How to Think About the Millenium

Please open your Bibles to Revelation chapter 20.

Revelation 20 · chapter mention

If you don't have a Bible, please raise your hand.

We'd love to bring a Bible for you that you can have and you can use.

We've been going through our series in the book of Revelation.

We're coming to the end here, the last few chapters.

Let me pray for the reading and preaching of God's word.

Father, all scripture is breathed out by you.

Every word, and therefore every word is profitable for us.

It's able to make us wise for salvation in Jesus Christ

and it is profitable for equipping us and building us up

so that we might be complete, equipped for every good work.

And so, Lord, we don't skip passages.

We come even to a difficult passage like this,

expecting to hear from you,

wanting to learn from you.

So, Lord, teach us and lead us.

We humble ourselves before you.

Exalt the name of your Son, Jesus Christ,

and humble us so that with greater humility and love

we might engage with one another

and with others who might disagree with us

on a number of issues related to this passage,

but also so that we might conduct ourselves

and all our dealings with great love.

Help us in Jesus' name we pray.

Amen.

If you're able, please stand and join me

in reading God's word from Revelation 21 to 6.

I will read it out loud for us

and you can follow along with your eyes.

Revelation 20 verses 1 to 6.

Revelation 20:1–6

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven,

holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit

and a great chain.

And he seized the dragon,

that ancient serpent,

who is the devil and Satan,

and bound him for a thousand years

and threw him into the pit

and shut it and sealed it over him

so that he might not deceive the nations any longer

until the thousand years were ended.

After that, he must be released for a little while.

Then I saw thrones

and seated on them

were those to whom the authority to judge was committed.

Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded

for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God

and those who had not worshipped the beast or its image

and had not received its mark on their foreheads

or their hands.

They came to life

and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

The rest of the dead did not come to life

until the thousand years were ended.

This is the first resurrection.

Blessed and holy is the one

who shares in the first resurrection.

Over such, the second death has no power.

But they will be priests of God and of Christ

and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

This is God's holy and authoritative word.

You may be seated.

I feel like I owe people who are here

for the first time an apology

because this is the most hotly debated passage

in the entire book of Revelation,

possibly in the entire Bible.

It tells us about a period of time

when Satan will be bound for a thousand years

and the people of God will reign with Christ

for a thousand years.

And before, well actually that depends

on how you interpret this.

But exactly how long this millennial period is,

whether it's a literal thousand years

or a figurative thousand years,

whether it will occur in heaven

with believers reigning in their souls

or on earth,

when exactly it will occur.

It will occur before Christ returns

or after Christ returns.

All of these things are contested points

about which many faithful Bible-believing Christians disagree.

Someone has joked that the millennium

is a thousand years of peace

that Christians love to fight about

because of the difficulty of this passage

and the history of extensive debate surrounding it

and the fact that many Christians

have strong, very strong opinions about it

and have divided over these issues.

I'm going to do something unusual

and spend two weeks teaching on Revelation 21 to 6.

And this week I'm going to provide

mostly the historical background

and a theological overview of the millennium.

And then next week we're going to get

into the nitty-gritty exegetical details

of the passage itself.

So normally I don't like to do something like this.

I like to be close to the text.

But a friend of mine who's a pastor

said he took four weeks to do it.

So you guys, I'm sparing you guys of that.

And he said he did that

and had all the qualifications

and still at the end of the four weeks

some people decide to leave the church

because of this.

And so that's why I think it's important

to give this kind of context and background.

I don't think that's going to happen in our church

but I can surprise myself.

We'll see what happens here.

Now, I think a controversial passage like this

is in Scripture

and God gives us passages like this

as a way of keeping us humble.

It reminds us that we don't have all the answers.

So I can be so prideful

with the little knowledge that I have.

Imagine what kind of prideful monster I would be

if I had all the knowledge.

Perfect knowledge.

Knew everything.

And so I think this is intended to keep us humble.

It reminds us that in this age

before the second coming of Christ

and the new heavens and the new earth

we know in part

and we prophesy in part

as it says in 1 Corinthians 13.9.

It reminds us that knowledge puffs up

but love builds up.

This is in 1 Corinthians 8.1.

So the doctrine of the millennium

is not a matter of indifference

that Paul speaks of in Romans 14.

But his exhortation there to us

about protecting one another's liberty,

freedom of conscience

is still helpful for us.

So I'm going to read that before we start.

It says in Romans 14,

as for the one who is weak in faith,

welcome him,

but not to quarrel over opinions.

