Please open your Bibles to Revelation chapter 20.
If you don't have a Bible, please raise your hand.
We'd love to bring a Bible for you that you can have and you can use.
We've been going through our series in the book of Revelation.
We're coming to the end here, the last few chapters.
Let me pray for the reading and preaching of God's word.
Father, all scripture is breathed out by you.
Every word, and therefore every word is profitable for us.
It's able to make us wise for salvation in Jesus Christ
and it is profitable for equipping us and building us up
so that we might be complete, equipped for every good work.
And so, Lord, we don't skip passages.
We come even to a difficult passage like this,
expecting to hear from you,
wanting to learn from you.
So, Lord, teach us and lead us.
We humble ourselves before you.
Exalt the name of your Son, Jesus Christ,
and humble us so that with greater humility and love
we might engage with one another
and with others who might disagree with us
on a number of issues related to this passage,
but also so that we might conduct ourselves
and all our dealings with great love.
Help us in Jesus' name we pray.
Amen.
If you're able, please stand and join me
in reading God's word from Revelation 21 to 6.
I will read it out loud for us
and you can follow along with your eyes.
Revelation 20 verses 1 to 6.
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven,
holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit
and a great chain.
And he seized the dragon,
that ancient serpent,
who is the devil and Satan,
and bound him for a thousand years
and threw him into the pit
and shut it and sealed it over him
so that he might not deceive the nations any longer
until the thousand years were ended.
After that, he must be released for a little while.
Then I saw thrones
and seated on them
were those to whom the authority to judge was committed.
Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God
and those who had not worshipped the beast or its image
and had not received its mark on their foreheads
or their hands.
They came to life
and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
The rest of the dead did not come to life
until the thousand years were ended.
This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is the one
who shares in the first resurrection.
Over such, the second death has no power.
But they will be priests of God and of Christ
and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
This is God's holy and authoritative word.
You may be seated.
I feel like I owe people who are here
for the first time an apology
because this is the most hotly debated passage
in the entire book of Revelation,
possibly in the entire Bible.
It tells us about a period of time
when Satan will be bound for a thousand years
and the people of God will reign with Christ
for a thousand years.
And before, well actually that depends
on how you interpret this.
But exactly how long this millennial period is,
whether it's a literal thousand years
or a figurative thousand years,
whether it will occur in heaven
with believers reigning in their souls
or on earth,
when exactly it will occur.
It will occur before Christ returns
or after Christ returns.
All of these things are contested points
about which many faithful Bible-believing Christians disagree.
Someone has joked that the millennium
is a thousand years of peace
that Christians love to fight about
because of the difficulty of this passage
and the history of extensive debate surrounding it
and the fact that many Christians
have strong, very strong opinions about it
and have divided over these issues.
I'm going to do something unusual
and spend two weeks teaching on Revelation 21 to 6.
And this week I'm going to provide
mostly the historical background
and a theological overview of the millennium.
And then next week we're going to get
into the nitty-gritty exegetical details
of the passage itself.
So normally I don't like to do something like this.
I like to be close to the text.
But a friend of mine who's a pastor
said he took four weeks to do it.
So you guys, I'm sparing you guys of that.
And he said he did that
and had all the qualifications
and still at the end of the four weeks
some people decide to leave the church
because of this.
And so that's why I think it's important
to give this kind of context and background.
I don't think that's going to happen in our church
but I can surprise myself.
We'll see what happens here.
Now, I think a controversial passage like this
is in Scripture
and God gives us passages like this
as a way of keeping us humble.
It reminds us that we don't have all the answers.
So I can be so prideful
with the little knowledge that I have.
Imagine what kind of prideful monster I would be
if I had all the knowledge.
Perfect knowledge.
Knew everything.
And so I think this is intended to keep us humble.
It reminds us that in this age
before the second coming of Christ
and the new heavens and the new earth
we know in part
and we prophesy in part
as it says in 1 Corinthians 13.9.
It reminds us that knowledge puffs up
but love builds up.
This is in 1 Corinthians 8.1.
So the doctrine of the millennium
is not a matter of indifference
that Paul speaks of in Romans 14.
But his exhortation there to us
about protecting one another's liberty,
freedom of conscience
is still helpful for us.
So I'm going to read that before we start.
