Throughout my last few posts, I have taken as an assumption that futurism (the belief that prophecies relating to the tribulation, Christ’s second coming, and beyond are all yet future) is correct. I have also assumed that amillennialism (the belief that the kingdom of God and millennium of Rev. 20:4-6 relates to the current age of the Church) is false, and that chiliasm or premillennialism (the belief that the kingdom of God and millennium will be established on earth at Christ’s future second coming) is true.
Unfortunately, what I’ve found is that many of my fellow universalists disagree with me on this topic, despite the fact that placing the judgment passages of the New Testament in this framework allows us to make sense of them without denying the scriptural truth of universal salvation. Instead, many universalists prefer a highly allegorical hermeneutic that places Christ’s second coming in the past and interprets the millennium as referring to the modern age (an extreme version of full preterism). Therefore, in this article I would like to explain why this idealist hermeneutic goes against scripture, and why Christ’s second coming and the Messianic kingdom (as well as, I believe, the tribulation) are yet future.
Idealism: is prophecy meant to be allegory?
There is a small number of people, including many universalists, who believe that prophecy is meant to be interpreted in a highly allegorical fashion, and that there is nothing in prophecy that can be taken literally. This approach is known as idealism, and sees all prophecies in Revelation (and the corresponding Old Testament passages) as simply describing the constantly ongoing battle between good and evil. The idealist hermeneutic allows some to suggest that even the New Heaven and Earth and the (purifying) Lake of Fire are presently existing locations that a person’s soul enters after death!
I have seen this allegorical, idealist hermeneutic justified with reference to 2 Corinthians 3:6, which says that “[we are] ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills but the spirit makes alive”. At least superficially, this does seem to support an allegorical hermeneutic. However, looking at the context, it is clear that Paul is not referring to all of scripture in general (and certainly not to prophecy), but specifically to the law. As he says in the next verse, this “letter” of which he speaks was brought by Moses on tablets of stone, and in Romans 7:6,
we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.
Clearly, the “letter” in Paul’s writings refers to the Mosaic law, not to prophecy; he is saying that we must follow the spirit of the law (which is to love one another; Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:14) rather than the law itself. And if you would say that, yes, he’s referring to the law here, but maybe he only meant the law allegorically to refer to all of scripture - congratulations! You’ve entered the realm of unfalsifiability, where no amount of proof can convince you, because it can all be allegorized away.
If you are at this point where you can simply allegorize away any passage of scripture that doesn’t fit with your views, I strongly suggest that you follow Peter’s advice in his second epistle:
And we have more firm the prophetic word, to which we do well giving heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, till day may dawn, and a morning star may arise — in your hearts; this first knowing, that no prophecy of the scripture doth come of private exposition, for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake. (2 Pet. 1:20-21)
In light of this, we must be careful never to spiritualize scripture beyond what the context allows. For example, no one believes that the ‘beast’ of Revelation 13 is a literal monster with seven heads and ten horns, but based on the Old Testament context in Daniel 7 it can be seen that this ‘beast’ refers to an evil kingdom that will arise before Christ’s second coming. Likewise, the “furnace of fire” that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 13:42 and 50 is not a literal furnace, nor actual fire by which people will be burned, but is a nonlethal judgment by which unbelievers will be cast out of the Messianic kingdom, as Jesus says elsewhere (Matt. 8:11-12; Lk. 13:28-29).
Furthermore, we must recognize that the Old Testament prophecies that have already been fulfilled were fulfilled in as literal a manner as possible. There was a physical, human Messiah who was born in literal Bethlehem, performed actual miracles, rode on a literal donkey into literal Jerusalem, literally suffered and died in exactly the time frame prophesied by Daniel, and was physically resurrected. If the idealist hermeneutic had been around prior to Christ, would His first coming have been missed? Would anyone have expected Him to have fulfilled these prophecies in such a literal manner?
Rejecting the idealist hermeneutic does not mean that we should take all prophecy as literally as possible, by any means. We still must recognize symbolism in prophecy based on its context. That does not give us license to spiritualize away prophecy as simply describing the battle between good and evil, though, especially when we are given so much detailed information about the future in both the Old and New Testaments that simply cannot be allegorized away to such a great degree.
Preterism: did Christ already come back?