One person believes he may eat anything

while the weak person eats only vegetables.

One person esteems one day as better than another

while another esteems all days alike.

Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

So Paul's using this example.

He clearly has an opinion about it

because he says that people who only eat vegetables

are the ones who are weaker in faith.

He has an opinion about it.

But he says that this is a matter of indifference.

It's not something that really matters.

And so when he was dealing with believers

who by their conviction believed

that they should only eat vegetables

or should never eat meat

that had been sacrificed to idols,

he would accommodate them humbly

because it's a matter of indifference.

There are some things

that are not worth quarreling over.

And in those cases,

and I think this millennium,

I don't think it's that kind of matters of indifference.

I think it's important and consequential.

But it's still something

that I think people can have the freedom of conscience

to disagree about

and be faithful Christians in.

So that raises the question, however,

how do we determine

what is something to divide over

and what isn't something to divide over?

What's essential doctrine

and what's not essential doctrine?

If you walk into an emergency room,

the doctors and nurses

assess the severity of your illness

and determine the order of priority

in which you should be treated.

Every time I've gone to the emergency room

for something,

I've had to wait many, many hours,

which tells me that

they clearly don't think

that my problem is as severe

as I think it is, right?

And so this is,

you have to use the process of triaging

in order to determine

who should be treated first.

And similarly, we need a process

for theological triaging.

And to that end,

there's a really helpful book

that I recommend to all of you

by Gavin Ortlund entitled

Finding the Right Hills to Die On.

In the book, he argues

that we should avoid

both doctrinal minimalism

and doctrinal sectarianism.

As the old saying goes,

quote,

there is no doctrine

a fundamentalist won't fight over

and no doctrine

a liberal will fight over, right?

So that's painting in broad strokes

and not entirely fair

to either fundamentalists or liberals,

but you get the point.

Doctrinal sectarianism

is when we find too many reasons

to separate from Christian brothers

and sisters with whom

we share a profound spiritual unity

and not allowing them

the liberty of conscience

that Paul spoke of in Romans 14.

Titus 3, 9 to 11 describes this.

It says,

but avoid foolish controversies,

genealogies, dissensions,

and quarrels about the law,

for they are unprofitable and worthless.

As for a person

who stirs up division

after warning him once

and then twice

have nothing more to do with him,

knowing that such a person

is warped and sinful,

he is self-condemned.

That's doctrinal sectarianism.

Doctrinal minimalism

is when we find

the lowest common denominator,

doctrinal denominator,

and say, in essence,

that most other doctrines

basically don't really matter.

But theology is important.

It shapes the way we live.

We cannot obey

what we do not know

and what we do not understand.

We're supposed to be transformed

by the renewal of our mind,

it says in Romans 12, 2,

that by testing,

we may discern

what is the will of God,

what is good

and acceptable and perfect.

Philippians 3, 15-16 says,

let those of you

who are mature

think this way.

And if in anything

you think otherwise,

God will reveal

that also to you.

Only let us hold true

to what we have attained.

As God reveals

more and more

of what we ought to think,

we mature in accordance

with the knowledge

we have attained.

So we need to steer clear

of both of these

equal and opposite errors,

doctrinal sectarianism

and doctrinal minimalism.

And then Gavin Ortlin

delineates four helpful categories

in which we can prioritize

our theological doctrines.

The first category is primary.

The Bible itself uses this language,

1 Corinthians 15, 3-4.

It says,

The Bible teaches us

that the gospel of Jesus Christ,

this doctrine that Jesus

is the Son of God

and Son of Man

who died as the atoning sacrifice

for our sins,

and He was raised on the third day

to be victorious

over sin and death

so that we can all be forgiven.

Those who put their trust in Jesus

and repent of their sins

can be forgiven

and have eternal life with Him.

That's the doctrine

that is of first importance.

The doctrines

in the primary category

are doctrines

that are essential

for the gospel.

People who don't believe

these doctrines

are not Christians at all.

So these doctrines

unite the entire

universal church.

These are doctrines

that we must fight for

and be willing to die for

with courage

and conviction.

Other primary doctrines

include our belief

in the Trinity

because without the Trinity

you lose the gospel

if Jesus is not

the Son of God.

The incarnation

because if Jesus

is not also the Son of Man

we also lose the gospel.

And the atonement

of Jesus on the cross.

Our belief in the inspiration

and authority of Scripture

because if the Scripture

is not the inspired testimony

of God

how do you even know

the gospel?

This is what makes us

this is what it's able

to teach us

and able to make us wise

for salvation in Jesus Christ.

