Like futurism and dispensationalism perhaps a good question would be where and/or when does the doctrine of the millennial reign come from?
Pasted with permission of the author Ellis Skolfield.
http://www.ellisskolfield.com/index.shtml
JEAN DE LABIDE
Since part of the 20th Chapter of Revelation appears to be literal, a Dutch Reformed theologian, Jean de Labadie, concluded back in 1640 that Jesus would return to rule over the earthly kingdoms of men for 1000 years at the end of the Christian Era. This "millennium," as it is now called, was then to be followed by another Armageddon, Rev 20:8, after which we would have the great white throne, and eventually the saints would enter into the Eternal Kingdom of God. Jean de Labadie's millennial theory fit perfectly with the Lacunza, Darby, Macdonald,
Scofield pre-trib rapture scheme of things, so the Dispensationals added pre-millennialism to their body of doctrine. However, the Church of de Labadie's own day considered his view heretical and the Dutch brethren tossed de Labadie out of the church. Here is why:
Rev 20:2 is the only supposed support for the pre-millennial view in the whole Bible, and it only works then if you interpret ONLY ONE verse literally in a book most serious eschatologists understand to be primarily figurative. Even to arrive at that view, de Labadie had to ignore two universally accepted rules of Bible interpretation:
1. No scripture should be interpreted apart from its context. As already stated, most of Revelation is figurative and there is no textual reason to believe that Rev 20 should be interpreted differently than its context.
2. A word study should be done in the original language to be sure that the passage is correctly understood. The Greek word translated "thousand" in Rev 20:2 (and throughout the rest of chapter), is chilioi (Strong's No. 5507). Chilioi is an indefinite plural, and may not mean just one thousand. It could mean one thousand, but it could also mean many thousands.
INDEFINITE PLURAL
That is the point, chilioi is an indefinite plural. It seems Pre-millennialists base one of their definite doctrines on a very indefinite plural. Even though the translation of chilioi as one thousand is technically correct, if we insist on it meaning only 1000 years, then the sense of the passage could be lost.
A figurative interpretation of Rev 20 is not as wild as one might think. Most of the Church considered Rev 20 to be figurative until de Labadie came along. Since it is scripturally provable that the saints reign with Christ, in His spiritual kingdom right this instant, and that we have done so throughout the Christian Era (Eph 1:3, 1Pe 2:9, Rev 1:6, Rev 5:10), then this "thousand" year reign of Christ could be a pictorial representation of the whole Christian Era.
RULING WITH THE LORD
Besides the last trumpet itself, there are other verses that call the premillennial view into question. According to premillennialism, when Jesus returns for His 1000-year reign, He will rule from Jerusalem in all His power and glory. During that 1000 years, we (the saints) are presumed to be ruling with Him in our new glorified and sinless bodies. At the end of the 1000 years, Satan is somehow supposed to deceive the rulers (now sinless us) for a short season. If that were to happen we would again be in sin, which would result in our again being separated from the Lord. That is contrary to 1TH 4:17, which clearly states:
1TH 4:17 "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up...to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall ever be with the Lord." Saints will never again be separated from the Lord!
WHO'S THE STRONG MAN ?
MAT 12:29 "How can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless He first binds the strong man?"
When Jesus asked that question, He was in the act of casting out demons. The Lord was plundering Satan's house then, and He is still doing so today through the church. Now Jesus permitted Himself to be bound once, at the Cross, but it will never happen again. When Jesus returns to Jerusalem, He will be ruling in all His power and glory. It will be Jesus' kingdom. He will be the "strong man"! Released or not, Satan could only plunder Jesus' kingdom if he could again bind Jesus. Laughable. Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God the Father. He is King of kings and Lord of lords, forever!
Eph 1:20-21 declares, "...when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come." That age to come would have to include any future time that Jesus is on Earth, and beyond. No future time of lost power for the Lord. When the Lord returns at the end of this age, He will rule absolutely...and eternally!
IT'S ABOUT DOMAIN
God gave the Earth to Adam. Adam was made the ruler of the Earth and all that it contained (Gen 1:28). When Adam fell, he delivered his God-given authority into Satan's hands (Luk 4:6). All mankind then became Satan's legal possession. When scripture says "we were bought with a price," that was not just some theoretical acquisition. We were purchased from Satan's kingdom by Jesus' precious blood. When we accept Jesus as our personal Savior, by a sovereign act, God the Father transfers us "out of the domain (kingdom, NASB) of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son" (Col 1:13). If you are looking for the kingdom age, there it is, right where the Bible has been saying it was all along. The kingdom of the Lord Jesus has existed ever since Act 2:33-36.
