a kingdom which He as the _Theanthropos_ rules from Jerusalem. Good point.

But premils believe that the following passage which precedes Revelation 20 speaks of Christ's literal and physical return to Earth, so I suppose their logic is that He has to do something when He returns.

Postmils would hold that it refers firstly to the defeat of Christ's enemies by Him at a point in history long before the end of time.



> Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great." And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.(Rev 19:11-21, ESV)


----------



## au5t1n (May 6, 2011)

2 Peter 3:10:
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

It is impossible to interpret this literally while holding to premillennialism.


----------



## Gage Browning (May 6, 2011)

austinww said:


> 2 Peter 3:10:
> "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
> 
> It is impossible to interpret this literally while holding to premillennialism.


Good point. What I always wanted a pre-mil to explain was what kind of chains Satan is bound with? Is it "spiritual chains" or "actual steel"...etc. This is why when we must look at Genre and understand that an epistle, a narrative, and apocalyptic literature are quite different and must be approached differently.


----------



## Manuel (May 7, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> But premils believe that the following passage which precedes Revelation 20 speaks of Christ's literal and physical return to Earth, so I suppose their logic is that He has to do something when He returns.


Premils also have to assume here that Revelation 20 is the chronological continuation of chapter 19 even though chapter 20 is introduced as a different vision that John had; so, even if you interpret the vision in chapter 19 as Christ's physical return to Earth, what makes one vision the chronological continuation of the other? how do they arrive to that conclusion? They have to use a linear/chronological interpretation of the whole book, which, in my opinion, would make it really confusing and practically impossible to hold a literal interpretation consistently like they claim.

---------- Post added at 05:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 AM ----------




austinww said:


> 2 Peter 3:10:
> "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
> 
> It is impossible to interpret this literally while holding to premillennialism.


or this one:



> 2Pe 3:7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.



We are told very clearly here that the destruction of the Earth by fire will be followed by the day of judgment and the destruction of the ungodly, so how do we insert here a period of 1000 years before the judgment; or how do we explain the existence of ungodly people in the Millennium if they are all destroyed? The only explanation that I have heard is that the day of judgment will last 1000 years since Peter said that for the Lord one day is as a thousand years.


----------



## au5t1n (May 7, 2011)

Manuel said:


> We are told very clearly here that the destruction of the Earth by fire will be followed by the day of judgment and the destruction of the ungodly, so how do we insert here a period of 1000 years before the judgment; or how do we explain the existence of ungodly people in the Millennium if they are all destroyed? The only explanation that I have heard is that the day of judgment will last 1000 years since Peter said that for the Lord one day is as a thousand years.



But that is not an option for the premillennialist who claims he is taking a literal reading of Scripture while others are not.

When it comes right down to it, you have a choice between accepting plain statements in the gospels, prophets, and epistles as literal and letting the millennium (which sits alongside seven-headed dragons) be symbolic, or you can take the millennium literally (but still not the seven-headed dragons) and reject the plain statements in the gospels, prophets, and epistles. It's a question of which you think is likely to be literal, since they can't both be. The testimony of Scripture outside of Revelation 20 is that the Lord returns, raises ALL the dead, judges the world, and the world ends -- all in one day.


----------



## Peairtach (May 7, 2011)

Revelation isn't the beginning or even the main body of Scripture but the capstone of it. 

The premils fall down by not interpreting Revelation in the light of the rest of Scripture but using their prior view of this admittedly - often, or sometimes at least - difficult book to colour their interpretation of much plainer Scriptures that clearly point away from premillennialism.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 7, 2011)

austinww said:


> When it comes right down to it, you have a choice between accepting plain statements in the gospels, prophets, and epistles as literal and letting the millennium (which sits alongside seven-headed dragons) be symbolic, or you can take the millennium literally (but still not the seven-headed dragons) and reject the plain statements in the gospels, prophets, and epistles. It's a question of which you think is likely to be literal, since they can't both be. The testimony of Scripture outside of Revelation 20 is that the Lord returns, raises ALL the dead, judges the world, and the world ends -- all in one day.


----------



## Manuel (May 7, 2011)

austinww said:


> When it comes right down to it, you have a choice between accepting plain statements in the gospels, prophets, and epistles as literal and letting the millennium (which sits alongside seven-headed dragons) be symbolic, or you can take the millennium literally (but still not the seven-headed dragons) and reject the plain statements in the gospels, prophets, and epistles. It's a question of which you think is likely to be literal, since they can't both be. The testimony of Scripture outside of Revelation 20 is that the Lord returns, raises ALL the dead, judges the world, and the world ends -- all in one day.



Amen to that. 

There are also premillennial teaching that are not even in the Scripture like this one:



> The Bible teaches that after the return of Christ, He will set up an earthly kingdom of 1000 years in duration. The constituents of this earthly kingdom will include both saved and glorified individuals as well as saved and non-glorified individuals. The saved and glorified individuals will consist of all the saved of all the ages from Adam to the last beheaded martyr. The saved and non-glorified group will consist of a remnant of Israel (who is saved at the conclusion of the 70th Week of Daniel) and some Gentile believers who survive to the Day of the Lord.


 Where does the BIble teaches that there will be a mixture of glorified and non-glorified people in God's kingdom? How do we reconcile that teaching with the clear teaching from the Bible that such thing is impossible?


> 1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood *cannot inherit the kingdom of God*; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.


