|
Problems with the Amillennialism, Part Two |
||||||||
|
In this article, we continue studying the problems with amillennialism. In the previous part, we looked at the problems from a purely Scriptural view. In part two, we will be examining some evidence from outside Scripture. This is done in order to get a better understanding of the culture of that time. In other words, we should interpret Scripture in the context of the Jewish and Christian culture in which it was written. This does not elevate these sources that are outside of Scripture to the level of Scripture. It simply helps us understand Scripture itself better by understanding the ancient Jewish and Christian culture in which Scripture was written. But first, we need to take a close look at 2nd Peter 3:7-10, which amillennialists consider to be a very strong proof-text for their position. | ||||||||
God’s days are a thousand years. So seven thousand-year days from the Great Flood will be the destruction of the heavens and the earth. And this is what the scoffers are forgetting. | (NIV Psalm 90:4) For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. | |||||||
|
The Lord’s days are like a thousand years. Then we read:
| ||||||||
|
Since the Lord’s days are like a thousand years, then the Day of the Lord (in the very next verse) is also like a thousand years. The term “Day of the Lord” is a common term from the Old Testament. Is this day always a literal 24-hour day? Or can it be just a few days? Or does this Old Testament concept refer to a long period of time? The Old Testament seems to portray the Day of the Lord as being a short time of wrath followed by a long age during which the Lord rules. For example, Isaiah 27 is about a short time of God’s wrath. God will punish Israel’s enemies. Then, in chapter 28, God talks about a time of peace when God will bless Israel. Both are referred to as the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord is a long period of time, which begins with God’s wrath on the nations who attach Jerusalem. This can also be seen clearly in Zechariah 14. Joel 2-3 is about the “dreadful” Day of the Lord. The day includes a long period of time when God will dwell in Zion, the holy hill of Jerusalem.
We can also find similar evidence about the Day of the Lord in the New Testament. In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he spoke of the Day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night (1 Thess. 5:1). Did Paul and his audience interpret this day to be the 24-hour day during which the rapture happens? After all, he had just spoken about the rapture two verses earlier. When people are saying “peace and safety” (verse 3), sudden destruction will come. No doubt this is the sudden destruction of God’s wrath that we read about in the Old Testament. But is the Day of the Lord limited to this time of sudden destruction? In Paul’s second letter to the same church, we find that a problem had developed and Paul needed to correct it. A prophecy, report, or letter had been going around stating that the Day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2). And this was in specific relation to our being gathered to Him, which would be the rapture (verse 1). If the Day of the Lord only relates strictly to the day of the rapture itself, then the prophecy, report, or letter would have made no sense. Just wait one day and everyone would know the rapture had not happened. Therefore, the Day of the Lord must be much longer than the one day during which the rapture occurs. If not, Paul would have simply laughed at it and said we have not yet been caught up in the rapture. Instead, Paul had to give a sign which must happen before the Day of the Lord would come (verse 3). The man of lawlessness must be revealed before the Day of the Lord can come. This letter or rumor had made people believe the rapture was imminent. Paul was arguing against the Doctrine of Imminence. Since the Day of the Lord was understood to be the age to come, the false rumor or letter was saying that the age to come had already come. Thus, the rapture would happen at any moment now. Paul corrected this error. And the correction itself proves the Day of the Lord, while beginning with God’s wrath, is really the entire age to come. So let’s look at the verse in 2 Peter 3 again.