So that's primary.

The secondary doctrines

are not direct gospel issues

and genuine Christians

do at times disagree

about them.

However, they are nonetheless

urgent for the church

because they have implications

for the gospel.

Differences in secondary doctrines

have significant impact

on our life

how we live

and on our doctrine

what we believe.

And for that reason

disagreements

along these lines

I do think

they warrant

formal division

along denominational

or ecclesiastical

local church lines

because they raise

urgent issues

of faithfulness

to Scripture

because if you don't

agree on these things

you can't be faithful

to Scripture

according to your conviction.

Secondary doctrines

include our belief

in the believer's baptism

that only people

who are mature enough

to give a credible

profession of faith

which necessarily

excludes infants

should be baptized.

That's our church's

position on that.

This doctrine

protects the gospel.

Complementarianism

is another one.

Our belief

that God created

men and women

as equal

co-heirs

of the grace of life

that is in Christ

but that they

nonetheless

have distinct

and non-interchangeable

roles within the household

of the family

and within the household

of God,

the church.

This doctrine

depicts the gospel

because the husband's

love for his wife

and the wife's

submission to him

is supposed to be

a picture of Christ's

love for the church

and the church's

submission to Christ.

I also would consider

continuationism

to be a secondary doctrine

because our belief

that the gifts

of the Holy Spirit

that even the miraculous

and supernatural ones

continue to this modern day

and did not seize

with the apostles

it flows out of the gospel.

It flows out of our belief

that Jesus is the one

who secured the gift

of the Holy Spirit

for us

and that continues

to this day.

And so during my first year

in seminary

I was part of a

Presbyterian church

but my convictions

about continuationism

and believer's baptism

led me to the conclusion

that I could not be

a thriving member

let alone a pastor

in that denomination

and that's why

I left that denomination

in search of

a denomination

where I can have

a church home

and that's how

I found our current

denomination

sovereign grace churches

for which I am

very grateful.

So that's secondary category.

Then there are

tertiary categories.

The tertiary doctrines

these are doctrines

that are neither essential

for the gospel

nor urgent

for the church

but because

they still pertain

to life and doctrine

of the Christian

they are still

consequential.

They're tertiary

but they're still

consequential

and important.

Included in this category

will be things like

how should men

and women

dress

and wear

their hair.

Now

this might be

a controversial opinion

but I don't think

women should dress

in a manner

that makes them

look like men

and I don't think

that men should dress

in a manner

that makes them

look like women

because God

designed humanity

to be men and women

and to be distinct.

Now

that also means

I don't

you know

if that sounds

crazy to you

read 1 Corinthians 11

and you can listen

to my sermon on that

when you get home.

But I will never use

however

my pastoral authority

to demand

that a man

cut his hair short

or a woman

grow out her hair long.

Why?

Because this is

a tertiary issue

and I believe

that faithful Christians

can disagree on this.

And be members

of the same

faithful members

of the same

local church

together.

They are still

important

and they are not

issues to divide over

but they still

have consequences

for how we live

and obey God.

Tithing I think

is in this category.

Is tithing

giving 10%

of our income

is that still

a legal

biblical requirement

or is that something

that has been

fulfilled by Christ?

Churches disagree on this.

I'd also include

philosophy and ministry issues

like how often

should the church

celebrate the Lord's Supper.

I think that the church

to celebrate the Lord's Supper

I think is more of a secondary

a higher order issue

but how often to celebrate

exactly how to celebrate

I think those are

tertiary issues.

Should a local church

in normal times

offer a live stream

of the church's service

online?

That's a tertiary issue.

What does that teach

about what a local church is?

What Christian community

is meant to be?

What does live streaming

services teach

about worship?

Are these questions

consequential?

Absolutely,

they're consequential

but these are not issues

to divide over

and believers may have

differences in these matters

yet maintain the unity

of the spirit

in the same local church.

So primary,

secondary,

and tertiary issues

are not something

that we can be agnostic

or neutral about

because they have consequences

for our life and doctrine.

Even if you don't take

a position in your thoughts,

you're going to end up

taking a position

by default

in your actions

because they determine

how we obey God

and how we're faithful to Him.

So these are not issues

you can just be neutral about.

You do have to make a decision.

Then finally,

there are matters

of indifference.

That's the fourth category.

Things that don't actually matter.

Things that are immaterial

that the Bible

is not concerned about

such as what kind of church

building to worship in.

Whether those who distribute communion

should wear gloves or not.

Believe it or not,

churches disagreed

on these issues.

