The Premillennial View of Eschatology (Part 1 - 2)
This article is one in a series of messages preached by Forrest keener, during the Sunday evening services, at Bethel Baptist Church in 1985, and transcribed for use in The Baptist Watchman. The essence of purpose, in preparing and delivering this series of messages, is not eschatological, but rather to seek an overall biblical view of the vast doctrine of the kingdom of God as it is revealed in the New Testament. It is my hope and expectation that eschatology will then fall into place rather easily. It is my prayer that God will bless this brief work to the edification of His people, wherever it may reach.
Open you Bibles tonight to Romans chapter 11
verse 13, and we will read through verse 36.
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?"
Let me pause briefly to point out to you that in this verse we have the casting away of a people and the receiving of that same people. I fail to see how it can conceivably be anything but national Israel. If you say that the receiving of these is spiritual Israel, that is the spiritual seed of Abraham, those who are the elect, the saved, as opposed to national Israel, then you have them having been cast away, and this is inconceivable scripturally. But let's go ahead. Verse number 16:
"For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
For my text this evening I want us to look at three verses,–a longer portion than I usually call a text–but three verses. Verses 27 through 29:
"For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."
Now, he is making reference back to verse 26 where Paul is apparently quoting Zechariah. And he says, This is my covenant with them at that time, when I shall take away their sins.
"As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching election, they are beloved for father's sakes."
Now notice:
"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."
It very clearly is making reference to national Israel, if I have any contextual perception in the Bible. One of the great difficulties in approaching tonight's subject is choosing a text, not because of rarity of texts, but because of the great multiplicity of them, that is the abundance of them in the Bible. It is hard to know just which is the best and clearest text to select for the subject.
We are in message number 21 in the series on The Mysteries of the Kingdom. I am speaking this evening on the premillennial view of eschatology; that is my subject for the evening: The Premillennial View of Eschatology. Essentially, as far as I am concerned, every verse in your Bible pointing to the second coming of Christ, speaks obviously of the premillennial view. Now, I say, Obviously of the premillennial view, which is to say, that only when we try to come at this subject from an amillennial or a postmillennial direction do we need "indepth" and "greatly involved" explanations. In other words, if you just take it like it comes out of the Bible, unrefined, straight, with no mixtures or dilution, you may have a lot you do not understand, you may have a lot that is difficult, but what it is going to teach, it seems to me, is a simple premillennial view of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are going to have to digest several books besides this one, before you can become a postmillennialist or an amillennialist. I am really very seriously persuaded that no person who was not raised in a staunch a-mil or post-mil church ever became an amillennialist or a post-millennialist merely by reading his Bible. I do not think you can ever find a person who did that. Now, you can find a lot who CLAIM they did, but I say to them, You read a bunch of books along the way that were written by amillennialists who were very able writers in other areas. I think I am right on that. I do not think anybody is going to persuade me to the contrary. That, of course, would not mean that I am right, but I believe that I am indeed right in that area.
I think the best rule, the best basic rule of Bible interpretation is to see what it seems to say in its context. You do not have to see what Dr. Hop-and-Stumble says it says,–see what it seems to say in its context. This is the best basic approach to biblical interpretation that I know of. I believe that when we look at verses like Acts 1:6, 'Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?,' or Romans chapter 11 and verse 25, "...blindness in part is happened unto Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," and verse 26, which teaches us that God is going to send a Deliverer in Sion and take away the sins of Jacob, that those verses talk about and mean exactly what they seem to mean. We do not need to do some kind of qualifying and tampering with them. They mean exactly what they seem to mean. But volumes of books, I mean literally libraries of books, have been written to negatively explain those verses. Even as I sit in my study preparing these messages I am staying out of books essentially, and and in my Bible, because I have enough books in my library, that scream for the a-mil, or the post-mil view of eschatology, that if I paid attention to those books, surely I could never preach a premillennial message, unless I was able to just blot out everything they say. But if I stay with my Bible, the premillennial message seems to come through very clearly. I have already essentially violated my plan, because it was my purpose to deliver a message dealing with what postmillennialists teach, and one with what amillennialists teach, and one with what premillennialists teach, without asserting myself as being one or the other until I had gotten through, and of course, I have not even begun to succeed with that. I am a little bit more up-front than I intend to be sometimes, I suppose, but nevertheless you know where I stand. Most of you knew where I stood before I started the series, so there is no great revelation in that.
