Views: 0<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n By millennialism I refer to Premillennialism which pervades the vast majority of Protestant churches, including the old \u201cmainline\u201d denominations, independent groups, the various Pentecostal sects, and the newer \u201ccommunity\u201d churches. The millennial <\/em>part of Premillennialism<\/em> refers to a millennium\u20141,000 years, which they harvest from a highly figurative context and take literally (Rev. 20:2\u20137). The pre <\/em>part of the word refers to the contention that Christ will come again immediately before<\/strong> He establishes an earthly political millennial reign. This phenomenon is more than merely \u201ca doctrine.\u201d It is a system of theology<\/strong>which its adherents impose like a template over the Bible and through which they view every passage. Several variants of this system are extant, but the one constant is belief in a material, earthly, political kingdom of Christ that will last for one thousand years.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cHistorical\u201d Premillennialism is the \u201cstandard\u201d version. The \u201cdeluxe\u201d version is \u201cdispensational\u201d Premillennialism, which includes the above, but also includes such doctrines as the \u201crapture\u201d and the \u201cgreat tribulation.\u201d Dispensational refers to its division of all of time into seven mythical \u201cdispensations.\u201d By their calculations, we are in dispensation number six (i.e., \u201cthe church age\u201d), awaiting number seven (i.e., \u201cthe millennial kingdom age\u201d). Protestants in the USA are almost universally under the thrall of Dispensational Premillennialism. We do not question the sincerity of its devotees, but we hasten to point out that sincerity of belief does not transform religious error into Biblical Truth.<\/span><\/p>\n Some may be thinking that members of the Lord\u2019s church are not in danger of succumbing to this system of error, so we need not study it. They could not be more wrong for several reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n Premillennialism is based upon several misapprehensions about the kingdom of Christ; I now call your attention to a few of these.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 Church Is Not His Kingdom<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A major fallacy of Premillennial theology is its dichotomy between the church of the Lord and the earthly state of His kingdom, although the New Testament repeatedly identifies them as one and the same. Among the several Scripture contexts that so teach are the following. Jesus said:<\/span><\/p>\n And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18\u201319).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Jesus promised to build His church, and in the same breath, He promised to give Peter the \u201ckeys of the kingdom.\u201d We can hardly imagine the Lord\u2019s promising to build one thing, only to give Peter the keys to something entirely different. These \u201ckeys\u201d would have been utterly useless in Peter\u2019s hands if they were for a kingdom that is still yet to come after 2,000 years, per Premillennial doctrine. The fulfillment of this promise is generally (and I believe correctly) understood to have been fulfilled on the first Pentecost after Jesus\u2019 resurrection. On that day Peter led in announcing the terms of salvation to the vast international gathering in Jerusalem. These terms (i.e., commanding believers in Jesus as God\u2019s Son to \u201crepent\u2026and be baptized\u2026 unto the remission of your sins\u2026\u201d) \u201cunlocked\u201d the doors of the church, to which the Lord added about 3,000 obedient believers on that day (Acts 2:36\u201341, 47). After thus using the \u201ckeys\u201d to admit the Jews, he later used them to open the kingdom\u2019s doors to the Gentiles (Acts 10:4748; 11:11\u201318).<\/span><\/p>\n Paul addressed his Colossian letter to \u201cthe saints and faithful brethren in Christ,\u201d obviously referring to the church at Colossae (Col. 1:1). Subsequently, he described their leaving the world and becoming members of the church as follows: God \u201c\u2026delivered out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love\u201d (vv. 12\u201313). Obviously, Paul equated being members of Jesus\u2019 church with being citizens in His kingdom. Neither the inspired apostle nor members of the Colossian church were \u201cfuture kingdom\u201d advocates.<\/span><\/p>\n Near the close of the first century A.D. John wrote to the \u201cseven churches that are in Asia\u201d (Rev. 1:4). To them he said that Jesus \u201cmade us to be a kingdom\u201d (vv. 5\u2013 6). Later in the same context he said that he was at that time (i.e., in the first century A.D.) \u201ca partaker with you in the kingdom\u201d (v. 9). The cross-referencing of the church with the kingdom of Christ in the foregoing is unavoidable unless one is so blinded by the Premillennial template that he refuses the force of indisputable terms.