Replace “Day of the Lord” with “The Age to Come.” It would read: “But the ‘Age to Come’ will come like a thief (with sudden destruction.) [Then] the heavens will be disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire.” Nobody would have assumed that the heavens and earth would be destroyed before the Messianic age that was to come. Of course at this point most amillennialists are rolling their eyes. The traditional amillennial interpretation of this verse is that God sees time very differently from man, and what can seem like a long time to us can be a short time to God. So God’s promises are not slow in coming from God’s perspective, but they can be slow in coming from our perspective. And of course this interpretation is true. But it could also be true that God uses literal thousand-year days to help us understand his eternal nature. Peter switched the words around. A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. Does this mean that God’s time is also short as well as long? Does it mean that during a 24-hour day, God does so much that it could seem like a thousand years to him? That’s generally the amillennial interpretation. But that would not fit the context. The context is the scoffers and the issue that God’s promises can seem to take a long time. Saying that God’s time is also short does nothing to help the context. But if Peter is being literal about God’s days, then he is simply switching the words around for emphasis. He starts out with emphasis saying, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends.” Then he equates a day with a thousand years. And then he switches it around saying the same thing with the order reversed. If A = B, then B = A. In other words, one of God’s days are like a thousand of man’s years, and a thousand of mans years are like one of God’s days. It’s just reversed for emphasis. This fits the context better. But if it’s reverse for emphasis, then it also comes across as more literal. Many amillennialists will argue that I’m just using “Jewish fables” in my interpretation of Scripture. Ancient Jews believed in a Millennial Week that started with Adam. History would last seven thousand years. When amillennialists claim that I’m just using “Jewish fables,” and that I’m not sticking with Scripture, I can reply that I came to this belief purely from studying Scripture. And I had never been introduced to the idea that all God’s days are a thousand years. Years later I was excited to learn that many of the earliest church fathers also believed in the Millennial Week. The belief system back then was called Chiliasm. (This word is Greek for a thousand, whereas Millennium is Latin for a thousand.) They started the Millennial Week with Adam. And they would often justify their belief with Peter’s words, “With the Lord a day is as a thousand years.” It’s amazing how many people we know of who were Chiliasts, who made it through the pages of history, and had close connections to John himself. Irenaeus was definitely a Chiliast who wrote a lot about the subject. He was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John. We don’t know enough about Polycarp to know whether or not he was a Chiliast. But, according to Irenaeus, Papias was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp. And Papias was a Chiliast. If the students of John were Chiliasts, then this is evidence that John himself interpreted his own words as a Chiliast. If we knew for a fact that John himself was a Chiliast, it would destroy amillennialism. There was also a heretic named Cerinthius who was a Chiliast. And we know that he was an enemy of John. Some people believe that 1st John 5 was written specifically to appose the teaching of Cerinthius. Cerinthius taught that Jesus and Christ were not the same. He taught that Jesus was not the Son of Man until he was baptized. And he taught that the Christ left Jesus before the crucifixion. But 1st John 5 teaches against this heresy. Verse one says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Then starting with verse six we read, “This is the one who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” There is some disagreement here, but the water is probably Christ’s baptism and the blood is the crucifixion. John is arguing against Cerinthius’ position that Jesus was not the Christ before his baptism or at his crucifixion. The specific teaching of anyone in history, outside the Scripture, is not in and of itself relevant. The issue is that people who had close connections to John himself were Chiliasts. Of course as Chiliasts, they could have picked up some Jewish teachings from sources other than John. But if they were Chiliasts of some kind, then it almost proves that John was a Chiliast of some kind, especially if an enemy of John was also a Chiliast of some kind. Obviously they would have discussed the issues of Rev. 20 with John, in relationship to Chiliasm. But suppose that John’s disciples never asked him about Rev. 20, and that they came up with these beliefs from so-called "Jewish fables." Would John's disciples have adopted a teaching that was taught by John's enemy? If John's enemy was teaching it, then either John himself was also teaching it, or John's disciples would have never adopted it. Since John's enemy Cerinthius was also a Chiliast, it seems highly unlikely that John's friends would have been Chiliasts unless John himself had not also taught it. If their beliefs of Chiliasm were totally off base with regard to Rev. 20, then they would have abandoned the belief entirely. The details of what they believed are not relevant, and making the details relevant would be to go outside Scripture for doctrine. All that is being shown here is evidence that this group of friends, and enemies, all of whom knew John, had a common type of belief system. That common type of belief system is Chiliasm. And Chiliasm (like premillennialism) is so far on the other end of the hermeneutical spectrum from amillennialism, that it would be impossible for John to have been amillennial. Setting