#premillennial

[theexodvs]

[graceandpeacejoanne]

Revelation: Preparation for the Millennium

Apocalyptic literature becomes especially meaningful for those who are suffering. When the going gets rough, it helps to see the light at the end of the tunnel, to know the last page of this story ends well. #Millennium #SecondComing

We are poised to begin the last part of John’s Revelation. The Arc of Revelation Revelation: Over-Arching Story During the three cycles of increasingly catastrophic troubles and woes to be experienced at the end of human history, John is given a series of visions revealing spiritual battles in the heavenly realms. Angel armies crash together, and cast out the enemies of God. A pregnant woman…

View On WordPress

[wisdomfish]

Opt for the amillennial view

[1. Scripture Nowhere Else Clearly Teaches a Thousand-Year Millennium]

First, nowhere else in Scripture is a thousand-year millennium clearly taught, and a new doctrine should not be founded on an intensely controversial text, especially from an apocalyptic book full of symbolism.

[2. Revelation 20 Might Be Telling the Story of Revelation 19:11–21 from Another Perspective]

Second, we have seen that Revelation is recursive and recapitulatory, coming to the end and then telling the same story again from a fresh perspective. John might be doing the same thing in Revelation 20, telling the story of Revelation 19:11–21 from another perspective.

[3. The Supposed Millennium Texts of the OT Don’t Appear in Revelation 20—But They Do in the New Creation Texts of Revelation 21–22]

Third, many of the texts allegedly speaking of the millennium in the OT (e.g., Isaiah 60 and Ezekiel 40–48) are not alluded to in Revelation 20.

What is even more striking is that these same chapters are copiously alluded to in Revelation 21:1–22:5. In other words, the so-called millennial texts are fulfilled in the new creation! This suggests the promises of a renewed world and new temple in the OT are fulfilled in the new creation, not in a millennium.

Some want to say the fulfillment is in both the millennium and the new creation, but it is hard to see how the new temple prophesied in Ezekiel 40–48 is fulfilled in any way in the millennium.

[4. The Early Church Fathers Were Divided on This Question]

Fourth, the early church fathers were divided on the millennium. Sometimes it is claimed the earliest fathers were premillennial, but Charles Hill has demonstrated the matter was disputed, and many were amillennialists. Hence, we cannot appeal to the early church to find a consensus on the matter.

[5. Who Are the Unglorified People in the Millennium If Jesus Destroys All His Enemies at the End of Revelation 19?]

Fifth, the historic premillennial view has difficulty explaining the unglorified people in the millennium, for when Jesus returns at the end of chapter 19, he destroys all his enemies.

It is straining to say that some were left on earth who survived Jesus’s return.

The NT clearly teaches Jesus’s return is the day of reward and judgment for all (Matt. 25:31–46).

[6. Scripture Nowhere Separates Out the Timing of the Final Resurrection, Final Judgment, Victory over Death, Arrival of the New Creation, and Second Coming of Christ]

Sixth, in Scripture the final resurrection, final judgment, victory over death, arrival of the new creation, and second coming of Christ are part of a total package.

There is no indication in any other text that these great events are separated.

[7. Amillennialism Fits Best with the Rest of the Scriptures]

Finally, we will see below that the premillennial reading of Revelation 20 has some very good arguments, but the amillennial reading has remarkable strengths too. And since the latter fits best with the rest of the scriptural witness, it should be favored.

~ Justin Taylor

[jasrandal]

1-20-2016 From David's Throne, Jesus Saves

1-20-2016 From David’s Throne, Jesus Saves

Jesus Christ, “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24 NKJV). After He was bodily raised from the dead and witnessed by hundreds, He finally spoke to His Apostles and said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe…

View On WordPress

[dribex-blog]

Ladd's "Theology of the New Testament"

It was Mark Noll's opinion that George Eldon Ladd's contribution to theology equaled and maybe even surpassed that of John Calvin (Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 1991). I cannot even begin to evaulate that statement, but I cite it only to point out the significant contribution of Ladd's magnum opus, A Theology of the NT. My copy is dated 1974, but it was updated in 1993 by his former student and colleague at Fuller, Donald Hagner. (Logos has an electronic edition of the latter). In some ways, Ladd's treatment breaks no new ground. It goes over the standard theological treatments of the Gospels, the Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Apocalypse. It was written for seminary students, and is quite thorough. Ladd himself acknowledged that he omitted a treatment of the theology of the individual synoptic writers and the unity and diversity in the NT, which both were supplied by RT France and David Wenham in Hagner's updated 1993 edition. The work surpasses in its depth the books by Ryrie and Morris, and is not replaced by the weightier tomes of Schreiner and Marshall. Ladd's special theological contribution was his development of the "now and not yet" paradigm for the Kingdom and for many related aspects of eschatology. There are some who curse that contribution and others who hail it as a evangelical breakthrough that bridges the gap between old covenantal theology and newer dispensational theology. This is not the place to cover adequately this issue, so I only offer a couple of personal; observations. 1. Older dispensationalists distinguished between the kingdom of God ("now") and the kingdom of heaven ("not yet"). While they now reject that distinction as exegetically invalid (see Matt.19:23-24), they still distinguish between the present and future (millennium) forms of the kingdom. Is Ladd's approach that radically different? I think what really bothers some premillennialists about the "now and not yet" paradigm is that it sounds too much like "both-and" and we like to make distinctions, not blur the borders! It should also not be forgotten that Ladd remained a premillennialist throughout his career (see The Meaning of the Millennium, ed by Robert Clouse). 2. Ladd's watchword of "the now and the not yet" was also connected in the past to Geerhardus Vos' Biblical Theology, and has now been teased out in all its implications by Greg Beale in A NT Bibliical Theology, who prefers "the already and the not yet" (19, 429-37). Beale's work is the only recent NT Theology that compares to Ladd's, although their formats are different, and Beale's stress on "new creation" is uniquely his own. Again, more can be said at another time, but George Ladd's influence, while not rivaling that of Calvin, should not be underestimated. He may be cursed or blessed today, but he should not be ignored.