wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (12/04/90)
Robert Johnson writes: > >The Kingdom is the 1000 year reign of Christ on this earth >immediately after the end of the current age (age of the Gentiles). The age >of the Gentiles will last approximately 2000 years and is about over. Then >their is the millemium, or 1000 year reign of Christ called the Kingdom in >the Bible. The kingdom should not be confused with heaven. In this article I attempt to show why Millenialism is unscriptural. I do this from the point of view that all of scripture is inspired of God and useful for instruction. In particular, the message of Revelation can be of great spiritual benefit to the reader, provided it is read with understanding. My chief reference, other than the Bible, is Siegbert Becker's excellent commentary on Revelation, "Revelation: The Distant Triumph Song" published by Northwestern Publishing House. I might add that this book is a great bargain at $16.95. It is important that we understand what Scripture truly teaches on this matter, because Millenialism is enveloped in a thick spiritual darkness and a great deal of superstition. Some people are led to strange ideas concerning various modern political entities, particularly the county of Israel, as if that still has a special role to play in God's plan for the world. Further every major threat of war seems to inspire thoughts of Armageddon, as if that were a physical, and not a spiritual battle. But Christ warned us that wars and rumors of wars must happen, and that we should not be alarmed by them. Various millenialists, predicted the millenium to arrive in 1466, 1775,1776, 1810,1836,1847, 1848, 1879, 1880, 1887, and 1914. Many of the people who had been deceived by these false prophets were disillusioned when the promised event did not occur. In some cases, the false prophet was able to hang on to at least a portion of his following by re-interpreting the event. I think this applies in particular to the Adventists (William Miller) and the Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell). See Deut. 18:22, concerning false prophets. The roots of Millenialism are found in Jewish misinterpretations of the Messianic prophecies. In some prophecies, the Messiah was portrayed as a conquering king, a glorious ruler, whose kingdom would last forever. In others, He was portrayed as a humble, suffering servant, who would be wounded, spit upon, and rejected by men. This contrast was so sharp that some Jews thought there would be two Messiahs, one a political ruler, and the other a priest from the tribe of Levi who would suffer. This in spite of Zechariah's prophecy, "He shall be a priest upon his throne," which showed the Messiah to be both priest and king. Other Jews, perhaps most of them, and certainly most that live today, ignored the prophecies of the suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53 in particular) and focused on the prophecies concerning the Messiah as king. Even today we can see how some Christians think they can advance the kingdom of God through political means. That this view was prevalent in Jesus' day is evident in the way his disciples misunderstood him. When Jesus said he would go to Jerusalem and be killed, Peter responded "Never, Lord!" Even on the day of his ascenscion they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6) In a sense, they asked the right question for the wrong reason. The Kingdom of God was about to begin, as Christ ascended bodily into heaven, to sit down at the right hand of the Father. He has reigned over this kingdom, sometimes called Israel, but more usually known as the Christian Church, ever since. In this sense the kingdom belongs to Israel. However, it is clear that the disciples were not thinking along those lines. I have to presume that Christian millenialists find their key passage in Revelation 20. This speaks of an angel from heaven binding Satan with a great chain for a thousand years, that he may no longer deceive the Gentiles, but after the thousand years he must be released for a short time. "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given to them, and [I saw] the souls of those who were beheaded because of their witness about Jesus and because of the Word of God, namely, those who did not worship the beast and his image and did not receive his mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not live until the thousand years come to an end. This is the first resurrection" This is the only scripture passage that speaks of a thousand year reign. The central topic here is the souls of the martyrs. They have life and they reign with Christ a thousand years. It does not speak of an earthly kingdom; indeed, Christ said "My kingdom is not of this world." Particularly since it speaks of souls we can safely say that this is about the souls of the departed martyrs living and reigning with Christ in heaven. The only difficulty is the 'thousand years' and the binding of Satan. First of all, it does not say that Christ's reign is limited to a thousand years. Elsewhere (Rev.11:15) it is written that 'he will reign forever and forever'. Rather this passage says that the souls of the martyrs lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. If I say that my brother Tom is coming to live with me for 2 months, that does not mean that I will live for only 2 months. What does it mean to have life, or to live? In John 5:24 we read, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me *has* eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." It is interesting to compare this to Rev. 20:6: "Blessed and holy is he that has a part in the first resurrection. Over them the second death has no power, but they will continue to be priests of God and of Christ, and they will rule with him for the thousand years." In these and many places conversion is spoken of as a resurrection. In Ephesians 