Interesting perspective; I had not heard that before.

I am curious, though. It is plausible to interpret Revelation 20 in this way (though it’s more educated eisegesis than exegesis). But how would you reconcile that with Isaiah 65? Believers who are believers at the opening of the millennium enter in with glorified bodies. People with glorified bodies don’t reproduce, like you said. But they don’t die either; therein lies the problem with Isaiah 65 (I’m particularly referencing verse 20).

I suppose it is remotely possible to state that “a young man shall die at 100 years old” simply means that someone a century old will be considered young, though. This seems like a stretch, however.

-Eric

The question is, “who composes the nations that are gathered by Satan?” It could be the demons, or the unbelievers who were not part of the first resurrection. The former is somewhat likely. The latter is a little less unlikely, but not impossible. They are resurrected for their judgement.

While I may not agree with how you have structured your arguments, thank you for searching the Scriptures.

In Christ,
Curtis E. Schulz

It is interesting that the dispensational hermeneutic has problems with Rev. Many of the promises given to Israel, particularly in Isaiah, are not fulfilled in Rev. 20 but earlier, or later (the New Heavens & New Earth for instance in 21-22).

Sam Storms argument is not about whether they fit an amil or postmil position. He argues as we all should- biblical expectations and exegesis.

The term parousia means “presence.” Outside of the NT, the term was especially used to refer to a king or other dignitary’s presence. It was not used to refer to “the moment one walks through the door.” Instead, it was the subsequent presence that this term refers to. Paul uses it this way in a non-regal sense as well — even contrasting it with his absence.

In the context of the Second Coming, sometimes it is the initial aspects of the parousia that is emphasized, and sometimes it is the ongoing aspects that are noted.

Amills wrongly assume that the parousia is some instantaneous event or brief period. This does not consider the complex nature of the Second Coming. And it is a false dichotomy to say “1000 years after his Return” as if the 1,000 years are not included in his presence!

Did God accomplish all he wanted in the manger during the first parousia? Of course not, God accomplished his will during Christ’s ministry, death, and resurrection. The First Coming taught us that it was about 33 years in length. Scripture teaches us that the Second Coming will be at least 1,000 years in length. That last statement may rub against someone’s sensibility. But if God has chosen that he will accomplish his will during this time, so be it.

So yes, death and sin will be done away with at his Second Coming, just not at the moment Christ comes in the clouds or the moment he touches down, as Amills would neatly think.

God will fulfill a complex number of elements to consummate the Kingdom. His parouisa (presence) extends into the millennium, culminating with the end of sin and death.

So the term parousia is not equated to Christ coming with the clouds and thereby everything is consummated at that every moment. And the Second Coming is not distinct from the millennium — his presence will be there for its entirety, then at that point his kingdom will be ushered into the eternal age.

Incidentally, many commit the word-concept fallacy in this discussion. Even though parousia is a very important term, we should not stop at passages that use this term, since there are many other passages that should considered that use other eschatological terminology.

i guess i shouldve gone on in isaiah 9 – it goes on to say “upon the throne of david”.

when jesus says ‘all authority in heaven and earth is given me’ – does that mean ‘now that ive ascended’? ive never heard it taught that way, id have to hear a reasoning for that.

colossians 1, john 1, etc seem to say that ‘all authority’ ALWAYS belonged to Christ through all eternity. so theres a sense in which the government was upon His shoulders already,
but theres a sense in which “the government WILL BE upon His shoulders…the throne of david”

but yeah, ive always interpreted that part of the great commission to just be like ‘oh yeah, and dont forget, Im completely sovereign. always was, always will be. thats the hope and assurance of the great commission. so now go do it – by My power’ i never saw it as ‘ive conquered death and am ascending and now i reign in a new way’. id have to see that explicitly.

6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Get busy people!

Please allow me to encourage you have your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt (Col. 4:6).

I was raised in a premillennial setting but do not any longer hold this view in an unqualified way. I accepted the amillennial critique which pointed out that unmodified premillennialism leads to a ‘doubling’ of returns of Christ, of resurrections and of judgment days. But I still hold to this view with modifications. The best short articulation of a premillennialism shorn of its excesses is provided by Bruce Milne in his book, _What the Bible teaches about the End of the World_ (Tyndale House, 1979)
“Christ will appear in glory to bring history to an end, but before the eternal state fully dawns there will be a period of his visible reign in a renewed earth in the midst of his resurrected and glorified people” (p.91,2). [I should stress that this does not appear to be Milne's own view].