Revelation 20 aside for now, it seems to me that the only way to answer the question is ask wither or not there was a pre-disposition to associating a literal thousand years with one of God's days. Remember that John and Peter were both Jews. So in the Jewish community of that time, if someone said, "A day of the Lord is like a thousand years," would those rabbis have interpreted the thousand years as being literal or figurative? Without examining evidence outside of Scripture, the most natural interpretation of Revelation 20 is along the lines of premillennialism. But it can be interpreted as amillennial. Likewise, without examining evidence outside of Scripture, the most natural interpretation of 2nd Peter 3 is along the lines of amillennialism. But it can be interpreted as premillennial. These two verses of Scripture are the only two verses that can arguably be speaking of a literal thousand years. Is the thousand years one of God’s days? Since both have been interpreted both ways, we must go outside the Scripture to find evidence of their predisposition. This is not to say that anything outside of Scripture is itself proof of a theological issue. We use Scripture itself to determine our doctrine. But when it’s unclear which way two different verses are to be interpreted, we must examine evidence of culture and other writings from the time of the writing. (And not from centuries later.) Anything that was written after the writing of Revelation should be from people who had very close ties to John himself. We are not interested in the opinions of others. All we want to know is the opinions of John and Peter. The basic belief of Chiliasm is the millennial week. The writings that we have today of most early Christian Chiliasts didn't get into the details. But Irenaeus did. He equated the seventh day of the millennial week with the thousand years of Revelation 20. Justin Martyr also directly equates the seventh day with the thousand years of Revelation 20. Also Augustine, in his arguments against Chiliasm, understood the teaching as directly equating the seventh day with the thousand years of Revelation 20. We can easily identify Chiliasm because of the similarities to Jewish Chiliasm, where it was believed that, "With the Lord a day is a thousand years." Most Christian Chiliasts quoted this verse in 2nd Peter 3 in the context of thousand-year days of Chiliasm. This saying is always associated with the millennial week, in both Christian and Jewish Chiliasm. Since Christian Chiliasm is similar to Jewish Chiliasm, it's obvious that Jewish Chiliasm influenced Christian Chiliasm. The basic question, however, is whether or not John was speaking about the seventh-day aspect of Jewish Chiliasm when he wrote Revelation 20. Since Jewish Chiliasm did influence Christian Chiliasm, we will start with the Jewish quotes, and then move onto the Christian Chiliasm quotes. The Christian quotes will include Irenaeus, Barnabas, and Justin Martyr. I will also quote Augustine himself to show the belief system of Chiliasts, and how that belief system directly relates to the thousand years of Revelation 20. The first Jewish ancient-text evidence for this is in the Book of Jubilees, chapter 4. Adam lived to be 930 years old. His age is being compared with a thousand years as a day. The fact that he did not live to be a thousand is given as the reason why he did not physically die on the day he ate the fruit. For Genesis 2:17 states that on the day Adam would eat of it he would surely die. Most scholars today interpret this as a spiritual death. But the writer of the Book of Jubilees interpreted it as a physical death. He explains this verse by literally equating a day with a thousand years. Later on, we will find this same usage of Genesis 2:17 in Justin Martyr's discussion of the millennial week and the thousand years of Revelation 20. It's obvious that Justin Martyr got this idea from the Book of Jubilees.
|
New Wine for the End Times
|
|||||||
|
The second Jewish ancient-text evidence for this is the Talmud Sanhedrin, Folio 97a. Here we find the millennial week itself. Here we see that the days of Psalm 90:4 are being interpreted as a literal thousand years. Also the days of Hosea 6:2 are being interpreted as a literal thousand years. Bottom line is that there was a strong association at that time with God's days being a literal thousand years.
| (NIV Psalm 90:4) For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. | |||||||
|
Peter was Jewish. John was Jewish. When Peter wrote that a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, he no doubt thought of these days as being literal thousand-year periods of time. If Peter's verse is interpreted literally, then we must also apply this interpretation to Revelation 20. It becomes the case of Scripture interpreting Scripture. If the thief in the night, and the destruction of the heavens and the earth in 2nd Peter 3:10 covers a literal thousand years, then Revelation 20 must be interpreted literally, with the thousand years being a Day of the Lord. Ok, now for the Christian Chiliast quotes. First, here are some quotes from Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John): Here is what Irenaeus said about his teacher Polycarp:
Irenaeus: (AD. 120-202)
All this is very literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. Notice that Irenaeus did not view the kingdom of God as being present-age. It is to be brought in by Christ. Notice the mention of the "hollowed seventh day." This terminology only comes from the literal idea that a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day. The seventh day is the seventh millennium. Also notice that this was written after the temple was destroyed. So Irenaeus literally believed in a restored temple. He literally believed that the Antichrist would "sit in the temple at Jerusalem." Irenaeus believed in a literal Antichrist who will rule the earth during the Great Tribulation for 3 1/2 years and then Christ would return and set up a kingdom for a thousand years.
