Part 1 The Millennium New Heaven & New Earth
In this first of a multi-part series we take a look at some popular passages of scripture and challenge some traditional, but non-critical, ideas about the conventional time-line surrounding the Kingdom.
7 Problems With The Traditional Time-line
Our traditional dispensational model has difficulties, as I discovered while attempting to map out a time-line of the “end of days” as the end times are often referred to. Though I still believe the Dispensational paradigm is by far the most correct by using a straightforward, literal approach to reading the Bible. These problems are really simple issues and far less problematic than
amillennialism or postmillennialism. I intend to show how that understanding Revelation 20 as a parenthetic (a shift in perspective, if you will) satisfies all these difficulties.
7 Problems With The Traditional Time-line:
Sweeps God's promises to Israel under the rug.
Makes presumptions upon the chronological order of Revelation 20 & 21 with a sort of Gap Theory that plugs 2 Peter 3 between, inappropriately.
Selective eisegesis when approaching text where hyperbolic (exaggerative) language is concerned.
Ignores the ancient wedding tradition so frequently used by Jesus about the end times.
Almost entirely ignores the “eternal” nature of O.T. descriptive language.
Makes a broad assumption about the word “new” in Revelation 21 in wedging 2 Peter 3 into the passage without sufficient precedent or cause.
Ignores entirely both the necessity and fact of Christ's renewal after the destructive Great Tribulation.
Because of these issues, I think it important to re-examine the traditional dispensational model for a slightly modified one. Especially if it rightly handles the difficulties listed without bringing new problems to bear on the subject, or by impacting sound doctrine.
This does not eliminate a millennial dispensation, but does slightly alter what we know about this future era. It dovetails nicely with what is revealed by the Old Testament prophets and no more impacts Eternity Future than any other paradigm as the scriptures are largely silent on the subject beyond an eternal paradise with our Lord.
Being of sympathetic heart in this regard, we hate to impose a thing of perhaps less significant import just to unburden an idea. As we are sanctified in Christ by the Holy Spirit it does not take long for us to realize that our understanding of all things Biblical tend to be just a little dynamic. Just when we think we have it all figured out. we come across a passage or even a single verse that hits us in a new way. Not that we ought to be blown about by every wind of doctrine, but sometimes the notion occurs and we are compelled to settle the matter.
The worst that has happened is we have been in the Word, exercising our skills in discernment and hermeneutics. Synthesis demands that all Scriptures must agree with one another. While oft times there are troublesome passages that seem to contradict one another, there ought to, at the very least, be reasonable explanations to what we perceive. Does the passage employ a Hebraic idiom that requires some research? Is the translation clear enough or does it require expounding or expansion. English tends to be very weak, and while translators have been wise to maintain as direct and succinct a translation as possible and avoid undue embroidery, often our language quite simply is lacking nuance that is in the original languages.
The trick is to take the passage at as direct an understanding as possible. We would prefer that Scripture be understood with as normal an understanding as possible. We may repeat this often, but literalism is not the same as blind letterism. There is typology in the Bible and there is symbolism, but we maintain that where there is, usually it is plain as to where this occurs, even if there is disagreement as to the meaning. Typically, the Bible itself will use pattern to offer the meaning. Israel may be understood with the imagery of the fig tree only because this typology has been patterned in various places previously in the Old Testament, so it is nothing new. Often the passage will continue on and tell us the meaning.
We look for words that indicate symbolism such as “like” and “as.” And we look for blatant wording that we would understand as symbolic. “He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust.” (Psalm 91:4). This is normally understood as symbolic language. Understanding it using letterism, we drift into the absurd. If a passage describes a dragon with multiple heads and horns we may safely take that as symbolic language because there is no such actual creature in the real world, for example.
Therefore, we will approach these passages in a straightforward manner and attempt to glean the sense of the text by reading and understanding it normally, armed with the knowledge that context, audience, linguistic background of the writers all come to bear in an accurate hermeneutic. That, as the scriptures come to us by way of the same Author (the Holy Spirit), that synthesis must inform our conclusions. Where a number of passages offer understanding, a lone, seemingly contradictory passage must be examined in light of clearer passages in order to be understood.
In the methodology herein, we will not only apply a literal (normal) hermeneutic, but we will examine a number of passages, Old Testament and New, that inform our understanding of what has become known as The Millennium, or The Millennial Kingdom. We will not be discussing Tribulation time-lines directly, but rather we will visit some particular events and take a distinctly different approach to outlining a couple of patterns that will hopefully demonstrate particulars in the book's structure.
It is not my intent to dispute or cause dispute. Many Godly men have addressed the difficulties of the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Many of them we respect and consider a blessing. It is simply that we grow up in the Lord and niche-away doctrines and concepts where we are comfortable with them and are loathe to unsettle them because of their interconnectedness. What we have picked up from our pastors, teachers, books and videos over time become sort of modules in which we plug new data as we learn things. Then we become unsettled when it doesn't quite fit our model or preconceptions. Sometimes, rather than step back and re-evaluate the data, we begin proof-texting to the extent that we are all too ready to dispose of a new viewpoint because it does not fit our comfortable models.
It is not that Bible teachers purposefully promote unsound doctrine. We hear things early on in the faith and have no reason to question it, just as our Bible teachers did the same. During the days of the old west, men believed we would die if we went any faster than 45 mph. More recently scientists believed what we saw in the night sky were millions of points of light we call stars. Well, they weren't wrong. Except Hubble telescope photos will reveal most of what we see in the night sky are not mere individual stars but entire galaxies!
The point being, we make assumptions until better information comes to light. As a policy, it is best to avoid what are often termed “novel” interpretations of Scripture. Particularly where said Scripture impacts our understanding of salvation issues and the nature of God. This is the best caution possible in our modern world that has become soft on sound doctrine. We live in a world that has become relativistic in understanding and ambivalent to solid teaching. When we do not approach the very Word of God with reverence and humility, we endanger our very souls.
Now, this presented paper is not of any faith-shaking consequence. All sorts of flags and flashing lights should go off in our thinking when it comes to critical doctrine central to our faith. In fact, the teaching herein may be of no consequence whatsoever other than as another approach to smoothing some wrinkles. Let’s face it, when the prophets wrote, it was in response to incredible experiences.
Not that these accounts are any less inspired, that’s not the point. Let us put ourselves in their shoes. We find ourselves transported in a living color, high definition vision of things far into the future, frequently of things and beings from another dimension. In John’s case, with most of Revelation, literally transported into the future, we believe. He appeared to have had some visions, such as right away in chapter one, but then he is out of his vision, still trying to wrap his mind around what he has seen and heard, then we get chapter four:
‘After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.”’ − Revelation 4:1
Imagine that! Here John has just seen a vision of the glorified savior, his friend and Messiah, walking among these lamp stands, showing him a vision and talking to him, than he hears a loud voice, a trumpet, sees a window in heaven open and the voice says “Come up here,” and John then finds himself in the very throne room of God! How do you write about that? How do you describe the indescribable? Between a sequence of events John observes in Heaven and events he is watching below, John also is given the occasional odd vision.
In Part 2 we will delve deeper into the conventional thinking in what has become Tradition today.