Whether the pastor

should wear a suit or not.

So we once had a church member

in our church

that believed that

I as a pastor

should not wear shorts

to our Wednesday prayer service.

And I disagreed with her.

I mean,

it's in my house.

Right?

But I disagreed with her.

But I actually,

during the entire time

that this church member

was in our church,

I did not wear shorts

to the prayer service.

Because it's a matter

of indifference.

It doesn't matter.

So it doesn't matter.

Okay, sure.

Like, I can do that.

That's easy for me to do.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

So these are matters

of indifference.

And in matters

of indifference,

out of humility,

we should be willing

to adapt ourselves

for the sake of others.

And that's what Paul writes about

in chapter 9

of 1 Corinthians.

For though I am free from all,

I have made myself

a servant to all

that I might win

more of them.

To the Jews,

I became as a Jew

in order to win Jews.

To those under the law,

I became as one

under the law,

though not being myself

under the law,

that I might win

those under the law.

To those outside the law,

I became as one

outside the law,

not being outside the law

of God,

but under the law of Christ,

that I might win

those outside the law.

To the weak,

I became weak,

that I might win the weak.

I have become all things

to all people,

that by all means

I might save some.

I do it all

for the sake of the gospel,

that I may share with them

in its blessings.

That's what we do

for things that are

matters of indifference.

Now, having established

these categories,

what criteria should we use

to triage our doctrines?

Orland asks four

very helpful questions

in the book.

First question is,

how clear is the Bible

on this doctrine?

I think clarity

would be affected

by how often

it is addressed

in Scripture,

how clearly

it is taught,

or whether it's something

that people

have not been able

to agree throughout

the history.

What is the doctrine's

importance to the gospel?

That's the second question

to ask.

Third,

what is the testimony

of the historical church

concerning the doctrine?

I think this one's

particularly important,

not more important

than the other questions,

but important because

every generation

has its own blind spots.

Because of our own

cultural context,

we have our own blind spots

that we can't see

some things.

And people from other cultures

who didn't have

those blind spots

but had different blind spots

can help us.

We can help each other see.

So what is the testimony

of the historical church

concerning this doctrine?

And then finally,

what is the doctrine's effect

upon the church today?

I think these are really

helpful questions

to keep in mind.

It's because of my answers

to these triage questions

that I consider,

so for example,

two doctrinal stances

of our church

that I get the most questions

about at membership interviews

is continuationism,

our belief that the gifts

of the Holy Spirit

continue today,

and complementarianism,

our belief in the roles

of distinct but non-interchangeable

roles of man and woman.

Now, I consider these,

based on my answers

to these triage questions,

to be secondary doctrines

that warrant dividing over

along denominational

and ecclesiastical lines

rather than as tertiary doctrines

of indifference.

Why?

Because they have clear

biblical support

and they have urgent implications

for our life and doctrine,

and because the church universal

had unanimous agreement

on these issues

until the 16th century

for continuationism

and 19th century

for complementarianism.

So also,

it's helpful to know,

this is another thing

to think about,

that the more intimately

and closely you partner

with someone in ministry,

the higher the level

of agreement you need.

So for example,

can I partner with Jews

and Muslims

in distributing food

to the poor

in our neighborhood?

Absolutely.

That's a common cause

that I can join them in,

gladly join them in,

to do that work.

Now, can I sit around

the circle with them

and sing worship songs

and pray with them?

Absolutely not.

Because we would not be praying

to the same God

and there would be no way

to sing songs

to our God

without offending them deeply.

I'd have to witness

and be part of,

in some way,

idolatry

if I were forced to do that.

Now, can I sit around

the circle

and sing songs

and pray with

other Christians

with whom I disagree

on secondary doctrines?

Absolutely.

I'd be glad to do that.

But can I be

a member

of a same local church

with those same Christians

that disagree

on secondary doctrines?

No.

Because if the church

were governed

according to their convictions

on these secondary matters,

every week

I would be sitting there

having my conscience violated

and feeling like

I'm in disobedience

to scriptures.

Right?

Do you guys see

the difference,

the rising level

of intimacy and partnership

and the more degree

of agreement

and clarity you need?

Now, can I,

well, you know,

if,

can I then be

the same member

of the same local church

with Christians,

other Christians

who disagree

on tertiary matters?

Yes, absolutely.

But,

can I be

on the same

local church

eldership

with Christians

who disagree

on these tertiary matters?

In some cases,

no.

Because if we had

a church elder

in our church

who, for example,

thought that,

you know,

having live streaming

our service

is the best way

to reach the lost.

