by Samuel Frost
____________________________________________________
A
theological system is exactly that: a systematic or logical
stream where the conclusions follow from the premises. Jesus said, “I am the
way, the life, and the truth.”
Therefore,
if someone says, “Buddhism is the way,” then they are contradicting the system
Jesus set forth. Although the words of the scriptures are much more than bare
symbols (they are “life”), they are to be construed in such a way that makes
sense of them.
For
example, the beloved Paul wrote, “For we do not write you anything you
cannot read or understand” (2 Corinthians
We
have a counter of sorts to the above verse. In 2 Peter 3:16b, Peter wrote, “His
[Paul*s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand.” There is a
difference, therefore, between something being intended as
understandable, and, yet, not being understood because of its particular
subject matter. Notice, however, that Peter said that “some things” and not
“all things” are hard to understand. Keep this distinction in mind, because
from it we develop a rule that is most basic to biblical interpretation.
Before
we conclude that rule, let one more example from the scriptures suffice. Jesus,
in Mark
There
are other times in the Markan narratives “that the
disciples cannot comprehend what Jesus is saying. “Beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees,” says Jesus. They took this to mean, “It is because we have no bread!”
Then Jesus turns to them and asks, “Why are you talking about bread?” (Mark
8:14-17). Jesus had mentioned “leaven” which has to do with “bread,” and this
story follows with the feeding of the 4,000 with loaves of bread. The context,
then, of the disciples* minds was that any reference to “bread,” such as
“yeast,” was actual, literal bread. Hence, they come to the conclusion that
Jesus is talking about actual bread. But, Jesus* response to them is this: “Why
are you talking about bread? Do you still not see or understand?”
Thus,
“some things” are “hard to understand” in the Bible, but not “all things” are,
and this brings us to a fundamental rule of interpreting the Bible: Scripturam ex Scriptura
explicandam esse. That*s
a Latin phrase developed among Protestant theologians which means, “Scripture
is to be explained from Scripture.” It is not a rule that is made up by men and
imposed on the Bible, but, rather, what the Bible itself imposes.
Take
Peter*s statement above and consider the logic of its meaning. If “some things”
are hard to understand, then it is to be noticed that not “all things” are hard
to understand, and in order to understand some hard things, it is best to start
with what things we can understand. Instead of starting with Euclidean
geometry, it would be best to start with simple arithmetic. Once one gets 2 + 2
= 4, then finding the value of x in 5 + x = 19 can be done. A system builds
itself from the simplest forms to the complex forms in a logical step-by-step process.
This is also called the analogia fide (analogy
of faith), meaning that the clear passages help decide the meaning of obscure
ones.
However,
this is not always followed. Man is fallible, and man errs. He makes frequent
mistakes. Sometimes, the calculation in the check book does not match the sum
at the ATM machine! Thus, a system has a check and balance mechanism that
frequently needs to be reviewed. If the system checks out, then all the more
encouraging is the overall conclusion: it*s a success. If the system does not
check out, then either the conclusion is wrong. the
premises are wrong, or maybe all of it is wrong. Point two: A system is
always aware of the fact that it needs constant re-evaluation; because it is
subject to err. This is essentially the Protestant idea that theology can
err, but the scriptures can never err.
This
is confirmed by Paul. In the verse I quoted above from 2 Corinthians 1:13, the
conclusion reads, “As you have understood us in part. you will come to understand us fully.” There
is a partial understanding that is gradually built upon until it arrives at a
full understanding. This principle is basic to any educational design.
How
does this relate to the subject matter of eschatology? Well, quite simply,
eschatology must be subjected to the biblical principle that things are
understood by a gradual, logical flow. It begins with a simple sentence and
flows from there. If the conclusions of any system cannot follow from the
premises, then the system is false, and cannot be true, since the Bible is
never false in what it asserts as true. I don*t think any reader should
disagree with this set-up, since it is the basic core of any approach to the
Bible, if the Bible is to be taken seriously as God*s word to man.