This quote from Irenaeus would go against the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now:
Irenaeus believed that the kingdom is after the coming of the Antichrist. He did not believe in "allegorizing" prophecy:
Irenaeus has earlier established that the kingdom is after the resurrection. And now he will establish that new heavens and the new earth are after the kingdom age. This quote, in the context of the seventh day, directly references Revelation 20.
Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of John himself, was a literalist. He read Revelation 20 in a literal way, and saw the thousand years as a time after the return of Christ. Today, we call this premillennialism. Irenaeus would quote Barnabas (AD 100). Here is Barnabas on the millennial week.
Next will be Justin Martyr (110-165 AD). Justin directly equates the thousand years with (A) The thousand years from the Book of Jubilees, (B) The thousand years from "With the Lord a Day is as a thousand years", and (C) John's Revelation. Justin also quoted a lot of Isaiah and directly said that Isaiah was talking about a thousand years. By the way, this was written to a Jew, and in the very next chapter, Justin says that the promises given to the Jews had been transferred to the Christians.
Papias was a Chiliast, and "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp." We don't have so much on him as we do Barnabas, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. But here is a quote from a church historian that shows Papias was a Chiliast. Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):
Another good person to quote about the Chiliast belief system is Augustine himself. He is writing a bit later, but he is quite familiar with the Chiliast belief system and defines it well in order to argue against it. This quote shows that Augustine understood Chiliasm, and had once believed it himself. This quote shows that Chiliasm directly relates to the thousand years of Revelation 20.
Bottom line is that there is strong evidence, that in ancient Jewish culture, there was a strong predisposition to associating one of God's days with a literal thousand years. Knowing this was a part of their upbringing, we can interpret Revelation and 2nd Peter 3 naturally. | ||||||||
|
One day during the ministry of Jesus, well before His final entry into Jerusalem, the Pharisees tried to frighten Jesus, saying that Herod wanted to kill Him. (Luke 13:31-33) Jesus calls Herod a fox and then tells him something he cannot possibly understand! We have a hard time understanding it today! The context of the passage is the death of Jesus, but it is said well before his death. The two days of driving out demons and healing people can and does refer to the two days Jesus was dead. His death paid the price to drive out demons and to heal people. On the third day he "reached his goal" by being raised from the dead. But, was this really the “goal” of Jesus? The “goal” of Jesus is the redemption of His Church! Also, why did Jesus say "today and tomorrow" when he clearly was not to be crucified at that time? And did Jesus really drive out demons and perform healings while he was in the grave? The answer is easy if the days of which Jesus speaks are the thousand year 'days' of God's plan. For two thousand-year 'days,' demons have been driven out and people have been healed in the name of Jesus. On the third 'day,' his Church is resurrected! The Age of Grace is two days, or two thousand years. After Jesus speaks about "today, tomorrow, and the third day," Christ goes on to speak about the end times, and what would have to happen before we are to see Christ's return (Luke 13:34-35). | (NASB Luke 13:31-33) Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, "Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You." And He said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.' Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem." | |||||||
|
This verse is in the same context. It’s part of his response to the statement that Herod wants to kill him. Is the focus of Jesus on his own resurrection, on the third day? Or is the focus of Jesus on the resurrection of Israel? There is a very similar verse in Matthew 23:37-38. Jesus is saying that Jerusalem will not see him again until they say these words. But here it’s being addressed to the religious leaders, those who “sit on the seat of Moses” (Matthew 23:2). Matthew’s account makes it clear that the people had already said these words when Jesus rode in on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). The words are from Psalm 118:26. For the Jews to say these words about Jesus would be to say that Jesus is the Messiah. Like Jesus, Paul also agonizes over the fact that the Jewish people, his own people, rejected Jesus as the Messiah (Romans 9-11). In Romans 11:25, Paul predicts that the Jews would come back into the vine after the full number of Gentiles had come into the vine of Christ (or the vine of true Israel). I think it’s clear from these verses that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (those who sit on the seat of Moses) will come back into the vine in the last days. The “goal” of Jesus is not his own resurrection. The “goal” of Jesus is the resurrection of true Israel, on the third day. | (NASB Luke 13:34-35) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! "Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'" | |||||||