And they wanted

to do that

every single week.

And I'm convinced

from my convictions

that that would be

detrimental

to the health

of the church

because it communicates

false ideas

about what a church is

because to me,

church is by definition

a gathering.

And you don't gather

when you're watching

a service,

you're consuming.

Right?

And so,

that's a significant

disagreement

that affects

the life of the church.

So, like,

yes,

I can be,

if you think that,

you can be a member

of our church,

but can I have someone

who thinks differently

from me

be on the same

local church eldership?

Probably not.

And so,

that's what I mean.

These are things,

the higher,

the more intimacy

of partnership,

the more agreement

you need.

Now,

let's ask these

theological triage questions

of our passage

this morning,

Revelation 20,

1-6,

the doctrine

of the millennium.

How clear

is the Bible

on this doctrine?

It's not very clear.

Yeah.

Because,

when one of the main

difficulties

is that this is

the only passage

in all of Scripture

that explicitly

talks about

the millennial reign

of Christ.

It's the only one.

And so,

if you disagree

on this one passage,

then you really kind of

have nowhere else to go.

Right?

So,

it's not that clear.

Now,

what is this doctrine's

importance to the gospel?

It's neither essential

nor urgent

to the gospel.

It is consequential,

and I'll talk about

the implications

of it later on.

What is the testimony

of the historical church

concerning this doctrine?

The church

has had at least

two differing positions

on this doctrine

since at least

the second century A.D.

Already,

writing in the second century,

church father

Justin Martyr

speaks of the belief

that Christ will return

to establish

the millennial kingdom

this way.

I and many others

are of this opinion

and believe that

such will take place

as you assuredly

are aware,

but on the other hand,

I signify to you

that many who belong

to the pure

and pious faith

and are true Christians

think otherwise.

So,

already,

in the second century,

the church fathers

recognized that

there was a diversity

of views

on the millennium

and that it was not

something to divide over.

It's very different

from some of these

other secondary issues

I mentioned to you.

What is this doctrine's

effect upon the church today?

It does have some

significant effect

upon the church today

and I'm going to discuss

those later on

in my sermon.

However,

because,

as we have seen,

this doctrine

is not very clear,

does not have implications

for the gospel,

and it has been

disagreed upon

since the early church age.

That's why

I consider

the doctrine

of the millennium

to be a tertiary doctrine

over which

we should not divide.

So,

if you don't agree

with me

at the end

of my sermon today

and the sermon next week

on exactly

what the millennium is,

that's okay.

Please don't leave

the church for that.

As is the case

with other doctrines,

people can tend

toward doctrinal

sectarianism

or doctrinal minimalism

when it comes

to the millennium

as well.

And I'm on

too many mailing lists

and once in a while

I get an email

from some organization

that's emailing

all the local church pastors

that can find

with openings,

a list of openings

for other pastoral jobs.

I have never searched

for a different pastoral job,

so don't worry.

I've never searched

for another job,

period.

But they send me those

and it's interesting

to read those sometimes

because they'll tell you

what they're looking for

in a pastor

and sometimes

they're oddly specific.

And so,

one of those things

I saw was

that the pastor

has to be a

pre-tribulational rapture

dispensationalist

premillennialist.

Right.

So,

that was a requirement.

Now,

you guys laugh

but some churches

take this very seriously.

That church is using,

I think,

a tertiary issue

as a litmus test

for pastoral faithfulness.

And I don't think

that's good for the church.

They're ruling out

many faithful,

godly,

gifted pastors

by insisting on something

that the Bible talks about

only once.

It's not healthy,

in my opinion.

That's an example

of doctrinal sectarianism.

On the other hand,

we should also avoid

the pitfalls

of doctrinal minimalism

when it comes to this.

There are some people

who say,

post-millennial,

pre-millennial,

amillennial,

I have no idea,

I'm a pan-millennialist.

What does that mean?

It's all going to pan out

in the end.

I've heard a pastor

tell this joke,

it's pretty funny.

I see the appeal

of that kind of attitude,

but our view

of the millennium

has significant effects

upon the church today.

And we should cherish

and study

and obey

all of God's word.

Throwing our hands up

in the air

and not doing the hard work

of thinking deeply

about difficult

theological issues

is not a virtue.

So let's do some hard thinking

about Revelation 20.

There are four main views

on the meaning

of the binding of Satan

and the reign of Christ

during the millennium,

with much intramural debate

within each of them.

And so if I have the,

there are four views.