It says in Romans 14,
as for the one who is weak in faith,
welcome him,
but not to quarrel over opinions.
One person believes he may eat anything
while the weak person eats only vegetables.
One person esteems one day as better than another
while another esteems all days alike.
Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
So Paul's using this example.
He clearly has an opinion about it
because he says that people who only eat vegetables
are the ones who are weaker in faith.
He has an opinion about it.
But he says that this is a matter of indifference.
It's not something that really matters.
And so when he was dealing with believers
who by their conviction believed
that they should only eat vegetables
or should never eat meat
that had been sacrificed to idols,
he would accommodate them humbly
because it's a matter of indifference.
There are some things
that are not worth quarreling over.
And in those cases,
and I think this millennium,
I don't think it's that kind of matters of indifference.
I think it's important and consequential.
But it's still something
that I think people can have the freedom of conscience
to disagree about
and be faithful Christians in.
So that raises the question, however,
how do we determine
what is something to divide over
and what isn't something to divide over?
What's essential doctrine
and what's not essential doctrine?
If you walk into an emergency room,
the doctors and nurses
assess the severity of your illness
and determine the order of priority
in which you should be treated.
Every time I've gone to the emergency room
for something,
I've had to wait many, many hours,
which tells me that
they clearly don't think
that my problem is as severe
as I think it is, right?
And so this is,
you have to use the process of triaging
in order to determine
who should be treated first.
And similarly, we need a process
for theological triaging.
And to that end,
there's a really helpful book
that I recommend to all of you
by Gavin Ortlund entitled
Finding the Right Hills to Die On.
In the book, he argues
that we should avoid
both doctrinal minimalism
and doctrinal sectarianism.
As the old saying goes,
quote,
there is no doctrine
a fundamentalist won't fight over
and no doctrine
a liberal will fight over, right?
So that's painting in broad strokes
and not entirely fair
to either fundamentalists or liberals,
but you get the point.
Doctrinal sectarianism
is when we find too many reasons
to separate from Christian brothers
and sisters with whom
we share a profound spiritual unity
and not allowing them
the liberty of conscience
that Paul spoke of in Romans 14.
Titus 3, 9 to 11 describes this.
It says,
but avoid foolish controversies,
genealogies, dissensions,
and quarrels about the law,
for they are unprofitable and worthless.
As for a person
who stirs up division
after warning him once
and then twice
have nothing more to do with him,
knowing that such a person
is warped and sinful,
he is self-condemned.
That's doctrinal sectarianism.
Doctrinal minimalism
is when we find
the lowest common denominator,
doctrinal denominator,
and say, in essence,
that most other doctrines
basically don't really matter.
But theology is important.
It shapes the way we live.
We cannot obey
what we do not know
and what we do not understand.
We're supposed to be transformed
by the renewal of our mind,
it says in Romans 12, 2,
that by testing,
we may discern
what is the will of God,
what is good
and acceptable and perfect.
Philippians 3, 15-16 says,
let those of you
who are mature
think this way.
And if in anything
you think otherwise,
God will reveal
that also to you.
Only let us hold true
to what we have attained.
As God reveals
more and more
of what we ought to think,
we mature in accordance
with the knowledge
we have attained.
So we need to steer clear
of both of these
equal and opposite errors,
doctrinal sectarianism
and doctrinal minimalism.
And then Gavin Ortlin
delineates four helpful categories
in which we can prioritize
our theological doctrines.
The first category is primary.
The Bible itself uses this language,
1 Corinthians 15, 3-4.
It says,
The Bible teaches us
that the gospel of Jesus Christ,
this doctrine that Jesus
is the Son of God
and Son of Man
who died as the atoning sacrifice
for our sins,
and He was raised on the third day
to be victorious
over sin and death
so that we can all be forgiven.
Those who put their trust in Jesus
and repent of their sins
can be forgiven
and have eternal life with Him.
That's the doctrine
that is of first importance.
The doctrines
in the primary category
are doctrines
that are essential
for the gospel.
People who don't believe
these doctrines
are not Christians at all.
So these doctrines
unite the entire
universal church.
These are doctrines
that we must fight for
and be willing to die for
with courage
and conviction.
Other primary doctrines
include our belief
in the Trinity
because without the Trinity
you lose the gospel
if Jesus is not
the Son of God.