|
Consider the words of Hosea 6:1-3. This verse is certainly about the crucifixion. But interpreted literally, it’s also about Israel, and not just about Christ himself. So, on the third day the Church (true Israel) is resurrected and we begin to “live in his presence.” The resurrection of Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection of true Israel (1st Cor. 15:20). Both are on the third day. This chapter, 1st Corinthians 15, seems to keep popping up in this discussion of premillennialism. We started out by looking at 1st Corinthians 15:22-26, which gives a chronology of events. Here is a review of that chronology: 1) Christ's resurrection 2) When He comes, the resurrection of those who belong to him. 3) Then the end comes, when he hands the kingdom over to the Father. At this point he has destroyed earthly governments. This is stated as all “dominion, authority, and power.” So this can also include the chaining of Satan. 4) Next he must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet. 5) The last enemy is death. | (NIV Hosea 6:1-3) “Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. [2] After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence. [3] Let us acknowledge the LORD; let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth.” | |||||||
|
So Christ must reign during the millennium until death is finally destroyed. Does this not outline the third-day resurrection of true Israel quite nicely? Look back at what Paul said to start this discussion. In 1st Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul says that Christ was raised on the third day, according to Old Testament Scripture. Where in the Scriptures does it say that the Messiah would be raised on the third day? We looked at Hosea 6:1-3. That’s the closest verse in the Old Testament that could be applied to the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day. But you have to “reinterpret the Old Testament by the New Testament” in order to come to this conclusion. Is that what Paul was doing? Perhaps a better way of looking at this is to see that the birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus are very similar to that of true Israel. For example, in Matthew 2:15, Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 saying, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Was Matthew denying that Hosea 11:1 was talking about Israel historically coming out of Egypt? Or was Matthew seeing that Israel’s history is patterned after Christ? The government killing the baby-boys of Israel marked the birth of Moses. Could this be seen as a prophecy of Herod the Great killing baby boys when Christ was born? The history of one is a prophecy of the other. Paul knew that Old Testament Scripture taught that Israel would be raised on the third day. He also knew that Christ was raised on the third day. Again, Paul said, “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” But the Scriptures never explicitly says the Messiah would be raised on the third day. And we know of no Jewish tradition indicating that the Messiah would be raised on the third day. The best explanation of why Paul said this is that Paul, knowing that Christ was raised on the third day, understood that the two are linked. One is the prophecy of the other. Let’s look at some other Old-Testament passages that speak of the third day. Abraham was spared the task of sacrificing Isaac on the third day (Genesis 22:4) of their travel to Moriah, which is the Temple Mount (2nd Chronicles 3:1). Exodus 19:10-11 As Joseph prophesied, the cupbearer was restored to his position and the chief baker was hanged, on the third day (Genesis 40:20-22). The third day is a day of judgment (2nd Peter 3:7). Leviticus 7:17-18 - God's sacrifice is only good till the third day. After the third day, it's too late. After Christ returns, it's too late. Numbers 19:11-12, Numbers 31:19 - If you are purified on the third day, you will be pure the day when Christ reigns as "Lord of the Sabbath." Both are actually the same millennial day. 2nd Kings 20:5 Matthew 20:18-19 - This verse is of course about the three 24-hour days of the crucifixion. Notice that He is turned over to the Gentiles. Jerusalem was turned over to the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24). The parallelism holds. Jesus was turned over to the Gentiles until the third day. Israel is turned over to the Gentiles until the third millennial day. | (NIV 1st Corinthians 15:3-4) For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures , that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. | |||||||
|