First is historic pre-millennialism.

Second,

that's the view I hold today.

So just so you know

how difficult this issue is,

I began the sermon series

in Revelation

as an amillennial,

number four.

And then by the time,

by the time we got

to this point

of our sermon series,

I'm now a historical

pre-millennial.

So this is a,

so if you don't know

what you think

about these issues,

I understand.

That's where I am.

The second,

dispensational pre-millennialism,

third, post-millennialism,

and fourth,

amillennialism.

I'm going to talk about

each of those.

Here's a diagram

that our one and only

John Buckley made for us

on short notice

this week.

This is now,

so yesterday,

Ed and I got some

good laughs looking

at the diagrams

on the different views

of the millennium online

because Christians

who are serious

about the Bible

are not always serious

about beautiful graphics.

And so this is now

officially the best-looking

diagram on the four views

of the millennium online.

Yeah.

And so,

thank you, John.

The historic pre-millennialism

is called historic

because it most closely

resembles the view

of the millennium

that the church fathers,

the majority of the church fathers,

held,

including Apostle John

who wrote,

I don't know,

I'm not saying

Apostle John held.

Apostle John's the one

who wrote Revelation.

Apostle John's

disciple Papias

and Polycarp

and Polycarp's

disciple Irenaeus

as well as other

notable church fathers

like Justin Martyr,

Tertullian,

Pseudo-Barnabas,

Methodius,

Lactantius,

Comodianus,

Theophilus,

Melito,

Hippolytus of Rome,

Victorinus of Petau,

Nepus,

Julius Africanus,

Tatian,

and Montanus.

They all believed

in historic

pre-millennialism.

Now,

the prefix pre-

means before.

So pre-millennialism

is the belief

that Christ will return

in his second coming

before the millennium reign.

He's going to come

to establish

the millennium reign.

So,

the people that,

I think this is what

makes the best sense

of the scriptural data,

but there's still

a lot of questions

and uncertainties

around it.

The most prominent

modern proponents

of this view

are D.A. Carson,

John Piper,

and Jim Hamilton,

among others.

Dispensational

pre-millennialism

shares the name

pre-millennialism

with historic

pre-millennialism

because it also says

that Christ's second coming

will take place

before the millennial reign,

so pre-millennial.

But then,

after that,

it departs sharply

from historic

dispensationalism.

Dispensational pre-mill

argues not only

that Christ will return

before the millennium,

but also

that he will return

for a secret

second coming

prior to that

to rapture

the believers.

so that they

don't have to endure

what they believe

is seven years

of tribulation,

the great tribulation.

And it's only

after that secret

rapture,

that secret second coming,

and then the

great tribulation,

and then he will

come in public,

in a public second coming,

to bring about

the millennium.

That's what

dispensational

pre-millennialism

believes.

So,

if you can't tell,

so that's the first picture,

is Christ on the cross,

first coming,

and that

the middle here,

that's the secret

second coming

for church only,

it's raptured,

and then the tribulation,

the second coming,

that's the picture

of Christ on his white horse

from Revelation 19,

and then the millennium,

and then the final judgment.

So that's the picture.

It's beautiful.

The most,

this dispensational

pre-millennialism

began in earnest

with the 19th century

Plymouth Brethren

pastor named

John Nelson Darby,

you may have heard

his name before,

and became prominent

due to the influence

of Dallas Theological Seminary

and the popularity

of Hal Lindsay's book,

The Late Great Planet Earth,

and the Left Behind series,

which I mentioned to you before,

Tim Leahy

and Jerry B. Jenkins.

The most prominent

proponent of this view

nowadays is

John MacArthur,

who describes himself

as a leaky dispensationalist.

The fact that

this is a modern innovation

is an argument against it.

This view

is not attested

among any of the church fathers.

Moreover,

the idea

of a rapture

is not found

anywhere

in the book of Revelation.

It's based,

people who believe it

based it on

1 Thessalonians 4,

16 to 17,

which says,

For the Lord himself

will descend from heaven

with a cry of command,

with the voice

of an archangel,

and with the sound

of the trumpet of God,

and the dead in Christ

will rise first.

Then we who are alive

who are left

will be caught up together

with them in the clouds

to meet the Lord

in the air,

and so we will always

be with the Lord.

So dispensational premils

argue that that's

meeting the Lord

within the air

refers to us

being caught up in heaven

to live with Jesus.

That's a secret rapture.

However,

I've mentioned this

to you before,

that the Greek word

translating meet

has a very specific meaning.