Such a view preserves, intact, the following themes:
1. Jesus Christ is returning, with little or no warning, from the right hand of the Father to judge and reign (Matt. 25.31ff)
2. The saints are to reign with Christ here, and to assist in the great judgment (1 Cor.6.2; Rev. 20.4). He will be seen for who He is, and so shall we (1 John 3.2,3)
3. The possibility that what we term the ‘day’ of judgment will be an extended season or era of judgment and that Christ’s reign on earth may be substantially concerned with setting the world right in this and other ways.
4. This era of the visible reign of Christ in judgment will give way to the eternal state and new heavens and earth.

Does someone ask, “why hold such a drastically modified premillennialism?”. The best answer I can think of is that it is the premillennial movement which has best kept before the church the advent hope as a real prospect, a motive to holiness and world evangelism. Not by some necessity, but only by their practical tendency, the other two main millennial positions do not stress the return of Christ with any of the same regularity and passion which the premillennial position (yes, with its excesses)has demonstrated.

1) Ephesian Church- Access to eat from the tree of Life in the Eden of god

2) Smyrna church- Will not be hurt by the second death

3) Pergamum church- eat of hidden manna & white stone with new name

4) Thyatira church- Authority over the nations with Christ

5) Sardis church – dressing in white and name written in book of life

6) Philadelphia church – Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name

7) Laodicea – Enthronement with Christ

Now, it is possible that some of these rewards can be interpreted as all coming at different times, but it is more reasonable to read these rewards as different aspects of the whole of which will come when Christ returns (Rev 22:12). In other words, Jesus ties together the reward of entering the new Jerusalem city with eating of the tree of life in the Paradise of God. He ties together enthronement on God’s throne with being endowed with authority to rule the nations with a rod of iron. These all seem to be the reward given to the suffering saints when Christ returns.

Also, John also speaks of a “reigning” of God and His Saints once the new heavens and new earth appears (Rev 22:5). This is after all the wicked have been cast out of the city, and yet the saints still reign.

The difficult part is that revelation 20 does seem to say that believers will be raised to reign with Christ, and this cannot be interpreted to be anything else other than that reward which Christ held out to all the churches in the first 2 chapters of this revelation.

To make an analogy, it’s like the Jews expecting the Messiah to overthrow Caesar, and being depressed when all He did was die for their sins.

Err… not saying you’re a Pharisee or anything. :) And I’m not saying either the Premil position or Amil position is correct – I’m in the midst of study on the subject myself – but I do think the argument presented here is flawed from the start.

Do you other Post/A-mill people agree? I do, honestly, without hyperbole.

That being said, there is something that scares me. It sounds an awful lot like the Arminian who says “If Calvinism is true, I could never love/worship that God.” I always wonder, “Are you really prepared to make a statement like that? What about the smallest chance that you’re wrong??”

Pre-Mill folks are always quick to point out that “resurrection” is Always dealing with a bodily resurrection. However, their demand for “literalism” seems to end there. In the same text “thrones” is used which is used Exclusively in both Revelation and other NT passages to refer to scenes in Heaven. Using the same argument that Pre-Mill folks insist on with one word, would lead to a dismissal of their view on the second word.

Secondly, “resurrection” is only used 1 time in Revelation and so we do not know how John uses the term inside this book. Also, it is the term “first resurrection” which is unique from the rest of NT examples. For this reason, we should be more willing to allow for a different understanding of the term than some pre-mill folks would insist upon.

In the stream of Wright and company, it seems Revelation gives it a unique meaning which is “comes to life” that is, is raised to the intermediate state. The second resurrection, then, would be the bodily resurrection at the end of the age.

I think that is a fair summary of his view.

“I will examine Revelation 20 in detail in a subsequent chapter. But in this chapter I want to look closely at those texts in the NT that, in my opinion, render impossible a post-Parousia millennial kingdom on earth.”

Are you able to post this as well, Justin?

I am intrigued by Dr. Storms arguments, and all he says about there being just one resurrection with the passages he discussed is all well and good… but how does he address the “first” and “second” resurrections of Rev. 20:1-6?

Other amillennialists, I’m thinking of Riddlebarger in particular, claim that the first resurrection is not physical, but actually refers to regeneration.

The other passage I would like to see addressed is the seventy weeks prophecy. Is the seventieth week simply the entire church age? Was half of it fulfilled by Nero?

I believe that these two passages are some of the most crucial when determining eschatology, particularly the first one with regard to this particular debate.