There are three things that I want to touch upon, this evening, and I am going to try to do it in rapid enough fashion that we can get it all on a 45-minute tape,–I want to do that. First of all, I want to speak to you concerning the peculiarities of premillennialism. Secondly, some of the problems premillennialists have faced and do face today, and thirdly, the premillennial view of eschatology and the blessed hope that is mentioned in your Bible.
I. The Peculiarities of Premillennialism
First of all then, what are the peculiarities of premillennialism? By that I do not mean, where are they strange, or off-the-wall, or off-base,–that is not the idea. What I am talking about is this: What are the doctrines held by premillennialists that necessarily separated them from amillennialists or postmillennialists? In other words, what are some doctrines that if you believe, you could not be an amillennialist, you would have to be a premillennialist. Or, What are some doctrines that if you believe, you would have to hold to the premillennial theory as opposed to anything else. I am going to mention just four. Not that I couldn't mention many more, it would be as easy to preach forty messages, on this division of thought, as four. But my purpose is to state the over-all issue, and to give you enough scripture to show you what I am talking about. Therefore, I have to confine this division to about four messages.
First of all, the premillennialist peculiarly holds to the imminence of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now: Do not read something into that, that I am not saying! I am not saying that if we were to go back to the first century, that every prophecy would have to have been fulfilled, by the end of the first century, so Christ could come, in order for the premillennial view to be true. That is not the case! He did NOT come in the first century. And because He did not come in the first century, then we can easily conclude that He never INTENDED to come during the first century. And since He did NOT intend to come during the first century, it was certainly not necessary for all of the prophecies to be fulfilled at that time. But what I am saying is this, that the doctrine was presented to the children of God in that century as in this century in such a way, that they were never to know that the coming of Christ was somewhere way out in the future, but it was essentially presented as imminent, and is imminent today. By that we mean, that it can take place at any time; that it is a constant threat to those who would walk in sin and carelessness. Let me give you just a few scriptures to show you why I believe that to be true. Matthew 24 and verse 37; and once again, perhaps I said that wrong,–not just why I believe that to be true, but why I think the scripture teaches that, and that of course is a premillennial view of this thing. Verse 37 of the 24th chapter of the gospel of Matthew:
"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
And then, if you will, notice in the same chapter, verses 42 through 44:
"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken
up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh."
Now notice: the Lord says to these people, even those who walked with him, watch for you know not. I, for the life of me, cannot get anything out of that less than a warning of an imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the book of Luke, chapter 12 and verse 37, we have essentially the very same nature or category of warnings:
"Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them."
He says, when he comes those servants will be watching. Why are they watching? What are they watching for? They are watching for his coming. Why are they watching? They are watching because they are persuaded that his coming his imminent. If I were to read my Bible as a young man, or a teen-ager, or a young lady, or a housewife, or a father,–not a person who spends his time reading theology books, but a person who reads his Bible,–as I read my Bible like that, I believe that without any shadow of doubt, the Bible points me to an imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ. As I read through my Bible it seems to say, Watch, for the Lord cometh. It was saying that to the saints of the first century. It seems that all of those people looked for the coming of the Lord. The world today for that reason says He is not coming, it is all a myth. No, I do not think so, I think that the Bible reveals to us that we are to look for an imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ. One other verse and I will go to another point. I Corinthians 1:7:
"So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Consider that for a moment! Those people at Corinth, according to Paul, were looking for and waiting for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Was he rebuking them for it? I think not. There is no question in my mind that he was not rebuking them for it, but he indicated that it was a gift from God, that it was an indication of a certain element of propriety in their conduct toward God. Now, this is a doctrine that is peculiar to the premillennialist. A person who looks for the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ, and who is consistent in his thinking at all, is a premillennialist. There might possibly be some a-mils who would tell you that they are looking for the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ, most of them will tell you, Definitely not, the circumstances have not so matured at this point, and He will not be here in our lifetime. Any a-mil who would be looking for the imminent return of Christ would be a very rare creature,–kind of like a three-headed goat, as far as rarity is concerned. But all premillennialists essentially look (at least philosophically) for the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
A second peculiarity is the restoration of Israel;–I am choosing these words carefully, so listen to what I am saying–the restoration of Israel to their land in a national sense. I am being very specific with those words because I do not want you to say, Well, that is something that may be spiritualized. Not in this way! No, the way I am saying it, it cannot be. The restoration of national Israel–not spiritual Israel–the restoration of national Israel to their land, or ON their land, I should say, in a national sense, is a peculiarity of premillennialism. Amillennialists do not believe that at all, nor do postmillennialists look for that. Matthew chapter 19 and verse 28:
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
If that is taken literally, you will have a very difficult time finding any place for it, except during the millennium. Acts chapter 1 and verse 6:
"...Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"
There are those who will try to indicate, that these Apostles, since they were saved, and since they knew about the spiritual nature of the children of Isaac, were not talking about national Israel. I not only challenge that, I deny that! There is no question in my mind, as I look at the discussions of the people of God, in that day and time, that they were talking about nothing more or less than national Israel: Wilt thou at this time...? No, He would NOT at this time; there is something else to do at this time,–that will take place in God's own time, it is not for you to know the times that are in the hands of God, but they are events that will take place in their proper time. That is the implication of Acts chapter 1, verse 6 and following. Romans chapter 11 and verse 25:
"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
Now, is it spiritual Israel unto which that blindness in part has happened? I do not think so, I do not see how it could possibly be, but whatever group it is that has suffered this temporary blindness, it is temporary because it is to last only until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And as we look at the term 'Gentiles' there as opposed to the term 'Israel,' there is no real doubt in my mind that it is talking about national Israel. And once again I would remind you, that if the average John Doe on the street–not the scholar, not the great theologian, but the average John Doe on the street–picks up his Bible, and he reads it, and he reads it, and he reads it,–when he comes to that verse of scripture he is going to think that God will one day restore national Israel. So far as I am concerned, that is EXACTLY what God intends for him to think. This is a book of revelation, it is not a book of secrets,–it is a book of revelation!