2, the unbeliever is described as dead in his transgressions and sins, but the believe is made alive in Christ. Colossians 2:12 speaks of our *having been* buried with Christ in baptism and raised with him through faith. John 3:3-8 speaks of conversion as being 'born again'. In John 10:10 Jesus said "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full", and in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." To have real life means to have a connection to God, to have the 'right relationship'. God is the source of life, apart from him we are dead. The unbeliever may seem to have life, but he only has a fleshly existence; he is spiritually dead. We receive eternal life when we believe in Christ; he has already purchased it for us (redemption) and offers it to us freely through the preaching of the gospel. When our bodies die, we continue to live; our souls don't die but live in heaven with Christ. This is the full meaning of Christ's words, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." It is also interesting to note that the souls of the martyrs are called priests, just as the living believer is called a priest by Peter. (1 Peter 2:5,9). So we understand the 'first resurrection' to be conversion. The 'second death', judgement and punishment of unbelievers (v. 14), has no power over the believers. The unbelievers however, have never had life. Their souls continue to exist, even after they die, but they neither live nor reign with Christ. The 'second resurrection' is not named explicitly but is called so in contrast to the first one. It is described in Rev. 20:11-15. It is a resurrection of believers and unbelievers, not just of souls, but the souls are miraculously reunited with the bodies. That the believers are present is apparent from the fact that the Book of Life is opened. So what are the 'thousand years'? The word 'thousand years' occurs in only two other places in Scripture, and then only to show God's timelessness. So we are left with the Scriptures before us, Rev. 20. We conclude that the 'thousand years' must refer to the time between conversion and Christ's return for judgement. Or we might say that it refers to the time from Christ's ascencsion to his return. In this sense 'a thousand years' denotes a 'complete' period of time. So the message of the living and reigning of the martyrs with Christ is that: 1. They live! They are not dead, but they live with Christ, and we will see them again at the resurrection. 2. They reign! They reign with Christ, who is king over the whole creation. Perhaps after the resurrection and judgement, they won't need to reign anymore? After all, we won't need the sun and moon either! (Rev. 21:23) At any rate the problem of 'why don't they keep reigning with Christ after the thousand years' is the same whether you reject or accept the Millenium. This leaves us with the 'binding of Satan'. If the thousand years is now, then in what sense is Satan bound? First let us understand the purpose of the binding 'that he might no longer deceive the Gentiles (nations) until the thousand years are come to an end.' Since the creation and fall, and then since Noah, the people of the world started with the revealed knowledge of God, and in particular the promise of the Savior, Gen 3:15. However they all lost this knowledge, presumably through Satan's deception. Only through Israel, the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did this knowledge persist -- and even then it was sadly neglected. But with the coming of Christ, who 'went out conquering and to conquer', (Rev. 6:2) the trend was reversed. The Gentiles received the Gospel of salvation, many with joy. Christ said that the Gospel was to be 'preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations' (Matt 24:14) 'and then the end will come' (Note: he doesn't say that a Millenium will come, but 'the end'). When we believe the Gospel, we are freed of Satan's yoke of slavery, and we are no longer decieved. True, "This world's prince may still, Scowl fierce as he will," but, "He can harm us none, He's judged, the deed is done, One little word can fell him." -- Martin Luther, 'A Mighty Fortress is Our God', v. 3 Satan is bound in the sense that his power is limited. His power of deception is limited so that people can believe the Gospel. He will be loosed when the Gospel is no longer preached (a very disturbing thought indeed). Indeed he is free now to deceive men when the Gospel is not preached or is distorted by false teachers. This final loosing might be the same as the death of the two witnesses, word and sacrament, Rev. 11:1-10. In Rev. 20:7-10 it appears that the enemies of Christ, 'Gog and Magog' gather from the four corners of the earth to do battle against the church ('the camp of the saints and the beloved city'). This battle is undoubtedly the same as the 'battle of Armageddon', Rev. 16:12-16, Rev. 19:11-21. These are all visions of a final persecution of the christian church. The message of comfort is that Christ will be victorious in the end. 'Armageddon' is a transliteration to Greek of the Hebrew 'Har Megiddo' mountain of or near Megiddo. The most prominent mountain near Megiddo is Mount Carmel, where Elijah did battle with the priests of Baal. This was not a physical battle so much as a spiritual battle for the hearts of the people. God showed himself to be the true God when he sent 'fire from heaven' to consume Elijah's sacrifice. Similarly in Rev. 20:9 we read of Christ's enemies that 'fire came down from heaven and devoured them' -- a slight departure from Elijah's battle, since the fire consumes the enemies rather than the sacrifice, but the symbolic parellellism seems intended. To say that Armageddon depicts a physical battle between human armies, has no basis in Scripture. No actual fighting is depicted in any of these passages. They just say that God wins, and rather suddenly at that. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "The day is surely drawing near When God's Son the Annointed, Shall with great majesty appear As Judge of all appointed. All mirth and laughter then shall cease When flames on flames will still increase, As Scripture truly teacheth. "A trumpet loud shall then resound And all the earth be shaken. Then all who in their graves are found Shall from their sleep awaken; But all that live shall in that hour By the Almighty's boundless pow'r Be changed at His commanding. "A book is opened then to all, A record truly telling What each hath done, both great and small, When he on earth was dwelling; And ev'ry heart be clearly seen, And all be known as they have been In tho'ts and words and actions. "Then woe to those who scorned the Lord And sought but carnal pleasures, Who here despised His precious Word And loved their earthly treasures! With shame and trembling they will stand And at the Judge's stern command To Satan be delivered. "O Jesus, who my debt didst pay And for my sin wast smitten, Within the Book of Life, oh, may My name be also written! I will not doubt; I trust in Thee, From Satan Thou hast made me free And from all condemnation." --"Es ist gewisslich an der Zeit" v. 1-5 --Bartholomaeus Ringwaldt, 1586 --from "The Lutheran Hymnal", #611 My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
fiddler@eng.sun.com (Steve Hix) (12/14/90)
In article <Dec.4.01.10.12.1990.950@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: > Robert Johnson writes: > >The Kingdom is the 1000 year reign of Christ on this earth > >immediately after the end of the current age (age of the Gentiles). The age > > In this article I attempt to show why Millenialism is unscriptural. I do OK > Various millenialists, predicted the millenium to arrive in 1466, 1775,1776, > 1810,1836,1847, 1848, 1879, 1880, 1887, and 1914. You missed a big one in 1844. Two, in fact. > Many of the people who > had been deceived by these false prophets were disillusioned when the > promised event did not occur. In some cases, the false prophet was able > to hang on to at least a portion of his following by re-interpreting > the event. I think this applies in particular to the Adventists (William > Miller) and the Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell). Don't know about Russell, but I don't believe that Miller ever claimed to be a prophet. Went out of his way to disclaim such, actually. After the 1844 events, was quite clear on the point that he had been mistaken in his (and other supporters) interpretation of the applicable parts of Daniel's prophecies. (Also did not accept the doctrine of Millenialism.) Don't believe that the majority of Adventists today accept Millenialism...'cause is ain't scriptural. Reamainder of your article quite interesting. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (12/17/90)
Steve Hix writes >Don't know about Russell, but I don't believe that Miller ever claimed >to be a prophet. Went out of his way to disclaim such, actually. Quite correct. >After the 1844 events, was quite clear on the point that he had been >mistaken in his (and other supporters) interpretation of the applicable >parts of Daniel's prophecies. (Also did not accept the doctrine of >Millenialism.) Don't believe that the majority of Adventists today >accept Millenialism...'cause is ain't scriptural. Miller believed that the sanctuary to be cleansed in Daniel 8:14 was the earth, and this meant the second coming of Christ. Both the small Advent Christian Church (direct line from leaders of Millerite movement) and the then-offshoot but now much larger Seventh-day Adventists believe that Christ's coming will be at a time which is soon but unspecified, and that we should live each day in readiness for that time. I don't know what Mr. Hix means by the doctrine of Millenialism. Millenialism falls into two classic streams--postmillenialism which teaches Christ will return after 1000 years of peace on the earth, and premillenialists who teach that Christ's return precedes the 1000 years of peace. Seventh-day Adventists believe that living and reigning with Christ a thousand years will be in heaven, after which Christ will return with his saints to the earth and create "new heavens and a new earth." Thus we attach no particular political significance to the millenium, nor do we attach any religious significance to the current turmoil in the Middle East. Further questions on this topic about particular Adventist beliefs may be directed to SDAnet, the Adventist mailing list, at st0o+SDA@andrew.cmu.edu Steven Timm Physics Department Carnegie Mellon "Shame on you, and shame on you again for converting me into a bullet and shooting me into men's hearts." Richard Harris c 1972
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (12/19/90)
In article <Dec.16.19.45.40.1990.21698@athos.rutgers.edu>, st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: > > I don't know what Mr. Hix means by the doctrine of Millenialism. > Millenialism falls into two classic streams--postmillenialism which > teaches Christ will return after 1000 years of peace on the earth, and > premillenialists who teach that Christ's return precedes the 1000 years > of peace. > > Seventh-day Adventists believe that living and reigning with Christ > a thousand years will be in heaven, after which Christ will return with > his saints to the earth and create "new heavens and a new earth." > Thus we attach no particular political significance to the millenium, nor > do we attach any religious significance to the current turmoil in the > Middle East. I can understand how you might say this is not millenialism, because the living and reigning is in heaven and not on the earth. However from my point of view it is a kind of millenialism, because it puts a millenium where (IMHO) it does not belong. When Christ returns, he will judge the world, and his believers will