At the end of this age, Jesus will indeed return to Earth with His Holy angels and all His "holy ones" (all in their glorified bodies). That's us, with all the saints who have gone before us, all of whom who went to be with Him at the last trumpet (1Co 15:52).
Rev 11:15 "And the seventh angel sounded (the last trumpet) and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.' " Not for just for 1000 years, but forever!
TWO RESTORATIONS
As the end approaches, things are going to deteriorate in a hurry. If we are to walk in truth, we must guard ourselves against interpreting Scripture to fit our preconceived notions, for "The Lord takes no delight in fools" (Ecc 5:4). Insisting on a literal interpretation of a figurative passage may display our orthodoxy before men, but rob us of what the Lord would have us learn from Scripture. The premillennial interpretation of Isa 11:6-10 is a glaring example of the "literal hermeneutic" carried to the point of absurdity.
Isaiah 11:1-5 has many allegorical elements: "A shoot [or branch] springs from the stem of Jesse . . . a branch from his root will bear fruit . . . He will judge with the rod of His mouth . . . righteousness will be the belt about His loins and faithfulness the belt about his waist," etc., etc. All those expressions are obviously figurative, and all conservative Bible scholars understand this passage to be a pictorial description of the Messiah to be born several hundred years in the future. This prophecy was fulfilled during Jesus' life on Earth, by 32-33AD.
Now, the first time the Jews were driven off their land was when Nebuchadnezzar exiled them to Babylon. The restoration after the Babylonian captivity was the FIRST restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land. By the time of the crucifixion, the Jews had been restored from the captivity and living in the Holy Land for 568 years. Now lets skip verses 6-10 and go to verse11. There we read that the Lord will restore his people to the Holy Land for "a second time!"
Isa 11:11 "Then it will happen on that day that the Lord Will again recover the SECOND TIME with His hand the remnant of His people."
Thirty-seven years after Jesus was crucified, in 70AD, the Jews were dispersed for a second time into the nations, so the second restoration would have to take place after that. And it did. The second restoration took place in the new nation of Israel, established in 1948AD. In that year, after almost 1900 years among the Gentiles, the Jews were restored to the Holy Land . . . FOR A SECOND TIME! Now look at the chronology:
Isa 11:1-5 About the coming Messiah 32AD
Isa 11:6-10 About when? ????AD
Isa 11:11 About the 2nd restoration 1948AD
Well, if Isa 11, verses 1-5 are about Jesus' life on Earth, and verse 11 can be positively pinned to 1948, to what time do you suppose the verses in between refer? Well, because of context, verses 6-10 would have to refer to the time in between Jesus' life on Earth and 1948, wouldn't they? The only contextually sound way to look at Isa 11:6-10 is figuratively, as a picture of the Christian Era.
Now Premillennialists recognize the figurative elements in Isa 11:1-5: the branch, the root, the fruit, the belt, the breath, and so on. Those common figures are understood by all. No one really expects a literal branch, with leaves and all, to spring out of the forehead of David's father. All theologians recognize this passage as teaching that one of Jesse's descendants will be the Messiah. It is figurative, and they all know it.
But when they read on a couple of verses, and see a lion eating straw, some say: "Ah, that must be literal, and since it hasn't happened yet, it must be going to take place in the millennium. And there is more support for our pre-millennial view." They further pontificate that during the millennium, a "nursing child will really play by the hole of the cobra," and "the leopard will really lie down with the kid," etc., thus doing away with God's natural law. Anything is possible with the Lord, of course, but a literal interpretation of those verses is certainly not their most probable meaning.
Many well-known Bible teachers are famous for accepting figurative interpretations for the figurative language they understand, while demanding a literal interpretation for the figurative language they don't . . . all the while, heralding their orthodoxy by broadcasting their faith in a "literal hermeneutic." But if the passage in question is figurative, a "literal hermeneutic" will not lead anyone to truth. The literal or figurative nature of a Scripture is not determined by the reader, but by the author, and some Scriptures cannot be recognized as literal or figurative unless the principles of hermeneutics are applied without doctrinal bias.
Interestingly enough, many Evangelical groups, including major Evangelical Bible colleges, use the pre-millennial view as a litmus test for orthodoxy. One Christian publisher even trumpets proudly that all of its publications are pre-millennial, as if a differing view on the millennium were mortal sin. But despite its popularity, the weight of scriptural evidence appears to be against the pre-millennial view. It will be interesting to see if the Holy Spirit can quicken the Church to the possibility that it is once again standing dogmatically . . . on false doctrine.
CONTINUED NEXT POST
Will they still be called jews or Israelites? Thanks.