It's a word

that is used

in Greek literature

to mean going out

to meet someone

who is already

on his way to you.

So it's a way

of going out

to meet,

to welcome,

and escort them back

to where you're going

together.

Or if your enemy

is coming out

to meet you

and you go out

to meet them

who's already

on their way to you,

it's about meeting

halfway so that

you can come back.

So it's not a word

that describes

meeting him

and then going

away somewhere.

It's a word

that describes

meeting Jesus

in the air

as a way of

greeting an important

dignitary

and then coming back

to where you guys

are going together.

And so that's,

I don't think,

the right interpretation

of that word,

of that passage

in general.

And another passage

that's often used

to argue for the rapture

is John 14,

1-3,

where Jesus says,

Let not your hearts

be troubled.

Believe in God.

Believe also in me.

In my Father's house

are many rooms.

If it were not so,

would I have told you

that I go to prepare

a place for you?

And if I go and prepare

a place for you,

I will come again

and I will take you

to myself

that where I am

you may be

also.

That's another passage

that people point to

as an example

of the rapture,

the secret second coming

rapture.

However,

I do think this passage

is talking about

Jesus' return.

But I think it's

talking about

his final second coming

and I think there's

only one second coming

in the Bible

when Jesus brings about

the new heaven

and the new earth,

establishes the holy city

in New Jerusalem

which comes down

out of heaven

from God.

And so Jesus

returns to the Father

and prepares these rooms,

places for his disciples

and then in his second coming

he brings down

the heavenly Jerusalem

where he will take

his people

to dwell with him.

I think that makes

the best sense

of John 14.

Nowhere does John 14

say that this is

speaking of Christ's

secret return

prior to his second coming.

I just don't think

that doctrine

is in scripture

at all.

All that to say,

arguments for

the secret return

of Christ

to rapture

the saints

are few

and I think

not very strong.

but the reason

why people

subscribe

to dispensational

premio

is not primarily

because they're

persuaded by

these proof texts,

they're not that

persuasive,

but because

they have bought

into dispensationalism

as a theological

system,

as a system

of biblical

interpretation.

Dispensationalism

is the belief

that God

has ordered

human history

into seven main

dispensations

or administrations

and one of its

main tenets

of dispensationalism

is their literal

hermeneutic,

the way they

interpret the Bible

literally

wherever possible.

And because of that,

it's a system

that is very

attractive

to theological

conservatives

who have

a very high

view of scripture,

which is me.

And for this reason,

they expect

the Old Testament

prophecies about Israel

being restored

to the land of Canaan,

for example,

and about the temple

being restored,

for example.

They see these

as not being fulfilled

figuratively

and spiritually

in Jesus Christ,

but as they

believe that those

things will be

literally and

physically be fulfilled

in the land of Israel

in the physical

temple on Mount Zion.

So they maintain

a strict distinction

between Israel,

which is made up

for ethnic Jews,

and the church.

That's why I think

they find this

system persuasive.

However,

a problem with this view

is that the Bible

itself understands

some of the Old Testament

prophecies concerning

the nation of Israel

as being fulfilled

spiritually in Jesus Christ.

For example,

Revelation 2, 9,

and 3, 7

that we saw,

Jesus denounced

those who say

that they are Jews

and are not,

but are a synagogue

of Satan.

This was a condemnation

of ethnic Jews

who rejected

their Messiah,

Jesus,

and persecuted Christians.

Those who believe

in Jesus Christ,

according to Revelation,

are the true Jews,

not those who are

merely ethnic

descendants of Israel.

The promises

that God gave

to the Jews

in the Old Testament

do not belong

to the children

of the flesh,

as Paul writes,

but to the children

of the promise

in Romans 9, 6-8.

It's the spiritual

descendants of Israel,

not the physical

descendants of Israel,

ethnic Jews,

who make up true Israel.

For,

it says in Romans 2,

27-28,

no one is a Jew

who is merely

one outwardly,

nor is circumcision

outward and physical,

but a Jew is one inwardly,

and circumcision

is a matter of the heart

by the spirit,

not by the letter.

And that's why

in James 1-1,

it addresses all Christians,

both Jews and Gentiles,

as dispersed

12 tribes of Israel.

We are the true

Israel of God.

Likewise,

the ultimate restoration

of the Jerusalem temple

does not happen

before Christ's return,

but after Christ's return,

as we see

in Revelation 21.

And it describes

the people of God,

the old covenant

people of God,

represented by

the 12 tribes,

the 12 sons of Jacob,

and the 12 apostles,

the New Testament

covenant people of God,

represented by the 12 apostles,

they make up

this new city

of Jerusalem.