John 2:1-2 Let’s look back to Hosea 6:1-3. In the context of this passage, Israel is unrepentant. After a few verses of judgment for Israel's unrepentant nature, the Scripture goes on to say, (NIV Hosea 6:6) “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” Here, we find the very scripture Jesus quoted to the Pharisees when he declared himself "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:7-8). I believe this title refers to Christ’s millennial reign. Christ reigns in the seventh millennium. God wants a clean heart, not ritual. The ritual was only given as a pointer to Christ. This same unrepentant nature shown by Hosea was still present in the time of Jesus. Because of Israel's unrepentant nature, God has "torn [Israel] to pieces." But Israel is raised back up two (millennial) days later. | (KJV John 2:1-2) And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: [2] And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage | |||||||
|
Traditionally, the crucifixion is believed to have been on Friday. That would put Christ’s time in the grave a very small part of Friday, a full day Saturday, and a small part of Sunday. But the third millennial day concept has the Church in the grave for two full millennial days, followed by the resurrection at the start of the third millennial day. The two would be a better fit for each other if the crucifixion were really on Thursday. That would put Christ in the grave for two full days. Let’s take a close look at Scripture for strong evidence that Christ really was crucified on Thursday. The Jewish day begins at sunset and is today called "twilight." Sunset is about 6:00 P.M. After 6:00 P.M., a new calendar day begins. The term "twilight" in Exodus 12:6, however, was understood by the Pharisees and rabbis to be from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., when the sun begins its setting. During the crucifixion, from noon to 3:00 P.M., darkness, or "twilight," came over the land. (From the sixth to the ninth hour in Matthew 27:45 corresponds to from noon to 3:00 P.M. on our clock.) Christ died at about 3:00 P.M. His body was placed in the tomb before 6:00 P.M. that night, since the Sabbath officially began at 6:00 P.M. | ||||||||
|
Traditionally, the crucifixion is believed to be on Friday. We know the resurrection was very early Sunday morning. John 20:1 says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. Mark says, "just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb" (Mark 16:2 NIV). Luke says, "very early in the morning" (Luke 24:1). Matthew says, "at dawn" (Matthew 28:1). Since John says it was still dark and Mark says it was just after sunrise, the light of the new day probably started to appear during the walk. All four tell us that the women went to the tomb early on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. Backing up a bit, and looking at Luke 23:52-56, it seems as if the crucifixion was on Friday from verses like John 20:1. | (NIV John 20:1) Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. | |||||||
|
This is the reason for the traditional crucifixion on Friday. The Sabbath begins at 6:00 PM on Friday and goes through 6:00 PM on Saturday. Jesus was buried just before the Sabbath began. There is a problem, however, with this view. Jesus said that he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). Friday night and Saturday night are only two nights. The three days are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. But name the thee nights. This can’t be explained away using the fact that any portion of the day is counted, because you can’t include Sunday night. If Jesus was "in the heart of the earth" for three nights, he had to have been crucified on Thursday. We know the Last Supper, the meal Jesus had on the evening before his crucifixion, was the Passover meal (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7, and John 13:1). The very next day after Passover is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This first day, Nisan 15, is a Sabbath. The word Sabbath does not mean the seventh day of the week. The word Sabbath simply means to cease work or to rest. We get our word 'sabbatical' from this Greek word ‘Sabbaton.’ The word in Hebrew is 'Shabbat.' The seventh day of the week is declared to be a Sabbath. Likewise, other specific days of the feasts are declared to be a Sabbath. When Passover is on a Thursday, Friday is a Sabbath. Saturday is also a Sabbath. When Passover is on a Thursday, two days of rest follow Passover. If we were to rest for two days, how many 'rests' would there be? If we rest for two days, we do not rest for one day, stop resting, and then immediately rest for another day. In other words, when there are two Sabbaths on two consecutive days, no work is done between the two Sabbaths. Work is ceased for both days. It is one rest for two days. When Passover is on Thursday, Friday and Saturday are one large Sabbath. | (NIV Matthew 12:40) For as Jonah was three days
and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth.
