Amillennial Thoughts

There are some questions that make me wonder, "Why?" Why would you want to think that? One is the question of the millennium. An old, then discarded, now resurrecting idea is called amillennialism. It variously means different things to different people, who all call themselves, "amillennial."

For some, it is kind of a "post millennial" idea that Jesus will come back to set up His kingdom on earth at the end of the millennium. The actual definition of millennium is often fuzzy as well. One philosophy is that the millennium has already begun and we are in it.

This is particularly strange, in light of the many specific details about the millennium that are seemingly ignored or discounted. This thought is not so much designed to answer any such questions as it is to question why anyone would want to hold such an idea in the first place. There  seems to be a problem with integrating the rapture into the time line, not to mention the tribulation as introduced in Daniel 9 (70 weeks) and fleshed out in Revelation 6 through 19. Revelation 20 portrays Satan as being bound, coincidentally, for 1000 years.

In a related question, the Pre-tribulation rapture has been pretty well defended. Why is there a push to move it to mid-tribulation or post-tribulation? The a-mill seems to be a further extension of this. Does it include a rapture at all? What reason is there for such a shift? I honestly do not know.

A second troubling dissent is the controversy between "old earth creation" and "young earth creation." A cursory reading of Genesis 1 and 2 seems to indicate that God created the earth in six literal days. (Bible Words) Why would any decision be made to discount the literal reading? Is there some other Scripture which drives this, or something out side of Scripture?

A third, and possibly trivial instance, but don't tell the participants, is whether Hosea is a literal or figurative. This is an account of a prophet who married a prostitute or a figurative picture of a hypothetical situation depicting the interaction of God and His people. They are acting the role of an adulteress.

The "millennium question" subsumes the rapture question to some degree. Daniel 9 tells of the 70 "weeks" (sevens) of years prophesy for Israel. (490 years) It began when Cyrus ordered the return of the Jews to the land and the commanded (or authorized) them to build, or rebuild the Temple. The time clock was shut off 483 years later with the cutting off of the Messiah. Then some time markers were inserted to help orient us to the next events.

Jerusalem was totally destroyed in A.D. 70, as prophesied by Jesus some 500 or so years after Daniel's words. Then the time clock would begin again with a seven year treaty with the Jews. The anti-Christ committed to protect them for seven years. At the midpoint, or three and one half year mark, he breaks his treaty and initiates the most cruel and comprehensive persecution of the Jewish nation in history. This ends with the coming of Christ (Revelation 19). This is followed by the millennium (Revelation 20) where the phrase "one thousand years" is repeated six times.

The teaching is outlined by our friends at gotquestions.org to help us get a handle on it. As best I can understand it, the amillennial position is focused on the concept that the church, believers, will be so effective in transforming the world that it will become "habitable" for Jesus and He will return and rule forever and ever. Or maybe transform it into heaven. Again, I have a hard time finding any definitive as to these details. I did find an explanation of the position by Hoekema.*

In essence, the "unfulfilled prophesies" that we see in the Old Testament are not literal, but will be "spiritually" fulfilled in the Kingdom, which began when Christ defeated Satan on the cross. We are in the millennium now and it will extend for an undetermined time, until Jesus comes back.

One salient characteristic is that the promises to Abraham about "his seed" will not be restricted to a literal fulfillment with the Jewish nation. They will include Jews and Gentiles in the new heaven and new earth where the King will reign and the "people" will be permanently planted in the land. (New heaven and new earth) The people are believers and the specific promises to Israel will be fulfilled  in the promises to the church, or vise versa.

Again, I do not see where the Daniel prophesies are incorporated and the specific Revelation details are also lost in fog. The real puzzler, for me, is why go through such convoluted contortions to "help" God fulfill what He has said. Is that more or less believable than the idea that He will complete everything He said in a future series of events? Ones that have, incidentally, been at least sketched out in several specific passages ranging from Ezekiel on through Revelation?

Just one final thought. If the amillennial position had been "in vogue" during Daniel's time, would they have interpreted all of the promises of return to the land, a new temple, and even the advent of the Messiah as "spiritual" and would be "fulfilled" as the people settled down in Babylon and worked to make the world "suitable" for the Messiah to come and rule over the "world" of then?

Up until 1948 there was not nation of Israel, so a "spiritual" interpretation would make sense from the historical point of view. God could and would "restore" His people, along with Gentile believers, to a future kingdom. But the advent the nation in direct and specific fulfillment of some prophesies might, and does, elicit questions as to why the remainder will not also be literally enacted.

Why, to repeat the question, would an interpreter want to confuse and confound the picture by diverging from the simple understanding of what it says? And where is the basis for that view in Scripture? Sola Scriptura.