<\/span><\/p>\n Readers will find another plain identification of Jesus\u2019 church as His kingdom in the following passage:<\/span><\/p>\n But ye are come<\/strong> unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn<\/strong> who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and the Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel\u2026. Wherefore, receiving a kingdom<\/strong> that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe (Heb. 12:22\u201323, 28; emph. DM).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n While there is much rich material in the foregoing passage that invites exegesis and homiletic treatment, note the explicit declaration of the emphasized words: those who were\/are in the church had \u201creceived\u201d (i.e., entered, become a part of) an unshakeable kingdom. They were not looking for a kingdom yet to come, but were, at the time they read this epistle, in it\u2014and it was the church.<\/span><\/p>\n Further how can one read this description of the Lord\u2019s unshakeable kingdom and fail to see its close connection to Daniel\u2019s prophecy of the \u201ckingdom that shall never be destroyed\u201d but that \u201cshall stand for ever\u201d (Dan. 2:44)? His prophecy was time-stamped as coming in the days of the Roman empire (27 B.C.\u2013A.D. 476), which fact is impossible to harmonize with the \u201cfuture-kingdom\u201d advocacy of the millennialists. However, the establishment of the church of Christ in about A.D. 30\u201333 harmonizes perfectly with the kingdom\u2019s descriptions in both Hebrews and Daniel, thus making the church and the earthly state of the kingdom of Christ one and the same.<\/span><\/p>\n The Premillennial denial of the church\/kingdom identity implies that the blood-purchased church of the Lord (Acts 20:28) was\/is little more than an afterthought in the mind of God, arranged spontaneously to substitute for the alleged failed establishment of their expected earthly political kingdom. The Premillennial view of God is thus of one so impotent that He is unable to anticipate the rejection of His Son and His earthly kingdom ambitions. Of course, the true and living God knew what they would do to His Son. This fact is fully apparent with even a hurried reading of Isaiah 53. The church was no sudden substitute for some greater royal institution\u2014it was<\/strong> the plan and the kingdom. It was\/is according to God\u2019s \u201c\u2026eternal<\/strong> purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord\u201d (Eph. 3:9\u201310; emph. DM). Jesus built it despite His cruel rejection and murder by the Jews. Indeed, even His death and entrance to the \u201cgates of Hades,\u201d did not \u201cprevail against\u201d His establishment of it (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:27, 3132).<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus Had Earthly Kingdom Ambitions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A bedrock doctrine of Premillennialism is that Jesus came to establish an earthly, political kingdom. There can be little doubt that the Jews generally interpreted the kingdom prophecies in this way. They had chafed as a subject people for centuries under various rulers, and they longed for the coming of a glorious and powerful kingdom in the likeness of David\u2019s or Solomon\u2019s. They misread the prophets and thus expected the promised Messiah to be their king over such an earthly domain. However, the A.D. first-century Jews\u2019 interpretation of the prophets was mere wishful thinking, consisting of fatal eisegesis (reading into a text by reading one\u2019s own ideas) rather than faithful exegesis (critical reading or interpretation of a text to extract its meaning without addition).<\/span><\/p>\n Premillennialism makes the same deadly error as that of those old Jews concerning the Messiah and His kingdom. Jesus never had any such kingdom plans or ambitions, which fact the Lord demonstrated by both His doctrine and His practice. The Lord attracted crowds of thousands and could likely have led a political revolt of considerable consequence, even without the miraculous help of angelic legions (Matt. 26:53). With miraculous forces at his disposal, He could have utterly and immediately crushed Rome and every lesser power. The materialistic Jews once mistakenly sought to force a crown upon Him, but he refused it and fled rather than accept such (John 6:15). Instead of seeking to overthrow Rome (as the Jews falsely accused Him before Pontius Pilate [Luke 23:2]), He had taught the people to \u201crender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar\u2019s\u201d (Mark 12:17).<\/span><\/p>\n When the officers and soldiers came to arrest Jesus in Gethsemane, Peter sought to defend Him with a sword, but Jesus forbade it (Matt. 26:49\u201352). Has it never occurred to Premillennialists that, if the Lord had intended to establish a political kingdom, all the demons of Hell could not have prevented His doing so, just as His death could not prevent the establishment of His church (Matt. 16:18), and His enemies could not have taken His life had He not determined to \u201clay it down\u201d Himself (John 10:18)?