(NIV Jonah 1:17) But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights. |
|||||||
|
In John 19:31, the Greek word used to describe this particular Sabbath is 'megas.' Today, we use the prefix 'mega' to mean large. The Greek word 'megas' means big, exceedingly, great, high, or large. A large, two day, Sabbath fits the meaning. Also, the word 'day,' appears three times in the King James verse, but it is not in the Greek. The King James translators were interpreting when they added 'day.' They were incorrectly assuming an individual day. Jesus was "in the heart of the earth" for three nights: Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. He was buried for three days: Friday, Saturday, and the beginning of Sunday. The resurrection was at the "dawn" of Sunday, the third day. Daniel 12:4,9-10 teaches that even the wise are not to fully understand eschatology until the time of the end. At the time of the end, the wise will understand but the wicked will not. Before the time of the end, even the wise do not fully understand. It’s my belief that the true understanding of the third day has been sealed to our understanding in part by the incorrect tradition of the crucifixion being on Friday. Knowing that the crucifixion was on Thursday, we can better understand how the two days of Christ being in the grave parallels the two days of Israel (the Church) being in the grave.
| (KJV John 19:31) The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high [megas] day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. | |||||||
|
Praying to Dead Saints, and the Papacy One argument that is often given against premillennialism is that Revelation 20 is the only place in Scripture that explicitly says Christ’s reign will last a thousand years. It’s argued that we should not adopt doctrines of Scripture based on one chapter or verse. Now I do believe that 2nd Peter 3, in an indirect way, teaches that the reign of Christ is a thousand years. But as we have seen, you have to study the teachings and the culture of the time in order to understand what Peter is saying. There are also Old Testament passages that speak of the millennial reign (Zechariah 14, Isaiah 65:17-25, 66:19-24). But these passages do not explicitly state it as being a thousand years. And many amillennialists will interpret these passages, especially Zechariah 14, in an allegorical way that denies the natural reading. Amillennialists will even sometimes admit that Zechariah himself would not have agreed with their allegorical interpretations. In response to this, I would like to turn this question of Revelation 20 around and ask: Does the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 require us to accept doctrinal positions that are not taught elsewhere in Scripture? | ||||||||
|
Revelation 20:4 speaks of the thrones that are set up for martyrs who have been given the authority to judge. Amillennialists insist that the first resurrection is our born-again experience, and began with Christ’s first advent. So amillennialism must teach these thrones in heaven are here and now. Is there anywhere else in Scripture that teaches dead saints are sitting on thrones in heaven, and have authority to judge? Under the amillennial system, either these thrones are for disembodied spirits, or they are for Christians currently alive. Nowhere else in Scripture are Christians, either alive or dead, given the authority to judge. A pastor may be given some leadership authority in his church. But he does not have the authority to judge. There are only two types of judges. Christ judges each one of our personal lives and determines our heavenly rewards. Christ will also judge the wicked. No Christian can judge other Christians in this way. The other type of judge is in civil government. For there to be thrones set up there must be a civil government. Those who overcome will have authority to judge in the Kingdom of Christ, after the resurrection (Rev 2:26-27). But today neither the disciples, nor other Christians, have the authority to judge. Therefore the first resurrection of Revelation 20 cannot be our salvation experience. The first resurrection must be the physical resurrection of our bodies. And these thrones must be the thrones set up for the martyrs and overcomers to rule in a civil government, which is the Kingdom of Christ. | (NIV Revelation 20:4) I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. | |||||||
|
When Augustine first wrote about amillennialism, he also interpreted those who rule on these thrones as being both dead saints, as well as some who are still alive. (See Augustine’s ‘The City of God’, book XX, chapter 9.) But he didn’t believe that all Christians have this authority to rule. Augustine applied Matthew 5:19 to the rulers on these thrones. This verse says those who obey the commandments, and teach others to do so, will be called greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who do not obey any of the commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. With amillennialism, the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now, and does not have a separate natural and future fulfillment. So not all Christians rule. And those who rule on these thrones are ruling here and now. Some are still alive. Others are dead saints. Some amillennialists claim that they are judged, but are not given authority to judge. KJV translates it as, "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them." They point out that the Greek word here (krima) for judge is not translated anywhere else as "authority to judge." It's a noun, and it's