If flesh and blood (people with non-glorified bodies) cannot inherit the kingdom of God, how can someone say that the people who will survive the great tribulation will enter the Kingdom of God with non-glorified bodies and still insist that his interpretation of the Scriptures is strictly literal and everybody who disagrees is allegorizing? That's kind of shocking to me. The ironic part is that the quote comes from a place called "Sola Scriptura".


----------



## Peairtach (May 7, 2011)

The most incongruous part of premillennialism for me is that Christ is brought down from His state of super-exaltation (Philippians 2:9) to live again in sin-tarnished Jerusalem, and presumably to tour this sin-tainted Earth.


----------



## Turtle (May 9, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...


 
I think the atheists would be smarter than that and would see "this generation" does not refer to the ones alive and hearing His words at that time.

Many have proposed that "this generation" (Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32, Matt 24:34) was referring to the listeners at that time, but since the verses say "not pass till _all these things be fulfilled_" (and that generation did not see "the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory" and they did not see the angels gather "the elect from the four winds") then "this generation" cannot refer to those who were alive and listening at the time it was said. They passed and did not "see all these things fulfilled". 

"Take heed lest any man deceive you (about Christ having returned)". Some will say "Behold, Christ is in the desert; go not forth: behold, Christ is in the secret chambers; believe it not." He warned them of literal false Christs who would appear and promise salvation from their grievous experience. He took this occasion to contrast the false signs with the true signs of His own arrival. "This generation" emphasises the one that will see the signs that He reveals will immediately precede His return... "when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

"We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:" (1 Corr 15:51). If someone argues that "this generation" (in the gospels) must refer to those who heard Jesus, then are they not also obligated to use the same logic to argue that some of the original readers of 1 Corr 15:51 are still alive and will remain so until the last trump? 

Even the atheists would not read it that way!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 9, 2011)

Turtle said:


> Even the atheists would not read it that way!



Actually the atheist would read it that way and show that Jesus was bogus because he did not come as you describe.

---------- Post added at 10:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> The most incongruous part of premillennialism for me is that Christ is brought down from His state of super-exaltation (Philippians 2:9) to live again in sin-tarnished Jerusalem, and presumably to tour this sin-tainted Earth.


 
Don't forget that He is will also start accepting sacrifices as if His sacrifice was not enough.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (May 9, 2011)

Fly Caster said:


> It's been interesting to be involved in a Bible study of Isaiah with a group of guys almost exclusively premillennial. Some things that I have noticed about the "literal" method of interpretation:
> 
> O.T. references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion, Babylon, etc. are to be taken "literally" but N.T. references defining Israel, Zion & Jerusalem as the Church are not.
> 
> ...



Don't confuse dispensationalism (and LARKIN dispensationalism at that) with all premillennialism. Historic and Dispensational premill are two different animals.


----------



## Peairtach (May 9, 2011)

*Boliver*


> Quote Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
> The most incongruous part of premillennialism for me is that Christ is brought down from His state of super-exaltation (Philippians 2:9) to live again in sin-tarnished Jerusalem, and presumably to tour this sin-tainted Earth.
> 
> Don't forget that He is will also start accepting sacrifices as if His sacrifice was not enough.



Yes. Plain daft. It's good that God has mercy on dafties, and we're all a bit daft here or there in the things of God, not just the Dispensationalists.



> Quote Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
> Even the atheists would not read it that way!
> 
> Actually the atheist would read it that way and show that Jesus was bogus because he did not come as you describe.



*Boliver*


> Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.(Matthew 24:23-37, ESV)



The above is the point in the Olivet Discourse in which Jesus makes plain to His disciples, whatever the meaning of the sometimes apocalyptic imagery He is using, and whatever the nature of the coming of the Kingdom in the first century with the end of the Levitical economy, He is *not* returning to Earth physically at that point. Apart from anything else, He says that when He returns physically to Earth everyone on earth will know about it and see it, as lightning is seen from one end of the sky to the other.

So atheists, "hyperpreterists" and other assorted numpties can be silent, because in the middle of the Olivet Discourse Christ tells us He is *not* - repeat *not* - returning to Earth physically in A.D. 70.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 9, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> So atheists, "hyperpreterists" and others can shut up, because in the middle of the Olivet Discourse Christ tells us He is not - repeat not - returning to Earth physically in A.D. 70.



You are preaching to the choir here. I was attempting to say that a "literal" reading of apocalypitc literature shows that the Kingdom was set up in the first century. A "literal" reading does not lead to premil. The statement was made that a plain reading of the Gospels leads to premil. I was merely speaking against that point.

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

Kerry,

What is the difference between normal Dispensational and Larkin Dispensational?


----------



## Peairtach (May 9, 2011)

> You are preaching to the choir here. I was attempting to say that a "literal" reading of apocalypitc literature shows that the Kingdom was set up in the first century. A "literal" reading does not lead to premil. The statement was made that a plain reading of the Gospels leads to premil. I was merely speaking against that point.



I understood that. I was just pointing out that Christ emphatically denies His physical return in the first century.

The word "literal" is open to misunderstanding of course and gets confused with "physical". The amils and postmils believe that Christ's present reign in Heaven and on Earth by His Spirit is _literal_ i.e. _real_. It's as literal and real as if Jesus came to earth again and started living in Jerusalem.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 9, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> I understood that. I was just pointing out that Christ emphatically denies His physical return in the first century.



Good to hear. Glad we are on the same page.


----------