So Revelation itself

does not insist

on maintaining

a strict distinction

between Israel

and the church.

Revelation unites them

as the people of God,

and this is why

I don't find

dispensational premill

to be persuasive.

But why does this matter?

Many dispensational

premillennialists

follow Hal Lindsey's view

in the late

great planet Earth

and believe

that, for example,

the Arab-Israel war

and the establishment

of the state of Israel

in 1948 in Palestine,

as well as Israel's victory

in the Six-Day War

and regaining control

of the Sinai Peninsula

and, most importantly,

city of Jerusalem,

they believe that

these are literal

fulfillments

of Old Testament prophecy.

They also believe

that a literal

physical temple

will eventually

be rebuilt

on Mount Zion

where currently

the Dome of the Rock,

the Islamic mosque, sits.

So in other words,

dispensational premill

leads Christians

to see the nation

of Israel

as a fulfillment

of biblical prophecy

and therefore support

Israel as a political entity.

Now, please don't hear

what I'm not saying.

I'm not saying

that God doesn't have

any future plans

for the Jewish people.

I think he does,

according to Romans 11, 25 to 26.

I think there will be

a softening of the hearts

of the Jewish people

and many of them

will come to faith,

saving faith in Jesus Christ

in the end times.

I love the Jewish people.

We have some Messianic Jews

in our church.

I love the Jewish people

even if for no other reason

than the fact

that my King

and my Savior is Jewish.

If Jesus weren't born

among the Jews,

then I would still

be condemned in my sin

for salvation is from the Jews,

Jesus said in John 4, 22.

And so this is not my,

I'm not trying to share

a political opinion

on what's going on

with Israel and Palestine.

I'm very supportive

of the Jewish people

and love the Jewish people.

However, with that said,

the state of Israel

is not a fulfillment

of the promises of God

to his people.

The church of Jesus Christ

is the fulfillment

of God's promises

to his people.

So the true temple of God

is not one

that will be physically rebuilt

on Mount Zion.

It is the people of God

who are indwelled

by the Holy Spirit.

That's why Paul writes

about how we are

the temple of the Holy Spirit.

So the Jews

are not our brothers

and sisters

in the family of God.

The Messianic Jews are.

And the Palestinian Christians are.

They are our brothers

and sisters in Christ.

You guys understand

what I'm saying?

So it has significant implications

for how we understand

what's going on

in the world today.

People who subscribe,

so I'm going to go

to Postmill now,

people who subscribe

to Postmillennialism

argue that Christ's

second coming

will be after the millennium.

That's why it says post,

which means after.

So Postmillennialists

believe that Christ

will return

after the millennium.

Generally,

some people believe

that the millennium

is already happening,

and others believe

that there will be

an amazing spread

of the gospel

and an infiltration

of the values

of the kingdom

and scriptural principles

at all levels

of society,

and then a true millennium

where there's peace

and harmony

and faithfulness

to God all around

will take place

later on,

closer to the end.

That's what some people believe.

And Postmill

believe that there

will eventually be

a pervasive influence

of the gospel

at all levels

of human society

and government

before Christ returns.

They often cite

Habakkuk 2.14

and Isaiah 11.9

saying that the earth

will be filled

with the knowledge

of the Lord,

glory of the Lord

as the waters

cover the sea.

They believe

that the Great Commission

teaches that

the Great Commission

anticipates a time

when most people

in the world

will become Christians.

That's what they believe.

Because Matthew 24.14

tells us that

the gospel of the kingdom

will be proclaimed

throughout the whole world

as a testimony

to all nations,

and then the end

will come.

Postmails think

that before Christ's

second coming,

there will be

an unprecedented spread

and acceptance

of the gospel

and the most of the world

will be converted

to Christianity.

However,

that verse does not say

that the gospel

of the kingdom

will be accepted

throughout the whole world.

It says that

the gospel of the kingdom

will be proclaimed

throughout the whole world.

In fact,

in the immediately

preceding verses,

Matthew 24.9-13,

Jesus prophesies

that Christians

will be delivered

up to tribulation

and put to death

and be hated

by all nations

for Christ's name's sake

and that many

will fall away

and betray one another

and that many

false prophets

will arise

and lead many astray.

Jesus continues,

because lawlessness

will be increased,

the love of many

will grow cold,

but the one

who endures to the end

will be saved.

Before the end

of the world

and the second coming

of Christ,

lawlessness

will not decrease,