There are a larger number of people who, although recognizing that prophecy should not be allegorized away as describing the battle between good and evil, believe that the events described in Revelation and Matthew 24-25 (and parallel passages) occurred in the first century, during the First Jewish War of 66 - 70 AD. This view is known as preterism, and its adherents are divided between ‘partial’ preterism - which argues that the tribulation and the coming of Christ described in Matt. 24 and Rev. 19 already happened, but Christ’s physical second coming is yet to come - and ‘full’ preterism, which argues that Christ’s only second coming occurred in 70 AD and that we are now living in the New Heaven and Earth, which simply describes the current heavens and earth under the New Covenant.
Full preterism can be easily refuted by looking at just a few passages. Acts 1:11 says that “’This Jesus who was received up from you into the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye saw him going on to the heaven.’” If Jesus entered the heavens in a physical, bodily manner (which He did), then it is inconceivable to think that His final second coming would occur in a ‘spiritual’ and imperceptible manner. Likewise, we are told in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 that
the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be; so, then, comfort ye another with these words.
Clearly, since the resurrection of “the dead in Christ” has not occurred yet (and this is a bodily resurrection, where we will become incorruptible and immortal; 1 Cor. 15:51-55), then the final second coming of Christ has not occurred yet either.
However, these passages do not refute the more common partial-preterist view, which argues that there are two ‘second’ comings of Christ, one of which will be physical (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16-17) and one of which was spiritual and occurred at the end of the tribulation in 70 AD (Matt. 24:30-31; Rev. 19:11-18). The greatest problem with this view is that it requires the book of Revelation to have been written prior to 70 AD, whereas the unanimous testimony of the church from the first three centuries AD is that it was written in the 90s, along with internal evidence that suggests it was written after the fall of Jerusalem [1]. The vast majority of scholars agree that it was written around 95 - 96 AD.
Even setting this issue aside, however, the case for partial preterism is rather weak. The argument of partial preterists rests primarily on Matthew 16:28 and a few other verses that seem to say the apostles would see Jesus’ second coming (Matt. 10:23; 24:34; Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27):
“Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
First of all, even under futurism, one of the apostles did see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom: John, when he wrote his Revelation, saw the second coming of Christ (Rev. 19:11-18). But there is an even more likely interpretation of this passage, which also does not require any 70 AD coming of Christ. In each of these verses, the verbs ‘to taste [of death]’ and ‘to see’ are in the subjunctive mood, which indicates an ideal (but not necessarily actual) situation. That is, the apostles “should not taste of death till they should see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”. As Jesus said later on,
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto thee, how often did I will to gather thy children together, as a hen doth gather her own chickens under the wings, and ye did not will. Lo, left desolate to you is your house; for I say to you, ye may not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed [is] he who is coming in the name of the Lord.” (Matt. 23:37-39)
Based on what Jesus says here, He will not return until Israel blesses His name. Therefore, if they had accepted Him (as they should have), His kingdom would have come to earth at that time, which explains why the Son of Man should have come in His kingdom before the apostles tasted death. His statements in Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; Mk. 9:1; and Lk. 9:27 were meant to be conditioned on His acceptance by Israel.
In fact, this statement - that Jerusalem will see Christ again when they bless His name - harkens back to the prophecy in Zech. 13:9-14:4, which states that when Israel blesses the name of YHWH, the Messiah will come to the Mount of Olives (which will split in half). The fact that the biblical authors were inspired to place this reference to Zechariah just prior to the Olivet discourse indicates that the coming which will be initiated by Israel’s blessing of Christ’s name (His future, physical second coming to the Mount of Olives) is the coming being spoken of in Matt. 24-25, not any spiritual second coming ‘in judgment’. And the fact that this physical second coming is said to occur “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (Matt. 24:29) indicates that the tribulation of the Olivet discourse is also yet future.
Furthermore, we are told by Jesus in the Olivet discourse that
If therefore they may say to you, Lo, in the wilderness he is, ye may not go forth; lo, in the inner chambers, ye may not believe; for as the lightning doth come forth from the east, and doth appear unto the west, so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:26-27)
The second coming spoken of in the Olivet discourse will be of such a nature that it cannot be missed by anyone, nobody will be able to say “here He is” or “there He is”. Rather, His coming will be as visible as lightning flashing from the east to the west. But the message of partial preterism is that the coming spoken of here already occurred in 70 AD, and was so imperceptible that nobody made the connection until the seventeenth century, when the first preterist exposition of prophecy was published [2]!