The third thing is a physical and literal one thousand year reign of peace upon the earth. This is peculiar to the premillennialists. Neither the postmillennialists, nor the amillennialists essentially hold to this doctrine. There may be some areas in which the postmillennialist would grasp some of it, but if we take it as I said: a PHYSICAL AND LITERAL one thousand year reign of peace upon this earth, neither the post-mil nor the a-mil could even stomach the thought of it. He won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. In the book of Isaiah chapter 2, verses 1 through 5, we have the indication that God is going to bring about a reign of peace upon the earth, in which men are going to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. In the book of II Timothy, if you want to turn there right quickly, chapter 2 and verse 12, the scripture says:
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:"
Is that reign in heaven, or is that reign upon the earth? As you study your Bible concerning the passages of scripture that indicate the reign of the saints of God, you will invariably find that the implications point to a reign upon the earth. Revelation chapter 5, and verse 10:
"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."
The book of Revelation, as a whole, terribly complicates any view of eschatology except the pre-mil view. Now, I am not saying that in meanness, or to be facetious, or sarcastic, or anything like that,–the fact of the matter is, as I said earlier in a previous message, that any amillennialist or postmillennialist would find it not just as easy, but even easier, to teach his view of eschatology if the book of Revelation did not exist. He does not need it. There is nothing in it that sheds significant light upon his teaching. He does not need it for that. Now, there are places that he uses; for instance the fifth chapter of Revelation would have some precious verses to him concerning salvation, but he does not use it in his teaching of eschatology. He rather finds it a burden that needs to be explained way. And so we find that the teaching of a thousand-year-reign is peculiar to the premillennialist. Look at Revelation chapter 20 and verse 5. No, I am sorry, we have to read more that just verse 5 there, we would have to read verses 4 and 5 to get that together:
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."
You say, Is that upon the earth? You read the context to verses 1 through 5, and brother, you will find that the context is an earthly context.
"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."
Beloved, if you look at those verses, what they seem to say is this: that there is a group of people who are going to live and reign with Christ for a thousand years upon the earth, and don't fall into any of the translation traps that they may lay for you; saying, Well, that says 'thousands' instead of 'thousand,' in the original. What they are doing is, they are going back and taking the Greek word that is translated 'thousand,' and saying it is a plural word, and therefore since it is a plural word, it cannot be translated 'thousand,' it must be translated 'thousands.' That is ridiculous! the word 'thousand' is a plural word. The word 'hundred' is a plural word. Certainly, it is a singular unit, but it is a plural word, and if you understand the difference in the nature of the Greek language and the English language, there would be no surprise that it was a plural word without saying that this is a violation to translate this 'thousand.' It SHOULD be 'thousand.' One thousand,–that is what it is talking about and it is a perfectly proper translation, don't you think anything else about it.