meaning is that of an actual judgment – not the authority to judge. And a word for “authority” does not appear in the Greek text. The NIV translates it as "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge." Most modern-day translations are similar, translating it as authority to judge. The Greek is (kai krima didomi autos). "Judgment" is in the nominative and "to them" is in the dative. So one possible way to translate it is "Judgment is given to them." This is similar to the KJV. The problem with this translation is that the verb is passive. So they are not judged. Something is given to them passively. So that's why the NIV and most other modern-day translations assume that it's an unstated authority to judge that is given. But it's quite possible that Augustine, like the KJV translators, assumed that they were judged before being given these thrones. It’s quite possible that John, using a very small number of words, was actually saying that they are judged in order that they would have authority to judge. Also it would be assumed that not all would receive this authority. It would depend on the outcome of their judgment. With this in mind, it gives Augustine a textual reason for applying Matthew 5:19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." In other words, they are judged based on whether or not they broke commandments, or taught others to do so. After being so judged, they can sit on the thrones and have authority over the world. Those who are judged in the amillennial context of Rev 20:4 would be only those who have had a spiritual resurrection in Christ. They are judged so that they can sit on the thrones, and "reign with Christ." They are themselves judged so that they can judge others. But Augustine apparently believed that everyone who has had this spiritual resurrection would not be judged the same. And that makes sense from the amillennial view of Rev 20:4. Why would this judgment be mentioned if all Christians were to sit on these thrones? Some would be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven. And some would be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. Thus only those who have obeyed Christ's commandments the "greatest" would be allowed to sit on these thrones, and "reign with Christ" for the thousand years. Again, this is looking at Rev 20:4 strictly from the amillennial perspective. And no other Scripture teaches this doctrine. The premillennial view would put all this after the return of Christ. And since the Kingdom of Heaven in the premillennial view is a natural kingdom, these judges would be civil judges. It is my belief that the Catholic Sainthood doctrine originated at least in part because of the amillennial view of Rev 20:4. Not everyone becomes "Saints." Only those who are "greatest" in the kingdom are saints, and this judgment they are given determines whether or not they sit on the thrones. The ones who become "Saints" can intercede with the Father over the affairs of the world. Since they would know what's happening down here, as they sit on these thrones, we should ask them to help us by using their influence. (That is if you believe in amillennialism.) Also consider the word “saint” itself. John uses this word predominately in Revelation to refer to all Christians who are alive during the time. But to a Catholic, saints are only a select few. This would explain why the Catholic Sainthood uses the word “saint.” The Catholic Sainthood started very soon after Augustine, and was originally only for martyrs. The local bishops of a city made lists of people who were officially declared to be a martyr. (There were sometimes questions as to whether a person had really died for his faith.) And, of course, Rev 20:4 speaks specifically of martyrs. Later, they extended the lists of saints to include others who had lived very faithful lives, but had not actually died a martyr’s death. This quickly got out of hand, and eventually it became the pope’s sole authority to declare someone as being a saint. So it’s very likely that amillennialism is the source of the doctrine of Catholic Sainthood. Is this also true of the Papacy itself and other Catholic doctrines? With amillennialism, the first resurrection is the spiritual born-again experience. Augustine taught that those who sit on the thrones are both the living, as well as dead saints. In other words, Augustine believed that some who are still living have this authority to judge. Error leads to more error. In my opinion, the doctrine of amillennialism is far more dangerous than possibly being mistaken about whether or not Christ has an earthly reign after he returns. In the following quote from Augustine (‘The City of God’, book XX, chapter 9) you can find the Catholic Sainthood, the Papacy, the Communion of the Saints, and Excommunication that leads to damnation. All of this stems from Augustine’s discussion about amillennialism and those who sit on these thrones. None of these conclusions can be made if the thousand years premillennial.
If you are Catholic, then amillennialism is perhaps the only way to truly argue from Scripture some of the Catholic doctrines, such as the Catholic Sainthood. But if you are Protestant and yet hold to the amillennial view of Revelation 20, I would challenge you to consider the wisdom of holding to a highly specialized interpretation of some very natural-sounding text, when that highly spiritualized interpretation can lead to such Catholic-like views that are not taught elsewhere in Scripture. Philip B. Brown
|
Overcome sin, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!