inherit the kingdom, i.e., the new heavens and the earth. It may be, however, that what the Seventh-day Adventists believe on this matter is less harmful (IMHO) than some of the other theories that have been put forward. When I read the book, 'America in Prophecy' it appeared that Miller really tried to be responsible in his interpretation with Scripture. I think the main difference that I have with the Adventists, (and this may be the seventh-day variety) has to do with the observance of the law. The book cited above makes the claim that the church moved the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, contrary to God's express command. What I believe is that we observe no Sabbath at all, for the Sabbath is part of the old covenant. Paul told us in no uncertain terms not to put ourselves under that covenant --see Galatians. To make it clear that we are not observing the old Sabbath, we in Christian freedom meet for worship on Sunday --and on other days as well. The Adventists (at least according to the book 'America in Prophecy', believe that by restoring the Sabbath to Saturday, they show their freedom from the papal antichrist. As a Lutheran I have to applaud their motive, but to put yourself under the Law (or to appear to do so) is moving in the wrong direction. (IMHO) But perhaps we can discuss that some other time. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
jclark%sdcc6@ucsd.edu (John Clark) (01/03/91)
In article <Dec.19.04.40.15.1990.28387@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: ..... +(and this may be the seventh-day variety) has to do with the observance +of the law. The book cited above makes the claim that the church moved +the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, contrary to God's express +command. What I believe is that we observe no Sabbath at all, for the This 'observance' of the law comes under the commmand of '..if you love me, you will keep my commandments..." Of course the next question is "Which commandments?". Since there are many commandments in the bible it would seem that one could pick an choose which ones. >Sabbath is part of the old covenant. Paul told us in no uncertain terms Well is it? Is 'thou shall not commit adultery' part of the old covanent? Well, that seems to very well supported in all accepted Christian varients. Of course some activities are reiterated as being 'sinful' in the New Testement. However by their absence are other laws which are not specifically related to temple worship 'old covanent' and hence not applicable? -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu [Those who accept only some of the Law generally make distinctions between a permanent "moral" Law and specific signs and ceremonies intended to be part of the covenant with the Jews. Generally they would consider adultery to be part of the moral Law, and so still accept that commandment. This is obviously a subjective distinction, but surely you can see that worshipping on a particular day seems rather more like having specific festivals such as Passover and Booths, rather than as a basic moral principle? Since it's hard to be clear about the exact dividing line between "moral" and "ceremonial" law, it seems appropriate to cite Paul's advice in Rom 14:4 that those who regard one day as special and those who do not should respect each other's choices. --clh]
fiddler@eng.sun.com (Steve Hix) (01/07/91)
In article <Jan.3.04.22.02.1991.14483@athos.rutgers.edu>, jclark%sdcc6@ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: > In article <Dec.19.04.40.15.1990.28387@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: > >Sabbath is part of the old covenant. Paul told us in no uncertain terms > > Well is it? Is 'thou shall not commit adultery' part of the old > covanent? Well, that seems to very well supported in all accepted > Christian varients. > > [Those who accept only some of the Law generally make distinctions > between a permanent "moral" Law and specific signs and ceremonies > intended to be part of the covenant with the Jews. Generally they > would consider adultery to be part of the moral Law, and so still > accept that commandment. This is obviously a subjective distinction, > but surely you can see that worshipping on a particular day seems > rather more like having specific festivals such as Passover and > Booths, rather than as a basic moral principle? I can see how someone could take that line of reasoning. On the other hand, splitting up the ten commandments in such a (arbitrary? convenient?) fashion might be a case of needlessly increasing complexity. (Ol' Bill of Ockham would frown, perhaps...) For example, the dietary laws in Leviticus fit together as a package. The civil codes fit together as a package. The ceremonial laws fit together as another package...so why split up the ten commandments? Maybe their description solely as "moral" is more restrictive (by current English usage) than needful. Would they be better looked on as a description of our ideal (minimum) relationship with God and other people? The "relational" laws? We show proper repect and honor each other by either doing some things (honoring our parents, etc.) or not doing others (avoiding murder, adultery, lying, etc.) We also show proper respect and honor God by avoiding some things (using his name in vain, worshipping other entities), and by doing some other things (Sabbath observance as a means of acknowledging his Creatorship of all things, etc.) Not to try to stir up message traffic, btw, just to point out another approach to the topic. :} > Since it's hard to be > clear about the exact dividing line between "moral" and "ceremonial" > law, it seems appropriate to cite Paul's advice in Rom 14:4 that those > who regard one day as special and those who do not should respect each > other's choices. --clh] No problem there... -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------