It
is at this point that I wish to show the glaring problems of the A-millennial,
Post-millennial, and Pre-millennial approaches. The A-millennial approach
basically asserts that Christ will come again someday to earth, and the eternal
“Age to Come” will become a reality. There is no “1,000
Year Reign” after this coming. When Jesus comes again, that*s it for planet
earth as we know it. It will be either transformed from the existing material
it now is into a newer kind of matter or as others say, it will completely
vanish and be replaced with an entirely new orb we call “earth.” There will be
no more sin, no more sorrows, no more death of any sort, no more pain of any
sort, no more crying of any sort, no more long lines at Disney, or angry
motorists on Interstate 4 in
Of
course, the Pre-millennial view is that Jesus sets up a “1,000 Year Reign” on
earth, this present earth, after he comes again, then he either transforms it,
or replaces it, after that “1000 Years.” The Post-millennial view says, “when Jesus comes back, there is no 1,000 reign on earth.” It*s the end. The A-millennial, and the Post-millennial
views, then, are agreed that when Jesus returns, that*s it. There are no more
mosquitoes or messy diapers (by the way, my wife announced that we are “with
child* again!).
Obviously,
these views are seeing the same verses of scriptures, but coming to different,
radically different, conclusions. All three systems cannot be correct. Either
two are wrong and one is right, or all are wrong, and none is right, or,
perhaps, they are each partially fight, but not
fully right. They are right enough to qualify for biblical tolerance
on a very difficult issue. The Preterist view (Transmillennialism) takes the
latter view. There is much to be said that is correct in each system, and from
those systems, much can be built upon. All that Preterits are doing at this
point is evoking the second rule: men err and make mistakes and systems need
constant re-evaluation. I can hear the sacred cows mooing as they are being
kicked.
Let
me, then, apply a large chunk of scripture that will do a great deal of damage
to the above three views, but, yet, saving their best features, and saving
eschatology in general from complete irrelevance (as many within the church
views it with the name, Pan-millennialism: “I don*t understand it, but it will
all pan out in the end”). This view still assumes an “end” as future.
Ezekiel
40-48 is a serious enough block of scripture with which to reckon. I would
daresay that many, many Christians have never read it, let alone attempt to
understand it. Basically, it is a detailed blueprint, with dimensions
and all, of the city, sanctuary, and
In
our views above, the Amillennialism and the Postmillennialist answer must be of
two sorts: it*s eternal heaven, or, it*s partially
fulfilled in the church, and fully fulfilled in heaven. Though, there are some
within these views that sees this as entirely symbolic as the present
church age. We will investigate this as we go.
The
Premillennialist view states that this is not the church, and has not been
fulfilled yet. In the future 1,000 Year Reign of Christ, after his Second
Coming, then Ezekiel*s temple will be set up on this earth. In other words, the
temple, city, and sanctuary of Ezekiel*s vision is literal, and since it
is of this nature, then obviously it has not happened yet. Agreed. If Ezekiel is looking forward to a day when the
literal concrete slabs of Ezekiel*s blueprint are poured, then it has not yet
happened. It is an unfulfilled prophecy.
The
Amillennial and the Postmillennial views, however, do
not endorse the idea that Ezekiel*s vision is to be fulfilled literally.
Instead, Presbyterian scholar O.T. Allis, quoting the great Patrick Fairbairn, stated that the Ezekielian
temple is “a grand complicated symbol of the good God had in reserve for his
Church, especially under the coming dispensation of the Gospel” (Prophecy
and the Church, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1977, p. 325). In
other words, the “complicated” vision is a typological (symbolic) view of the
Christian Church age. The Transmillennialist agrees.
