The Problems With Premillennialism

One of the greatest divisions in modern Christianity is the understanding of the return of Christ and the things that surround that event. We need go no further than our local Christian bookstore to find countless books and CDs teaching a number of different views and prognostications regarding this topic. It seems that everywhere we turn we hear fanciful tales of people disappearing in a secret rapture and the rise of the Antichrist and his evil regime. The ideas about the return are prevalent, and each one more outlandish than the last. But are all these predictions really true? Can we actually find them in Scripture?

There are many who will claim that the answers to these questions do not really matter. “This is a non-essential doctrine,” we are consistently told by those who promote the pluralism of our day. But Scripture diminishes the idea of non-essential doctrine when the Apostle Paul wrote, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). If God inspired all of the Scripture we find in the Bible, are we really in a position to stand as judges over which portions of Scripture are essential and which ones are not? If we were wise enough to do such a thing we would also be wise enough to know that the responsibility is too great for us. All Scripture is given for the edification of God’s church.

In spite of the Scriptural claims of the importance of doctrine, we still find much debate over the idea of the importance end-times theology. There are many in Christendom who will not recognize its importance. We do not ask pastors what their view of this issue is when they are interviewed by search committees. Sometimes they are even ordained without ever having to articulate a Biblical understanding of the second coming of Jesus. How can this be? Is it really that unimportant? I would suggest that it is not. In fact, it is very important to our theology.

When we study the various teachings of Scripture we find that they fit together as one whole. We cannot separate them into different compartments and assume that one will never affect the others. The beliefs that we claim as truth all affect other beliefs in some way. That is why it is important for us to study systematic theology, so we have the opportunity to think through the consequences and effects of our beliefs. If we study Bible doctrine in a systematic way we will find that today’s popular teaching about Jesus’ return is not consistent with our general understanding of Scripture.

The most commonly expressed view of the second coming is premillennialsism (specifically, dispensational premillennialism). This view promotes that the 20^th chapter of Revelation teaches that Jesus will someday come back to earth and establish a kingdom in Jerusalem. During that time He will reestablish the Old Testament temple worship and sacrifices. It tells us that this kingdom will last for 1,000 years before a battle called Armageddon is fought between Satan, who had been bound by Jesus but is released for one final battle.  Those who endorse this view believe that Revelation sheds light on an elaborate timeline of events that will lead up to the return of Jesus. Chief among them is the rapture, or disappearance of the church. We find stories based on this belief in literature such as The Left Behind Series. The problem with this view is that it is not based on Scripture. It is based on a teaching that was not accepted by the church until the middle 1800’s, and did not become popular until around 1900 when it was promoted by C.I. Scofield in his reference Bible.

But again, we face question as to the importance of what we believe about these things. There are those who maintain that it makes no difference. So what do we do with beliefs about the end of time? Should we make an issue out of such things? If we consider the belief that is being promoted by the “end-times experts” of our day the answer must be, YES! The things we believe and teach about the return of Jesus are important. They affect other beliefs that no serious Christian would consider negotiable. Consider just a few of the things affected by a premillennial belief.

It Is Based On Inconsistency

Those who hold to an amillennial view of the return of Jesus – a view that teaches He comes back on the last day to resurrect the dead and all will be judged at the end – are often accused of “spiritualizing” scripture. We are told that we cannot look at Scripture symbolically, and that it was never intended to be understood that way. The follower of Scofield, Ryrie, or modern day dispensationalists such as John Hagee or Tim Lahaye, will claim that they take the Bible literally as they believe it should be understood. The problem is that the do not.

These teachers claim that the book of Revelation is about Jesus returning to set up a literal kingdom on earth. This kingdom will be composed of the Jews because the church will have been taken away in a secret rapture. But their claim to take the Scriptures literally falls apart on this premise. If the book of Revelation is largely written to the Jews as they claim, they must eliminate the references to the church. They do so by using the 4^th chapter. “After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, ‘Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.’ At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne” (Rev. 4:1, 2). To diminish the importance of the church they will claim that these verses represent the rapture of the church. The words “come up here” are used to show the church being taken to heaven before the restoration of the Jews. But aren’t these the same people who want to take the Bible literally? In fact, they take the majority of Revelation literally. The literal understanding of this would be that John was taken into heaven and saw a vision there. Those who claim to take this book literally use highly symbolic language to accomplish their purpose.

I do not dispute that Revelation is symbolic in nature. We read in the first verse, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants – things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John” (Rev. 1:1 NKJV). The word that translates to signify is semiano, which means to show by sign. The very first verse of Revelation teaches us that it is a symbolic book. But if this is the case it must be understood that way. We cannot pick what we want to be symbolic and what we want to be literal but must understand it as God intends. The problem with the premillennial view is that it teaches inconsistency. It promotes the idea that we can mold Scripture to fit our preconceived ideas rather than allowing the Holy Spirit to use it to speak to us. When this happens we have opened the floodgates for any number of abuses. Scriptures from the whole of the Bible are torn from their context and used to prove fanciful tales of unbiblical things. The Bible certainly uses figurative language, and that is impossible to dispute. But we do not get to choose how we want to take it.