Once this pillar of partial preterism is realized to be false, the remaining evidence is extremely weak. The trampling of Jerusalem for 42 months (Rev. 11:2-3) is supposed to match the fifty-one months from the beginning of the rebellion in May 66 AD to the fall of Jerusalem in Sept. 70 AD, and yet Jerusalem itself was only besieged for four months (Apr. to Sept. 70 AD). The Roman emperor Nero’s numerical gematria only adds up to 666 (Rev. 13:18) when a specific, rare variant of his name (Neron Caesar) is transliterated to Hebrew, and his persecution of Christians (Rev. 13:7) was limited to the city of Rome [3], neither of which would have been significant to John’s Greek-speaking audience in Asia Minor.
Similarly, the partial preterist position requires an over-spiritualization of much of the book of Revelation. Although there is certainly a large amount of symbolism in this book (based on Old Testament prophecies), many of the prophecies within must be allegorized beyond what is allowed by their context, or even simply ignored, to fit the events of 66 - 70 AD. None of the punishments of Rev. 16:1-11 came upon Rome during Nero’s reign, and Nero himself never went to Israel, nor was he killed there by Christ (Rev. 19:19-20), but committed suicide in Rome. No sign of the Son of Man appeared in the heavens (Matt. 24:30). Christ is said to come specifically to judge the nations (Rev. 19:15), not to judge Israel in 70 AD.
The events of 66 - 70 AD may well have been a type of the things to come, and the destruction of the Second Temple was certainly prophesied by Jesus (Matt. 24:1-2) and Daniel (9:26b); however, it is impossible to make these events equivalent to the ones prophesied by Christ in Matt. 24-25 and by John in the book of Revelation. Instead, these events must find their fulfillment in the future, when there will be “great tribulation such as was not from the beginning of the world till now, no, nor may be” (Matt. 24:21), and Christ, the Son of Man Himself, will physically appear in the heavens and return to restore order and judge the nations.
Amillennialism vs. chiliasm
Finally, I would like to explain why I believe that the testimony of scripture is clear that there will be a gap between the second coming of Christ (Rev. 19:11-18) and the final judgment of unbelievers (Rev. 20:11-15), and that during this period, the Messianic kingdom (called the “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of the heavens”) will exist on the earth. This view is known as chiliasm or premillennialism, whereas the opposing view is amillennialism, which argues that the kingdom is an allegory for the current age of the Church and that the second advent of Christ will mark the end of history.
A strong case can be made for chiliasm based on a close comparison of 1 Thess. 4:16-18 and 1 Cor. 15:51-55 with Rev. 20:4-6:
the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be; so, then, comfort ye another with these words. (1 Thess. 4:16-18)
lo, I tell you a secret; we indeed shall not all sleep, and we all shall be changed; in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in the last trumpet, for it shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we — we shall be changed: for it behoveth this corruptible to put on incorruption, and this mortal to put on immortality; and when this corruptible may have put on incorruption, and this mortal may have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, “The Death was swallowed up — to victory; where, O Death, thy sting? where, O Hades, thy victory?” (1 Cor. 15:51-55)
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years; and the rest of the dead did not live again till the thousand years may be finished; this [is] the first rising again. Happy and holy [is] he who is having part in the first rising again; over these the second death hath not authority, but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Rev. 20:4-6)
The first two passages quoted above demonstrate that the resurrection of believers will occur at the second coming of Christ, what Paul calls “the last trumpet” or “the trumpet of God”. However, the last two passages state that there will be a gap between the resurrection of believers, and of unbelievers at the final judgment. This demonstrates that there must be a period between Christ’s second coming and the final judgment, during which believers “shall reign upon the earth” (Rev. 5:10) and the twelve apostles will judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28).