However,
in order to support this view, a great deal of interpreting has to be done,
and, as a result, the A-millennial and Post-millennial schemes fail. Only the
Transmillennial view makes sense of what these other views assert. By building,
however, on our agreements, I can show that while they get off to a good start,
they cannot maintain their positions and still hold to a future coming of
Christ. Let this be said again. The A-millennial and Post-millennial
positions are fairly common views in the Evangelical churches with the wide
support of several respected “orthodox” leaders. Indeed, it has gained the
respect of being a credible, biblical view, tolerated among Christians. Yet, it
is as logically and biblically inconsistent as sure as the sky is blue.
First,
let something be said of the Pre-millennial view. One of the main reasons
A-millennial and Post-millennial adherents reject a “1,000 Year Reign” after
the Second Coming is that in Ezekiel*s vision, animal sacrifices are seen as
being performed (Ezekiel 43-46). These sacrifices are said to “purify” (43:22),
“atone” (43:20), “cleanse” (44:26) and act as a “sin-offering” (45:23). If
these things be interpreted literally, and since this vision has yet to be
fulfilled, then it must mean the re-institution of the sacrificial
system.
However,
the problem is that in the New Testament, Jesus is seen as having “abolished the
written code, with its regulations . . . nailing it to the cross” (Colossians
“Mello,”
the verb in question, primarily means “something about to happen in the
future.” Thus, one can see that the NIV “were” is entirely out of line). This
verse explicitly states that the “shadows” of the Hebrew religious system of
Moses are “annulled” in Christ. Secondly, that, for Paul, the
“things about to come” are still future, meaning that in
his time, these things were being annulled, but have not yet been completely
annulled.
This
is in entire agreement with the verse in Hebrews 8:13 (and many others) that
the old covenant was in process of “vanishing” and “being made old” and
would “soon disappear.” When? When would the final vestiges of
the sacrificial system disappear in the “soon” future of the writer of
Hebrews? Gee, do you think he was talking about the destruction of the temple
in A.D. 70, and the total annihilation of the sacrificial system that stood in
the way of the Gospel? Once the temple was crushed, the Gospel had no more ties
to the issues raised, for example, in Colossians. “Let no one judge you with
regard to religious ceremonies, New Moons or Sabbaths . . .” Were some of the
hard-line Jews judging the Gentile converts because they were not Jewish
enough? I don*t have to prove this point. The book of Acts answers it for me.
But,
if Paul is saying that New Moons, Sabbaths, and religious ceremonies in the Law
are being canceled, and that they were mere shadows of the reality in the
Messiah Jesus, and therefore, since the Messiah has come as The Sacrifice to
end all sacrifices, then what in the world is Ezekiel seeing? In Ezekiel 47:17,
New Moon ceremonies occur! It is for this reason that A-millennialists
and Post-millennialists reject the notion that the
shadows will be once again re-instituted. It would flat out contradict the
Bible. “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus
Christ once and for all” (Hebrews
To
get around this, the Premillennialist says that they are not sacrifices that
have atoning power but are going to be merely symbolic of the sacrifice of
Christ. Thus, when the worshiper offers them, he will be reminded of what they
meant, and what they point to in Christ. In other words, “Here, Jesus, let me
slice the throat of this bull for you, because it reminds me of you.” When
Jesus comes back, get your knives ready, because there is going to be some
bloodshed going on! The absurdity of this dodge is enough to reveal its
falsity.
Now,
in order for the A-millennial and the Post-millennial teachers to reject this
picture, they, too, must spiritualize the animal sacrifices of Ezekiel*s
temple. The temple, the city, the sanctuary is a “grand complicated vision” of
what God has given the Church in Christ in the kingdom. The sacrifices in Ezekiel
are pictures of a future age in which atonement is fully provided in
perfection. The priests, sons of Zadok, are fully
sanctified and purified, and the whole city structure is run perfectly without
flaws. The design of the structures are perfectly measured
for full maximum service. It is a picture of a future time of perfection in
which God dwells with people, and people dwell with God (Ezekiel 43:9). All
members of the Church are priests serving in his kingdom being purified in the
Lamb*s blood.
It
cannot be heaven itself. This would make no sense, for in the visions, Ezekiel
sees people as sinning (thus, the whole need for a sacrifice to atone for
them). People still physically die (44:25), and there are those on the outside
of the city who are not allowed inside (44:9). I could go further, but this
proves that Ezekiel is not seeing heaven. It is here that all three millennial
views agree. This is an important point. They all agree that this is taking
place on earth. The Premillennialists state that Christ comes again, and sets
up this kingdom on earth for 1,000 years. Therefore, he can account for sinners
being present. There are no sinners in heaven. All agree. So does the
Transmillennialist. So far, we are in good standing. But that is about to end.
The
Premillennialist has an ace up his sleeve. This is where he nails the other two
millennial views. Ezekiel*s vision cannot take place until after the return of
the Lord! Transmillennialists agree. Amillennialists and Postmillennialists
scurry to their nearest ambiguity store to hunt for phrases like, “Well, we can*t
press the details here,” or, “It still needs to be studied,” and “At this point
it tends to become quite controversial.”
The
Premillennialist here has done his homework. In Revelation 21-22, we see an
almost exact copy of Ezekiel*s vision. In John*s vision, this grand New
Jerusalem comes down in “the new heavens and the new earth” (Revelation 21:1,
2). Thus, the Amillennialist has Ezekiel*s vision
taking place in the Church, and if John and Ezekiel saw the same vision, then
the Church must be in the new heavens and the new earth, and since we are not,
according to them, then it is still not fulfilled. The logic the Premillennialist
uses is devastating.
Let
me put this in perspective. In Ezekiel*s vision, he is taken to a very high
mountain (40:2). John is also taken to a very high mountain (
In
All
of this detective work proves one thing in my mind: John and Ezekiel saw the
same kingdom. In the Bible, there have been four visions of the temple/
tabernacle. The first was given to Moses (Hebrews 8:5; Exodus 25:40). The
second vision was given to David (1 Chronicles 28:19). This became Solomon’s
John,
unlike Ezekiel however, makes an astounding statement which is theologically
charged. He follows the pattern of Ezekiel to a tee, until he comes to the
temple. Ezekiel*s vision contains a temple/holy place. John*s does not. “And I
saw no temple, for the Lamb and the Lord Almighty are its temple” (
Back to the three views. Some of the more keen
readers may have already picked up on the error of the Pre-millennial view. I
mentioned that they were correct to view the vision of Ezekiel as occurring on
earth (all agree here), and they are correct to state that this vision occurs after
the Second Coming (A-millennial and Post-millennial disagree). However, in
placing Ezekiel*s vision in the “1,000 Year Reign” the Pre-millennialist
cannot remain consistent.
If
John and Ezekiel are seeing the same thing (which according to the parallels
between them suggests indubitably that they are), and if the vision of John
occurs in the new heavens and the new earth (which it explicitly does), then
you cannot place Ezekiel*s vision in the old heavens and old earth, in which
the “1,000 Year Reign” occurs! The pattern of Revelation is that the “1,000
Year Reign” comes first, then the Great Judgment, then the new heavens and the
new earth. You cannot have the items described in Revelation 21-22 and Ezekiel
40-48 occurring in the “1,000 Year Reign.” The New Jerusalem does not “come”
until the new heavens and new earth are established. That is why it is called
the new Jerusalem!
All
three major views, then, face a problem of inconsistency. Only the
Transmillennial view makes sense of them by taking their better biblical points
and making them logically cohesive. Let me show you exactly what I mean.
The
A-millennial and the Post-millennial views are correct to assert that Ezekiel*s
vision is to be realized on a sinful earth, and that it is spiritually speaking
of the Church and the Gospel, and the Gospel*s redemptive message of Messiah*s
cross (sacrifice) and resurrection (river of life, or the Holy Spirit). The
Transmillennialist builds on a strong tradition at this point. However, the
Pre-millennial view asserts that the other views cannot be sustained because
Ezekiel*s vision occurs after the Second Coming of Christ.