Fourthly, the premillennialist believes in a two-part as opposed to a general resurrection. Now, while there would be some minor segments in amillennialism, and perhaps some major ones in some areas of postmillennialism,– which is essentially dead today, who might hold to a two-part resurrection, that is comparatively rare. The basic teaching of the premillennialist, on the other hand, in fact uniformly, the teaching of the capable premillennialist necessarily believes in a two-part, as opposed to a general, resurrection. Notice Luke chapter 20, and verse 36 for a reference here. Luke chapter 20 and verse 36:
"Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
Notice here that He speaks to these people as being the 'children of the resurrection' who cannot die any more. He uses the term 'resurrection' there in a singular fashion. If we had a general resurrection as opposed to a two-part resurrection, that verse of scripture would be very hard to explain. For who would be the children of the resurrection? Both the saved and the damned, both those who would spend eternity with God and those who would not spend eternity with God. But here He is speaking specifically of those who spend eternity with God, and they are referred to as 'the children of the resurrection'. It HAS to be a first resurrection or a resurrection of the saved, because it speaks specifically of the saved and it refers to them as 'children of the resurrection,'–do you follow what I am saying? Not just 'children of resurrection,' and the article is there: 'the children of THE resurrection.' John chapter 5, verses 28 and 29:
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
I would not say that is conclusive, and no other interpretation can be given to it, but I think a very good indication that there are two resurrections. I Thessalonians chapter 4, verses 16 and 17. We made a reference to this earlier in another message, but in First Thessalonians chapter 4, begin to read with verse 13:
"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
Will anybody read that verse and think that is the resurrection of all of the dead? In no way! Listen, the idea of a general resurrection essentially comes out of Catholicism through Protestantism into much of our literature today, but it cannot be found in the Bible. In other words, if you start reading about the resurrection in the Bible,–if the Bible is what you start with, you start with no other pre-formed ideas–the conclusion that you are easily going to come to is that there is a resurrection of the dead and another resurrection of the living.
One more scripture reference in Revelation chapter 20, something of a read-over of what we read a moment ago, but it is equally relevant to this point. Verse number 4:
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the FIRST resurrection."
In other words, the group that was resurrected at this point, that compiles with the FIRST resurrection. Now notice:
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."
Now, Again, any simple Bible student who reads that is going to say, there is no question that those in that category, those who were in the first resurrection, are those upon whom the second death has no power, and that there is a thousand-year span between the two resurrections. You may not understand all about it, but you will come to the conclusion that there is a thousand-year span between those two resurrections. It is just very clear,–you cannot get away from that! 'The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.' You may say, Well, I am not sure who all is included in the first resurrection,–you may wonder about that, (I don't really know why you would, but you might) but you will know that there is a thousand-year span and that the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished, and then they were resurrected and there was another judgment. It is just very clear in the scripture.
Those are only four of the many, many doctrines that are peculiar to premillennialism. We could give many more. For instance, the doctrine of a personal Antichrist is taught by premillennialism, whereas it is essentially denied by the others. It has been held by many post and a-mils, for instance, that the office of the Pope constituted the Antichrist. In most of the areas of Amillennialism, if you go back three or four hundred years to the strength of Amillennialism during the time of Reformation, it was held by a great many of those people that the office of the Pope constituted the antichrist, not a person, but a popery as an office. So the premillennialists believe that it is a particular individual. I think that the premillennial module or theory of eschatology stands, if you have one single one of these four legs. I have just mentioned four of many–but the point is this: you could not tear down three of them and destroy premillennialism,–you would have to tear down all four of them. As long as one of those stands, you have to have a premillennial theory of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, so far as I am able to tell from studying my Bible. I think it is absolutely necessary.
What are some of the problems of premillennialists? By that I do not necessarily mean inconsistencies in the doctrine. I am not going to point you to any of those because I do not know what they are. I know of some inconsistencies in the teaching of the supporters of the doctrine but not in the doctrine itself. I will deal with those. And secondly, I will deal with premillennialism as it is related to the blessed hope, which is described in our Bibles. I will try to enlarge upon this second portion because really, it is not as extensive as the other part, but if I were to go ahead and do any justice to any of these tonight, I would necessarily keep you another half an hour and it would not at all go on one tape as I had designed it to do, or hoped that it would do. And so I am going to conclude this message and close at this point.
I want to say this to you in closing tonight: Whatever else we may not know, or whatever of the theories of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ may be dark and difficult for us, there is one thing you need to know: The Bible teaches you that He is going to come again, and it teaches you that you are to watch, and it teaches you that those who are unprepared when He comes are in a desperate situation before God. So I ask you in closing tonight: Are you ready to meet Him? He may come before you hear the last part of this message. If you are a child of God you will not suffer loss by not having heard the rest of my message. If you are not a child of God you will suffer very greatly for not being prepared for His coming. If you do not know Him tonight I urge you to flee to Him, to cast yourself upon Him. He has pardon for the vilest sinner.