<\/span><\/p>\n As already indicated, He could have called more legions of angels than Rome had armies, had He sought an earthly domain (Matt. 26:53). Do these earthly kingdom crusaders never ponder the fact that the murderous Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, not because He wanted to be their earthly king<\/strong>, but because He refused to have anything to do with the kind of kingdom<\/strong> the Premillennialists still envision? What part of Jesus\u2019 statement to Pilate do they not understand?<\/span><\/p>\n My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence (John 18:36).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I have often wondered if advocates of this theology are even aware that this statement is in the New Testament. Had the Son of God sought an earthly kingdom, not only would all the power of Rome have been unable to join the Jews in murdering Him\u2014He would never have even been arrested in Gethsemane.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus Failed in His Kingdom Plans<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The false Premillennial averment that Jesus\u2019 failure to establish an earthly political kingdom at His First Coming implies that its establishment will be sometime in the future (at His Second Coming, they allege). First, surely, they do not understand the gravity of this accusation\u2014that the<\/strong> Son of God failed<\/strong> to do what God sent Him to do and what He Himself came to do. Furthermore, it is only fair to ask them how they can have any confidence that the Lord will be able to do the second time that which, they assert, He was not able to do the first time?<\/span><\/p>\n They must ignore numerous statements from the Lord and other inspired men to believe that He failed. All the passages already cited, indicating that people were citizens in Jesus\u2019 kingdom in the first century, necessitate the conclusion that He established His kingdom. Moreover, before His self-sacrifice on Calvary He told the apostles that some of them would be alive to see His kingdom come with power:<\/span><\/p>\n And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of come with power (Mark 9:1).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Clearly and specifically, Jesus tied the time of the beginning of His kingdom to the lifetime of His contemporaries. If it did not begin while the apostles (excepting Judas Iscariot) lived, then Jesus either knowingly lied or was grossly misinformed, either of which disqualify Him as the sinless Savior of mankind. However, if He told the Truth, then the kingdom was established in the first century\u2014just as Jesus said it would be (and as various passages demonstrate that it was). All must choose one of the following mutually exclusive propositions:<\/span><\/p>\n Numerous times Jesus stated that His aim in coming the first time was to do His Father\u2019s will and to teach His Father\u2019s doctrine (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:28; 14:10; cf. Matt. 26:39). If He failed in this aim, He again lied to His Father as He prayed; \u201cI glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work<\/strong> which thou hast given me to do\u201d (John 17:4, emph. DM). He either did or He did not succeed in what His Father sent Him to do. The Premillennialist argues that He failed, which makes our Savior both a failure and a liar. No, He did not fail, He did not lie, and He was not mistaken.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The theological system of Premillennialism is a prime illustration of the uninspired (but true) proverb: \u201cSome people are willing to believe almost anything in religion as long as it is not in the Bible.\u201d The doctrines and twists of Scripture that comprise this collection of errors are not only unscriptural\u2014they are anti-Scriptural. The three doctrines of the theological system discussed above are fundamental to the entire scheme. The remainder of this multifaceted, almost science-fictional, pot-pourri of doctrines collapses with their removal.<\/span><\/p>\n If there were no other reason to reject Premillennialism, one should do so just because it is false. However, it is not \u201cmerely\u201d false, but fatally false<\/strong> on the grounds that it:<\/span><\/p>\n It is sheer folly to pronounce Premillennialism a mere innocent and inconsequential \u201cdoctrine\u201d!<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0[Note:<\/strong> I wrote this article for an assignment, and it was published in the April 2023, edition of The Gospel Preceptor, <\/em>published monthly in Elk City, Oklahoma, Jerry Brewer, editor.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 0[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles page.] Introduction By millennialism I refer to Premillennialism which pervades the vast majority of Protestant churches, including the old \u201cmainline\u201d denominations, independent groups, the various Pentecostal sects, and the newer \u201ccommunity\u201d churches….<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n