I am convinced that premillennialism is the best interpretation of the biblical texts of God’s plan for the future, but I am much more comfortable with what is known today as the dispensational variety of premillennialism. What’s the difference between what I believe and what someone like John Piper would affirm?
Historic premillennialism sits on the eschatological spectrum between amillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. It shares with dispensationalism the belief that Jesus will return before the millennium to establish his kingdom on earth. It shares with amillennialism the belief that Israel’s future is solely as part of the church.
Dispensationalism makes the divide between church and Israel sharper by (1) emphasizing the literal fulfillment of OT promises to ethnic, national Israel; (2) seeing Daniel’s 70th week as part of God’s purpose for Israel and thus (3) placing the rapture of the church before the 70th week (the 7-year tribulation).
Historic premillennialism agrees with amillennialism in uniting the rapture with Jesus’s return: the church is called up to heaven in order to greet King Jesus and usher him back to the earth to rule. Dispensationalism separates the rapture from Jesus’s descent because of (1) the belief that the church will not face God’s wrath on earth; (2) the belief that during the tribulation God will work directly with Israel without the intermediate agency of the church; (3) the belief that a rapture only in order to return immediately to earth is unnecessary.
Historic premillennialism is so called because this view was held in the early church. Dispensational premillennialism is alleged to have only begun in the early 1800s. It is poorly named because (1) every view acknowledges dispensations in history; (2) the presence and character of dispensations is not a central feature of the view. Dispensational premillennialism has one major tenet that distinguishes them from all other views: Scripture is to be interpreted literally according to the author’s intention in a consistent fashion. This accepts the presence of figurative language and symbols, but it requires textual evidence for such.
They argue that just because a number may have symbolic value (e.g., 7 and 12 have significance throughout history), this does not necessarily mean that the number is not also literal. (For example, the 7 churches of Revelation may represent the church as a whole, but they also refer to 7 specific congregations.) 1,000 years may refer to a complete period of time, but there is no textual evidence that it is not actually 1,000 years long. Dispensationalists fault the other views for being inconsistent in their interpretation of Scripture and allowing logic and theology to change the meaning of texts.
Next time I plan to look at the effects that one’s eschatology has on your view of the world and the church.
Great series, Todd. I also appreciated hearing from you and Dr. Varner on the subject during the TMC Chapel series. I only wish TMC could have provided a video of the presentations. This has been very helpful. God bless.
Thanks, Mike. I think they do videorecord all the messages, but apparently they don’t put them all online.