Will Christ reign on David’s throne?
Ever since the publication of Hank Hanegraaff’s book, Apocalypse Code, the evangelical world has been reminded once again of the great divide that exists between those who hold to an amillennial view of Scripture and those who do not. In his book, Hanegraff, the so-called “Bible answer man,” hurls a blistering diatribe toward a number of premillennialists, including Tim LaHaye, author of the highly popular Left Behind book series. He charges him with blasphemy because he differs with him regarding the course of future events. Hanegraaff, a preterist, believes that most of the events of the Book of Revelation were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Roman commander Titus conquered Jerusalem, destroying its temple. LaHaye, on the other hand, is a futurist who takes the position that most of the events of the Book of Revelation are yet to be fulfilled. Perhaps the only thing that Hanegraaff’s book did accomplish was to accentuate the difference between the amillennial and premillennial viewpoints—a difference so wide that one Christian would have the audacity to claim that another brother is guilty of blasphemy.
What is amillennialism?
Despite the fact that it has been around for centuries, amillennialism continues to grow in certain theological circles. Without question, it is the predominant end time view of most of non-evangelical Christendom. As the name implies, amillennialists believe that there is no biblical substantiation for a future, literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, despite the fact that Revelation 20 makes reference to it six different times and that both the Old and New Testaments allude to this great event. Instead, they claim that this period is currently being fulfilled symbolically and that much of the Bible should be interpreted as such. They hold that Christ’s kingdom is in heaven where He is reigning now and that, when He comes again, it will not be to usher in a literal kingdom, but, instead, it will be to bring about an end to world history, precipitating a general judgment of believers and non-believers alike. According to this view, God has permanently cast away His ancient people Israel because they rejected their Messiah, the Lord Jesus. Therefore, the promises made to them have a fulfillment in the church, which has now replaced Israel. For this reason, this view has come to be known as “replacement theology” or “supercessionism” since, from their standpoint, the church has superseded Israel, having become an historic continuation of it, inheriting many of its promises. Consequently, they hold that the promises to Israel in the past have no bearing upon the nation today, which is nothing more than an ethnic group among the nations of the world. In short, amillennialists say that national Israel no longer has a place in God’s divine plan and program.
How does premillennialism differ from amillennialism?
In contrast, premillennialists argue that the Bible clearly presents a literal, future thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. It sees in the Old Testament promises made to Israel, especially the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, the basis for making such a claim. Premillennialism teaches that when Christ returns again, it will be in two stages: first, when He comes for His church just prior to a seven year period of tribulation on earth (1 Thes. 4:13-17) and second, when He returns in glory with His church just before His millennial reign. Premillennialists reject the idea that the church has replaced Israel but rather see a distinction between the two, and they staunchly maintain that God has a separate plan and program for each. They claim that the basis for their convictions is a literal interpretation of Scripture, advocating that the Bible should always be interpreted at face value unless the context and common sense dictate otherwise. Herein lies the fundamental reason for the difference between these two main theological positions: whether or not the Bible should characteristically be interpreted literally or symbolically.
Where did amillennialism come from?
Amillennialism first emerged between the second and third centuries A.D. Origen was apparently the first prominent Christian who taught the concept of allegorization or the figurative interpretation of Scripture. This concept was further promulgated by his protégé, Dionysius of Alexandria. However, the main person credited with developing this school of thought was Augustine of Hippo. Up to that point, premillennial thinking was the overriding conviction of the early church. Certainly it had been with the disciples who had asked the Lord the question just prior to His ascension, “Is this the time that You will restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Further persecution under the Roman Empire only solidified the conviction of the early Christians that there was a bright and glorious age yet to come when Christ would personally return to earth to establish His worldwide kingdom in fulfillment of prophetic Scripture, thus alleviating the severe persecution experienced under Rome. But with the so-called “conversion” to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who united the “church” with the world, that persecution was immediately lifted, creating a false impression in the minds of many that Christ’s kingdom had, in some way, arrived, even though He was not present. This event, coupled with the underlying shift to the allegorical approach to Bible interpretation, contributed to the development and acceptance of amillennial thinking. Though evidence exists that premillennialism has always remained the firm conviction of many Bible-believing Christians, its prominence waned from the medieval period through the Reformation, as amillennialism increased and became the dominant view of Christendom.