Furthermore, we are told in Ephesians 2:7 that there will be multiple oncoming ages in which we will experience ‘age-during life’, and yet there will also be an end of the ages at the consummation of history (1 Cor. 15:24; Heb. 9:26). This demonstrates that there must be more than one age to come before the consummation of history; these are the “ages of the ages” during which the devil will be tormented (Rev. 20:10) before even he is eventually reconciled (Col. 1:20). Since Christ will come at the end of this current age (Matt. 24:3), for there to be more than one age to come, there must be an age between Christ’s second coming and the age of the New Heaven and Earth. This is the age of Rev. 20:4-6, the Messianic age.
Even apart from these passages which show that there must be a gap between Christ’s second coming and the final judgment of unbelievers, it can be shown from scripture that the “kingdom of the heavens” or “kingdom of God” will be a literal, earthly Messianic kingdom, not an allegory for the current Church age. Although I already discussed this in another article, I will reiterate some of my argument below.
Happy the poor in spirit — because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. Happy the mourning — because they shall be comforted. Happy the meek — because they shall inherit the land [of Israel]. Happy those hungering and thirsting for righteousness — because they shall be filled. Happy the kind — because they shall find kindness. Happy the clean in heart — because they shall see God. Happy the peacemakers — because they shall be called Sons of God. Happy those persecuted for righteousness’ sake — because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. (Matt. 5:3-10)
Notice, here, how “the kingdom of the heavens” is paralleled with “the land [of Israel]”.
And Jesus said to them, “Verily I say to you, that ye who did follow me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of his glory, shall sit — ye also — upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and every one who left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, for my name’s sake, an hundredfold shall receive, and life age-during shall inherit; and many first shall be last, and last first.” (Matt. 19:28-30)
This passage demonstrates two things. First, the twelve apostles will at one point sit upon twelve thrones and judge Israel, and receive physical benefits in the age to come. This judging is paralleled in Rev. 20:4, which amillennialists apply to the Church age, and yet the apostles are not currently judging Israel or receiving physical benefits (as they are physically dead). Second, this will occur in the regeneration when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of glory - this clearly refers to the “restoration of all things” that will occur when Christ is received again from heaven at His second coming (Acts 3:21). Therefore, this passage demonstrates that the thousand years of Rev. 20:4-6 occurs after the second coming and will be a physical kingdom in Israel.
to [the disciples] also [Jesus] did present himself alive after his suffering, in many certain proofs, through forty days being seen by them, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he,] “Ye did hear of me; because John, indeed, baptized with water, and ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit — after not many days.” They, therefore, indeed, having come together, were questioning him, saying, “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” and he said unto them, “It is not yours to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority” (Acts 1:3-7)
This passage and its parallels in the other synoptic gospels confirms that the “kingdom of God” is not something that currently exists on earth, but will begin at the second coming of Jesus Christ.And then they shall see the Son of Man, coming in a cloud, with power and much glory; and these things beginning to happen bend yourselves back, and lift up your heads, because your redemption doth draw nigh... so also ye, when ye may see these things happening, ye know that near is the kingdom of God (Lk. 21:27-28, 31)
“Worthy art thou to take the scroll, and to open the seals of it, because thou wast slain, and didst redeem us to God in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.” (Rev. 5:10)
And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of the world did become [those] of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!” (Rev. 11:15)
Again, this confirms that the kingdom of God will appear at Christ’s second coming, and will be a physical polity on earth rather than an ethereal realm of ‘Heaven’.
And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God doth come, he answered them, and said, “The kingdom of God doth not come with observation; nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.”
This passage seems to say that the kingdom of God is something that is inside of us, not an outward physical kingdom. However, when you look at the context of Jesus’ statement, this interpretation becomes fraught with problems. Jesus is here speaking to the Pharisees, whom He later condemned to the “judgment of Gehenna” (Matt. 23:33) and said would not enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:31); if the kingdom is the Church, how could it be within the Pharisees? And actually, Jesus goes on to explain what He meant by this statement:
And he said unto his disciples, “Days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall not behold [it]; and they shall say to you, Lo, here; or lo, there; ye may not go away, nor follow; for as the lightning that is lightening out of the one [part] under heaven, to the other part under heaven doth shine, so shall be also the Son of Man in his day” (Lk. 17:22-24)
The reason why no one will be able to say “Lo, here; or lo, there” about the kingdom of God is not because it is a spiritual state, but because it will be immediately visible to everyone, just as lightning shines all across the heavens.