We also find inconsistency in the understanding of symbols that are clearly defined for us. Let us revisit the claim that the church disappears after Revelation 4 and the rest of the book is written to the Jews. Can this be true? Consider Revelation 21:1-2: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy City, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” John claims that he saw the city Jerusalem, but look at his description: PREPARED AS A BRIDE ADORNED FOR HER HUSBAND! Who is the bride? It is the church. John makes this “new Jerusalem” synonymous with the church. And he does it again in verses 9 and 10: Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, ‘Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem…” Twice John equates the Bride of Christ with the holy city Jerusalem. If the culmination of Revelation is the Bride of Christ then of necessity the book is about the church. But those who hold to the premillennial doctrine will claim that this should be understood literally, and to “spiritualize” it does damage to the text. If that’s the case then we must ask, is it possible to marry a city? What we see is very clearly a symbol of the church. This teaching hinders our ability to consistently understand the Bible.

It Eliminates the Presence of God’s Kingdom

One of the predominant doctrines of the New Testament is the Kingdom of God. “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 3:1, 2). After the temptation of Jesus, we read, “From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). The premise of premillennial doctrine is that Jesus came to establish this kingdom but was rejected by the Jews. Its proponents believe that God established the church as an afterthought so reside in this world until Jesus comes back to accomplish what He could not do at His first advent. Can this be true? If it is, what does it say about Jesus?

Even as He prepared to die on Calvary, Jesus maintained that His purpose was to establish God’s Kingdom. “Then Pilate said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear witness to the truth’” (John 18:37). This, along with the previously stated verses, gives us ample evidence that Jesus and John the Baptist believed that Christ came to establish God’s Kingdom.

We read in Revelation 12 about the specific time of the Kingdom’s establishment. “Now a war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon…And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan…And I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, ‘Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God” (Rev. 12:7-10). Many would have us believe that this is a war that was fought during a rebellion of Satan at the beginning of time, but this is simply not true. This event dates itself in verse 10 when it says, “NOW the salvation and the power AND THE KINGDOM OF OUR GOD and the authority of his Christ have come…” We read here that the Kingdom of God came at the same time as salvation. We know without a doubt that salvation was delivered at Calvary! This means that the battle to establish God’s Kingdom must have taken place as Jesus Christ hung upon the Roman cross and gave His life for the sins of man. Matthew’s gospel even makes reference to the gospel message as the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt. 4:23; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 24:14).

Scripture teaches us the presence of God’s Kingdom. It is not a political kingdom ruled from a worldly throne, but a spiritual kingdom that transcends the political barriers of this world. That is why the Apostle Paul wrote, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17).

The presence of God’s Kingdom places a burden on us. It requires submission to Jesus Christ our King. That is why it is difficult for us to look at the church as a kingdom. In the church people can throw their weight around and get their way, but in a kingdom we submit to our King. There is a great difference between living as part of a social organization and subjects of a kingdom. That is why the premillennial doctrine that diminishes the present reality of God’s Kingdom is dangerous to the church today.

It Necessitates a Defeated Church

Possibly one of the most treacherous aspects of premillennial doctrine is its view of the church. Few would claim that they believe the church is destined for failure, but of necessity that is what this doctrine teaches. It claims that the church will someday be taken away in a secret rapture so that the Jewish nation can be reestablished and do the work of evangelism that the church could not do.

If this is really the case, what should the church be doing today? We preach and teach the great commission, but if we were to hold to a premillennial belief we could easily ignore those aspects of Scripture. This belief treats the Great Commission as nothing more than a naïve dream.

The idea of an escape before tribulation also stands in opposition to the words of Jesus. He told us that in this life we will have trials, and even went so far as to claim that the persecuted are blessed. How do we reconcile such statements with the idea that the church will be taken away before tribulation comes upon the world? Premillennial doctrine discourages the Christian from facing the very trials that build our character and solidify our faith. It does injustice to the promises of God by creating the illusion that we will be delivered from tribulation instead of being sustained through it.  This simply cannot be. Any interpretation of Scripture that does not allow for the maturity of the Christian is not true to the teaching of the Bible.

It Diminishes the Redeeming Work of Jesus

If we examine the premises of premillennialism thoroughly we find that it stands against the presence of God’s Kingdom, and awaits the failure of the church, but this is not the full extent of its dangers. It also diminishes the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. The premillennial teacher believes that Jesus will someday come back to establish a political kingdom in Jerusalem. As part of this kingdom they promote the idea that temple worship – along with animal sacrifices – will be reinstituted. But Scripture teaches us that those sacrifices were not sufficient, so why would they be reestablished? Was the blood of Jesus not enough to provide salvation from sin? Though those who hold to this doctrine claim to believe that there is power in Jesus’ blood, they stand on a belief that leads us to a different logical conclusion.

It seems like everywhere we turn we hear about doctrines that are essential and others that are not. We are told that beliefs about things like the return of Christ just do not matter. But if we consider the premises of premillennialism this simply cannot be true. The Bible tells us that all Scripture is given by God and is profitable. If this is the case we must be sure that we do indeed take all Scripture seriously – even that which relates to the end times.