Part 2 The Millennium New Heaven & New Earth
In Part 1 of this series, we examined some of the problems within the traditional Millennial model and timeline. This time, we dig deeper.
Tradition!
Virtually every chart we may find, whether online, in print or in our bibles, will show us that there will be a New Heaven and a New Earth as one of the very last dramatic acts of God recorded in the Book of Revelation. It has been understood by theologians over the centuries as really the final act of our Lord recorded in Scriptures. Ostensibly, it is presumed so as John makes it among his final notations in the book. Yet there are difficulties we have noted.
I am including examples of End Times time-lines popular today found by a simple internet search that will demonstrate the common idea that the New Heaven and New Earth is the Lord’s very last official act as recorded in Revelation.
Every chart I have managed to find is the same. No particular explanation given other than this is where the description falls by chapter order in the book. All I suggest is we examine the problems such an assumption creates, and consider another possibility that may eliminate said problems.
“Kingdom”
For the purpose of this paper we will not fully engage this topic in all its glory. Ask an amillennialist, a postmillennialist, a historicist and a dispensationalist or others what the Bible is talking about when it speaks to the Kingdom, my Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. and the replies will quickly amass in wide and varied ways that would literally require volumes to catalog. Firstly, we will engage the topic in general terms specific to our Futurist perspective because that is our basic assumption derived from a literal hermeneutic.
Second, while we acknowledge well-intentioned discussion from many learned individuals, many well-educated as well, in taking a direct approach with a literal futurist perspective, we wish only to approach explicit exegesis from the Bible. Frankly, some tend to parse the text too fine, thus straining at the proverbial gnat and thus swallowing a camel.
By way of example with respect to some of the argumentation I have seen, let's use my home country as an example (and please forgive my own exaggerated hyperbolic tone for the sake of illustration). Let us assume a far-future archaeologist is speaking with a future historian. One will say, “Well there is America, but that is not the same as the United States of America because when it talks about America it mentions natives, no technology, no automobiles, lots of pilgrims, corn and turkey. The United States of America describes wars, computers, armored ships... They're not the same.” Another says, “Yes, well the U.S. is not the same as USA because in the writings about USA there is frequently a lot of patriotism involved and yet when we read about the U.S. it seems mixed and the U.S. seems to be vilified more often, particularly by other nations.”
Now, obviously we are not future historians trying to make sense of ancient texts which is why I use this example. We know we are looking at the same thing across eras and from different perspectives. As the Bible is not so explicit in differences concerning the Kingdom that cannot be similarly resolved, it seems to me that some take liberties with scripture where the Bible is not explicit with proper exegetic study. But I know there will be disagreement.
On the John F. Walvoord (2007) website is an article entitled, “The Kingdom of Heaven.” Under the heading of The Eschatology of the Kingdom of Heaven we read in part:
“Much of the confusion in the argument concerning the meaning of the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God has arisen, from the mistaken judgment that the distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God is a dispensational one. The facts are to the contrary, as it is purely an exegetical problem. The dispensational distinction does not stem from the difference in meaning of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, but rather from the distinction between the present forms of these kingdoms and the future forms of these kingdoms. In a word, it is the issue as to whether the present form of the kingdom, whether it be kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven, is the predicted millennial form. Amillenarians tend to affirm that it is. Premillenarians look for a future fulfillment.
“In keeping with the dispensational point of view, it may be pointed out that Matthew 13 presents the mysteries of the kingdom, namely, the truths relating to the kingdom in the present age. The future millennial form of the kingdom is no mystery as this is the subject of much Old Testament prophecy. From these Old Testament prophecies it can be demonstrated that the millennial form of the kingdom will be outwardly a sphere of profession and, therefore, conformed to Matthew’s concept of the kingdom of heaven. At the same time it will also be the sphere of the kingdom of God because it will include many who are saved. Much that is obscure in the present age will be open for all to see in the millennium. The rule of Christ as the King of kings and Lord of lords will be obvious to all in that future dispensation (cp. Ps 72). The distinction between the present and the future form of the kingdom rests, as does the entire case for premillennialism, on the normal interpretation of prophecy as being factual and subject to future fulfillment.”
John Walvoord is not the only one to make these distinctions from the dispensational viewpoint. Dr. John F. MacArthur (2015) notes:
“Matthew uses the phrase kingdom of heaven thirty-two times, and is the only gospel writer who uses it at all. The other three use “the kingdom of God.” It is probable that Matthew used kingdom of heaven because it was more understandable to his primarily Jewish readers. Jews would not speak God’s name (Yahweh, or Jehovah), and would often substitute heaven when referring to Him-much as we do in such expressions as “heaven smiled on me today.”
“There is no significant difference between “the kingdom of God” and the kingdom of heaven. The one phrase emphasizes the sovereign Ruler of the kingdom and the other emphasizes the kingdom itself, but they are the same kingdom. Matthew 19:23–24 confirms the equality of the phrases by using them in interchangeably.”
There is even much discussion on not only the distinctions between different names for the Kingdom and the timing of the same, but there is discussion and debate about where the Kingdom is. In Luke Jesus speaking to the Jews announced, “The kingdom of God is in your midst,” MacArthur (2013) says of Luke 17:21:
“Idou (behold) introduces the Lord’s shocking statement that “the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Entos (midst) literally means “inside.” In its only other appearance in the New Testament, the word refers to the inside of a cup (Matt. 23:26). Many translators, seeking to avoid the apparent difficulty of Jesus saying that the kingdom was inside the unbelieving Pharisees, translate the phrase in which it appears in your midst. However a different phrase, en mes¯o, is regularly used to communicate the idea of “in the midst of,” or “among” (e.g., Matt. 10:16; Luke 2:46; 8:7;10:3; 22:27; 24:36; Acts 1:15; 2:22; Heb. 2:12). The apparent difficulty is easily resolved by understanding your in the broadest national sense rather than as a narrow reference to the Pharisees. As was inevitably the case, the crowd listening to the Lord’s dialogue with the Pharisees ran the gamut from the outright rejecters to the curious but uncommitted, to the true disciples of Jesus. The Lord was reinforcing the point that the spiritual kingdom is internal and not manifested by observable signs.”
Thus we see that the Kingdom names are interchangeable, that there is description of Kingdom from varying perspectives depending upon “era” or dispensation. God's Kingdom, we are told on a number of occasions, is eternal, yet we read gentiles will be there and that at times, unbelievers are included within the Kingdom. For our purposes, we know that by the ending of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 19) when Jesus returns to the earth to establish his Kingdom, that there will be believing survivors, mortals, entering the Kingdom. While only believers will enter in to this Kingdom, many of the children and children's children will not be believers. These final chapters in Revelation records their revolt, quickly put down by Jesus, and the subsequent Great White Throne Judgment.
The question frequently arises “What then is the purpose of the Millennium?” I like Jack Kelley's (2012) succinct response when he says:
“The purpose of the Millennium is now revealed. Many have wondered why God would put this unique 1000-year period between the 2nd Coming and eternity. I believe it’s a response to man’s three primary excuses for his inability to live a life pleasing to God.
“The first excuse originated in the Garden when the woman blamed the Serpent for her disobedience. Ever since then mankind has blamed his bad behavior on the devil’s deceptive influence. So now in response to that excuse, God has the devil bound for 1000 years. No more bad influence.
“Man’s second excuse has been the over powering temptation to sin created by the unbelieving world in our midst. So as the account of the Sheep and Goat judgment explains, at the establishment of the Kingdom all surviving unbelievers will be removed from Earth. Only surviving believers will populate Earth at the Kingdom’s outset. (Matt 25:31-46)
“Third is the absence of our Lord from among His people for 2000 years. It wasn’t fair, man says, to leaves us alone like that for so long. So all during the Millennium Planet Earth will be the headquarters of the Universe, with the Father in Israel and the Son in the nearby New Jerusalem...
“...So what’s the point of the 1000 years? It’s to show that there is no circumstance, no matter how favorable, in which sin infested man can live a life pleasing to God. Even after 1000 years of perfect life, perfect peace, and perfect rule, there’s still enough residual sin in the hearts of natural man that he’ll rebel against God at the first opportunity. And so the seventh dispensation concludes exactly like the six before it, in natural man’s utter failure to live in peace with God, requiring a judgment. Jeremiah was right, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jere. 17:9).”
I tend to agree, but would hasten to add a another purpose in the way the Lord operates within the Millennium time-frame. His Mercy! Some complain God is not loving enough. From the beginning God would have been completely justified in grinding us under His heel and worse. Yet His mercy is patient as He extends yet another chance. Restricted from the garden of Paradise, God permits us outside. Then again evil overwhelms, yet His mercy builds an ark. God is in the business of offering mercy and a chance at redemption. In the end, even after the sorting-out during the horrors of The Day Of The Lord in the Great Tribulation period, and all who enter His Kingdom are believers, some mortal, some immortal, God extends his mercy to a generation as yet not born.
We can never discount or forget the far-reaching extent of God's mercy toward mankind. God wants more to join Him in eternity, even at that time. That speaks in basic terms to a traditional dispensational perspective thus far. The distinction I wish to highlight is primarily in the parentheses.
Next time, we will look at chronological versus parenthetic passages within the Book of Revelation.