Instead of seeing this statement as saying that the kingdom of God is spiritual and actually within us, we should recognize that the Greek preposition εντος can be translated as either ‘within’ or ‘among’. Rather than saying that the Pharisees had the kingdom of God inside of them, this passage is likely saying that the kingdom of God was among them at that time, in the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the clear testimony of scripture is not that the Messianic kingdom is fulfilled in the Church, but rather that it will be an earthly kingdom initiated by Christ’s second coming.
The testimony of the early Church
Further strong evidence that the correct view of eschatology is chiliastic futurism are the views of early Christianity. The early patristic writers of the first and second centuries all believed that the tribulation, the second coming, and the thousand year Messianic kingdom were future events that had yet to be fulfilled in any way. These writers were very familiar with the scriptures, and some of them even knew the apostles personally, including John who wrote the Revelation.
All five apostolic fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Papias, and ‘Mathetes’), who wrote around the end of the first century (after the fall of Jerusalem), were futurists who believed that the second coming of Christ was yet to come. And although the views of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna on the Messianic kingdom are never elaborated upon, their contemporary Papias of Hieropolis, who was a disciple of John himself, was a fervent chiliast:
[Papias] says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. (Fragments 6)
Likewise, the contemporary document known as the Didache (written after the fall of Jerusalem) states that the Antichrist and the tribulation are yet to come, and that only believers will be resurrected at Christ’s second coming (chiliasm):
For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as the Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. (Didache 16)
By the middle of the second century, the views of Christian theologians had not changed at all. The apologist Justin Martyr argues strongly that the reign of Christ must occur on earth for one thousand years in his Dialogue with Trypho:
For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians... But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue 80)
Thus, although by this time some Christians had fallen in with amillennialism, these were highly heretical groups that also denied the bodily resurrection. Likewise, the contemporary apologist Irenaeus of Lyons (a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of John) argues that the tribulation and millennium are future events:
But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that “many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. (Against Heresies 5.30.4)
For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth... For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: “And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth.” And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem, and that [His] kingdom shall be in it (Against Heresies 5.35.1)
Although the purpose of this article is not a survey of eschatology in the early Church, the fact is that proto-orthodox Christianity was dominated by futurism and chiliasm for its first three centuries. To the patristic writers quoted above may be added Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian the Syrian, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Hippolytus of Rome, Commodians, Cyprian of Carthage, and virtually every other writer from the early Church [4].
The question must be asked, if Christ’s second coming in 70 AD was really as visible as lightning flashing from the east to the west, how is it that nobody in the early Church ever realized this? And if the Messianic kingdom is really an allegory for the Church, and this is such a clear truth of scripture as amillennialists believe, then how is it that only heretical, resurrection-denying groups believed this for the first three centuries of Christianity?
Conclusion
Taking biblical prophecy as a whole, and interpreting it with a literal hermeneutic based on 2 Pet. 1:20-21, the only logical conclusion is that the events of Revelation have not yet occurred. The preterist prooftext of Matthew 16:28 uses the subjunctive mood, meaning that the coming of the kingdom in the generation of the apostles was ideal (not actual), conditioned on Israel’s acceptance of Him (Matt. 23:33). On the whole, the events of the Olivet discourse and the book of Revelation do not match those of the first Jewish war in 66 - 70 AD. Likewise, the clear testimony of scripture is that the Messianic kingdom will be a physical kingdom that exists on the earth, and will be established at Christ’s second coming [5]. All judgment passages, like Matthew 25:31-46, must be interpreted within this framework.
For a much more detailed defense of the literal, grammatical-historical interpretive hermeneutic of prophecy, and why futurism and premillennialism are demanded by this hermeneutic, see this article by professor Abner Chou.
[2] This work is the Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi, written by Jesuit priest Luis del Alcazar during the seventeenth century counter-reformation, and is widely agreed to be the first preterist exposition of Revelation.
[3] In fact, Nero’s persecution may not have even occurred, at least not on nearly as widespread a scale as is sometimes supposed. See this article for more info.
[4] Ice, Thomas. “A Brief History of Early Premillennialism.”
[5] Although I think that I have presented a good explanation of why the amillennialist view of the Messianic kingdom is unbiblical, there are other arguments for amillennialism as well. For an explanation and refutation of these arguments, see this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment