I’ve read most of I. Howard Marshall’s New Testament Theology in the last few months as I’ve done my NT arguments because I find his insights valuable. He is a very good scholar and I certainly recommend the book to all students of Scripture. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I’m not reading him to confirm what I believe. But this statement in his section on Revelation 20 just confounds me:
A more or less literal interpretation of this millennium seems to be ruled out because of the problems of determining where the nations come from and because a temporary kingdom of Christ seems utterly pointless (558).
It is nice that he acknowledges that he is rejecting the literal interpretation. Too many scholars pretend that their non-literal interpretation is just as literal as one that interprets the text according to history and grammar, as we do any other text.
But it is disappointing that he rules out a literal interpretation because of these two problems. The other views that he is willing to entertain (later in the paragraph) have problems, as he admits. But, he says:
it seems to me that the hypothesis of the temporary millennial kingdom is rather more problematic and should probably be dropped from the discussion (559).
I do have answers for each of his two problems that I think are rather simple, straightforward, and entirely in keeping with the message of the book of Revelation.
First, he cannot figure out where the nations come from because he says that “everybody has died and only God’s people have been resurrected with Christ” (558). But clearly everyone has not died because the reason why the dragon is thrown into the Abyss is in order “to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore.” Those who were killed in the battle in chapter 19 are Christ’s enemies, not his followers. It is these followers who could potentially be deceived and thus are isolated from Satan.
Second, I have a three-word response to Marshall’s conclusion that a “temporary” (i.e., 1,000-year!) kingdom of Christ “seems utterly pointless”: the Old Testament.
Is it “utterly pointless” that Jesus reigns on the throne of David over the kingdom he was promised in order to pour out blessings upon Israel and the world? Is it “utterly pointless” that God honor his word to his people? Marshall might respond that there’s no need for this “temporary kingdom” because all of these promises can be fulfilled in the new heavens and new earth. Why mess around with a 1,000-year-period when you can get straight to the good stuff?
I have two replies. First, Revelation says that there is a period of 1,000 years. I didn’t make this up nor did Darby or Scofield. Why not let the text form our theology, even if it doesn’t seem logical to us? Second, does Marshall (and the many who hold a similar view) believe that God’s promises are literally fulfilled in the eternal state? If they did, I’d be less traumatized. The fact is that they not only spiritualize away the millennial kingdom, but they spiritualize away all of God’s blessings to Israel. I suppose when you have no promises left for Israel, then an earthly millennium is indeed “utterly pointless.”
If you want just one passage to read, look at Zechariah 14. This chapter is not difficult to understand and it establishes that after the Lord (Jesus) returns and defeats his enemies, there are “survivors all from the nations” who go up to worship the King in Jerusalem, and if they do not they are afflicted with a plague. This passage cannot be speaking about the present day, because I’ve been to Jerusalem before and Jesus is not king there. And it can’t be speaking about the eternal state where every tear is wiped away if people are being afflicted by plagues. It would seem to fit perfectly into a “temporary” period in between the two.
You can follow Marshall and apply Wite-Out to the six mentions of the “thousand years” in Revelation 20, but if you do that, you ‘re going to need an Exacto knife to cut out Zechariah 14. For that matter, if you plan to start poking around much in the OT, I recommend you just go ahead and invest in a paper cutter.
Great post Todd.
You’re right on!
To what you said I would add that you NEED the Millenium in order to fufill the utopic–but not quite!–depictions of life in the distant future. Ex: Isa 65:20 says that a young man is one who dies at 100. That definitely isn’t true now, nor can it be the case in the eternal state: it must refer to the millenium.
Also, the other side likes to say that this premillenial theology was crafted by Darby and Scofield and thus is too new to be true. My response is this: I’m glad that’s not what the 16th century (soon to be called “protestant”) theologians said about Martin Luther.
Todd,
I would love for you to take a blog (or two or three) to respond to the partial-preterist view who say that Matt 24; Zech 14; Rev 1-19, etc, etc was fulfilled in 1st century (with the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple and the nation of Israel, and the martyrdom of Christians). I rarely see anyone interact with their position.
Would you mind addressing that position at some point in the near future?
I would love to hear your thoughts!
Excellent post, Todd. Thanks!
Benj – as you probably know, the earliest church fathers were largely premillennial. That largely fell out of disfavor with the assistance of Augustine and Jerome. The dispensational variety is more modern, but, as you note, the issue is its compatibility with Scripture.
Jason – good idea. This is not a subject regularly on my radar, but I’ll keep it in mind.
Marshall should understand the nations during the Millennium are there as a result of the temporal judgment of the sheep and goats in Mt 25 at the end of the trib. This passage reveals that the nations (not individuals) come before Christ and that He removes from earth those who have “cursed” Israel during the Tribulation (per the Abrahamic Covenant promise), and allows those people groups to remain who have “blessed” Israel during the 3 1/2 years after Antichrist breaks covenant with Israel and the world relentlessly attempts to eradicate the chosen nation. This cannot be a judgment of salvation, since that is always on an individual basis. It appears that God here blesses those groups (temporally, not salvifically) who have cared for His Jewish brethren. Their righteousness is not necessarily the righteousness of Christ that is attributed to believers during the Church Age, but covenant righteousness (covenant-keeping) — by their refusing to follow Antichrist in forsaking his promise to protect Israel. Isaiah 60.2 reveals that the nations of the world, except Israel, will be in darkness during the Mill.