The
Transmillennialist agrees here, also, again building on a strong tradition.
But, the problem here is that in John*s vision and in Ezekiel*s there are
sinners still in the picture. This cannot be the case if the new heavens and
the new earth are states of sinless perfection. Secondly, Ezekiel*s vision and
John*s cannot fit into the Millennial rule precisely because John saw the New
Jerusalem in the new heavens and the new earth, not in the Millennium. How can
this be reconciled?
The
Transmillennial view states that the vision of Ezekiel and John do indeed find
their fullest realization in the new heavens and the new earth, but were being
realized through the Reign of Christ (called symbolically the 1,000 Year Reign)
during that generation of the apostles, putting his enemies under his feet.
This rule of Christ (beginning at his ascension) continued until the
destruction of
The
old covenant was called by Paul “the administration of the death.” This
specific death was Adam*s death, and the result of his separation from God
through his sin. Condemnation was the penalty (Romans
Since
the death which separated man from God (alienation) has been entirely removed
and conquered, John sees a “new heaven and a new earth” wherein righteousness
dwells, and there is no more alienation (death), but reconciliation through
Christ to the world. It is in this context that Paul, quoting Isaiah 65:17, can
write, “Behold, all things are become new, the old has past” (2 Corinthians
Therefore,
since the Amillennialists and Postmillennialist views are correct to assert
that Ezekiel*s vision is the Gospel age of the church, and since the Premillennialist
is correct to assert that Ezekiel*s vision is after the Second Coming, then the
Transmillennialist solves the problem of all three views by placing the Second
Coming in A.D. 70 (“in this generation”) followed by Ezekiel*s temple vision
(and John*s) in a new heaven and a new earth of righteousness in Christ, which
is the Gospel age of the church.
Also,
Transmillennialists can speak of sinners being present in terms of being
“outside” the gates of the New Jerusalem. The gates are never closed in John*s
vision (
Thus,
while all three mainline views fail to be consistent, they nonetheless have
made great strides towards a fully comprehensive eschatology.
Transmillennialism builds on the traditions of these views, taking the best
with them, and leaving behind the problems they encounter. It has successfully
fused together their strengths and biblical labor Into
a bold, new vision. But, this requires a bold Christian.
It
is not easy to kick sacred cows. When a Christian goes against the tide of the
religious icons, there will be separation, name-calling, and excommunication.
Truly biblical reformations touch the nerve center of the religious
institutions. They will say, “Our sacred cows can*t be
wrong. We have built our entire institution on what you call wrong!” If an
institution is not built on Jesus Christ alone, then it is not an institution
worth having.
The
church is not a failed venture of God. And the church will survive this time.
As Transmillennialists, we must ever be full of the fruits of God*s Spirit as
we encounter those who would gag us, remove us, or condemn us. Bless them. They
are brothers and sisters in the Lord. Treat them as such.
As
I have shown, Preterism is being built on the foundations of what the church
has given in this matter. It is not a “new view,” but a combination of older
views with new shoes. We do not reject the church, nor condemn it. The exact
opposite: We seek to bring the church in the 21st century ever more powerful
than before for Jesus Christ, and to be able to meet the demands of God*s next
test for our generation.
As
I encounter the souls having been changed by Transmillennial thinking, I
witness two things right off the bat: a deeper awe of Jesus Christ and what he
truly accomplished through the cross (which, most of the church still
sees as largely yet to be accomplished), and a almost extreme passion for Bible
study. In pastoring
It
is truly motivating for a pastor when the church wants to come together in order
to hear the scriptures! Other pastors in this movement are equally saying the
same thing. It is this intensity that this view brings to the table that has
made it as successful as it is becoming. It’s slow, sure. It*s
long, yes. The kingdom operates as a mustard seed. You cannot perceive
its growth, but it does grow (Mark