Amillennialism and the Abrahamic Covenant
It cannot be overstated how important the Abrahamic Covenant is in understanding God’s ultimate plans and purposes in the world or how it invalidates the amillennial viewpoint. It is foundational to many of the other covenants of Scripture and to the unfolding of biblical revelation. When God called Abram from the Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 12:1-3), He promised him seven different things: 1) He would make him a great nation, 2) He would bless him, 3) He would make His name great, 4) Abram would be a blessing to others, 5) He would bless those who would bless Abram, 6) He would curse him who cursed Abram, and 7) all the families of the earth would be blessed through Abram. What God meant and how this would be accomplished are further explained and expanded upon in subsequent chapters. In time, God did, indeed, make of Abram a great nation and He did bless him, both spiritually and materially. He did make His name great and make him a blessing to others, blessing those who blessed him and cursing those who cursed him. All these things God did literally. Consequently, is not unreasonable to assume that God’s expanded promises to Abraham would be fulfilled literally.
In Genesis 13:14-18, God specifically promised a land for Abram’s descendents forever. In Genesis 15, in answer to Abram’s shrinking faith, God again promised a land to Abram (v. 7) and confirmed it unilaterally (vv. 8-17), thus making it unconditional, according to grace and not Abram’s own performance. Then in verses 18-21, God further outlined the dimensions of the land and how it would go to his descendants forever. Finally, in Genesis 17, this covenant is referred to as an everlasting covenant (vv. 7, 19) and the land as an everlasting possession (v. 8), confirming that these would always remain in effect, come what may. God stated five times “I will” when He first gave this promise and afterwards confirmed it with an oath (Gen. 22:16). God confirmed that it would come through Isaac and not Ishmael (Gen. 17:19-21; 26:3-5) and eventually through Jacob (Gen. 28:13-14) and not Esau, further substantiating that the literal, everlasting promises made to Abraham ultimately flow down to Israel. Years later, in Egypt, God remembered the covenant that He had made to them (Ex. 2:24), thus validating that these everlasting promises literally applied to Israel. Knowing their future and eventual failure to maintain a faithful witness through the centuries, God further stated in Deuteronomy 30:3 that He would have compassion on them and eventually bring them back to the land—a land whose dimensions were given in Genesis 15 but has never been fully occupied, even in the days of King Solomon. Furthermore, when God made a covenant with King David (2 Sam. 7), He promised him a place for Israel where they would be planted “to move no more” (v. 10), verifying that Israel had never yet entered into the reality of this covenant even in the days of King David. In addition, God unconditionally promised to David a royal dynasty and a throne that would last forever. David understood it to be a literal “forever” promise (vv. 18-29) for which he gave thanks to God. Scripture substantiates that this would be fulfilled by the Lord Jesus, both prophetically (Isa. 9:6-7) and historically (Lk. 1:31-33).
How does amillennialism square with Scripture?
Quite simply, it doesn’t. Because of their symbolic approach to interpreting Scripture, amillennialists fail to see the promises that God made to Abraham and David as literal and unconditional. Instead, they predicate the keeping of these covenants upon Israel’s faithfulness rather than upon God’s own inviolable will and character. They disregard the weight of the word “forever” as stated many times by God and erroneously maintain that these promises were temporary for the nation and ultimately transferred to the church. They falsely conclude that God has permanently cast away Israel, even though Romans 11:1 clearly affirms the contrary when the apostle Paul, himself a Jew, clearly proclaims with divine authority, “I say then, hath God cast away His people? God forbid!”
Amillennialism also fails to see the distinction between the church and Israel, in spite of the direct and indirect teaching of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Paul’s reference to “the Jew, the Gentile, and the Church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32) is prima facie evidence of this truth. The fact that the church is referred to as a “new man” (Eph. 2:15) and not, as some erroneously conclude, the “Israel of God,” further substantiates a distinction, as does the description of the city four square in Revelation 21 whose gates are named after the tribes of Israel and foundations after the twelve apostles—a powerful proof that God makes a distinction between the two and will throughout eternity! Consequently, amillennialism leads to inconsistency in the understanding and the application of the Word of God and forfeits a deep appreciation of how God will yet restore the wayward nation through His own wisdom and power (Rom. 11:33). It can lend itself to an anti-Semitic attitude among those who feel that Israel deserves rejection by God.
There are many more important aspects of amillennial teaching that could be considered. But God indeed has a plan and a program for the nation of Israel which He will bring about in the course of time. He also has a separate plan and program for the church as He calls many people out of the world (Acts 15:13-14). Understanding God’s work in the world today toward Israel and through the church underscores again the significance of the words of 2 Timothy 2:15: “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth.”