The incarnation
because if Jesus
is not also the Son of Man
we also lose the gospel.
And the atonement
of Jesus on the cross.
Our belief in the inspiration
and authority of Scripture
because if the Scripture
is not the inspired testimony
of God
how do you even know
the gospel?
This is what makes us
this is what it's able
to teach us
and able to make us wise
for salvation in Jesus Christ.
So that's primary.
The secondary doctrines
are not direct gospel issues
and genuine Christians
do at times disagree
about them.
However, they are nonetheless
urgent for the church
because they have implications
for the gospel.
Differences in secondary doctrines
have significant impact
on our life
how we live
and on our doctrine
what we believe.
And for that reason
disagreements
along these lines
I do think
they warrant
formal division
along denominational
or ecclesiastical
local church lines
because they raise
urgent issues
of faithfulness
to Scripture
because if you don't
agree on these things
you can't be faithful
to Scripture
according to your conviction.
Secondary doctrines
include our belief
in the believer's baptism
that only people
who are mature enough
to give a credible
profession of faith
which necessarily
excludes infants
should be baptized.
That's our church's
position on that.
This doctrine
protects the gospel.
Complementarianism
is another one.
Our belief
that God created
men and women
as equal
co-heirs
of the grace of life
that is in Christ
but that they
nonetheless
have distinct
and non-interchangeable
roles within the household
of the family
and within the household
of God,
the church.
This doctrine
depicts the gospel
because the husband's
love for his wife
and the wife's
submission to him
is supposed to be
a picture of Christ's
love for the church
and the church's
submission to Christ.
I also would consider
continuationism
to be a secondary doctrine
because our belief
that the gifts
of the Holy Spirit
that even the miraculous
and supernatural ones
continue to this modern day
and did not seize
with the apostles
it flows out of the gospel.
It flows out of our belief
that Jesus is the one
who secured the gift
of the Holy Spirit
for us
and that continues
to this day.
And so during my first year
in seminary
I was part of a
Presbyterian church
but my convictions
about continuationism
and believer's baptism
led me to the conclusion
that I could not be
a thriving member
let alone a pastor
in that denomination
and that's why
I left that denomination
in search of
a denomination
where I can have
a church home
and that's how
I found our current
denomination
sovereign grace churches
for which I am
very grateful.
So that's secondary category.
Then there are
tertiary categories.
The tertiary doctrines
these are doctrines
that are neither essential
for the gospel
nor urgent
for the church
but because
they still pertain
to life and doctrine
of the Christian
they are still
consequential.
They're tertiary
but they're still
consequential
and important.
Included in this category
will be things like
how should men
and women
dress
and wear
their hair.
Now
this might be
a controversial opinion
but I don't think
women should dress
in a manner
that makes them
look like men
and I don't think
that men should dress
in a manner
that makes them
look like women
because God
designed humanity
to be men and women
and to be distinct.
Now
that also means
I don't
you know
if that sounds
crazy to you
read 1 Corinthians 11
and you can listen
to my sermon on that
when you get home.
But I will never use
however
my pastoral authority
to demand
that a man
cut his hair short
or a woman
grow out her hair long.
Why?
Because this is
a tertiary issue
and I believe
that faithful Christians
can disagree on this.
And be members
of the same
faithful members
of the same
local church
together.
They are still
important
and they are not
issues to divide over
but they still
have consequences
for how we live
and obey God.
Tithing I think
is in this category.
Is tithing
giving 10%
of our income
is that still
a legal
biblical requirement
or is that something
that has been
fulfilled by Christ?
Churches disagree on this.
I'd also include
philosophy and ministry issues
like how often
should the church
celebrate the Lord's Supper.
I think that the church
to celebrate the Lord's Supper
I think is more of a secondary
a higher order issue
but how often to celebrate
exactly how to celebrate
I think those are
tertiary issues.
Should a local church
in normal times
offer a live stream
of the church's service
online?
That's a tertiary issue.
What does that teach
about what a local church is?
What Christian community
is meant to be?
What does live streaming
services teach
about worship?
Are these questions
consequential?
Absolutely,
they're consequential
but these are not issues
to divide over
and believers may have
differences in these matters
yet maintain the unity
of the spirit
in the same local church.
So primary,
secondary,
and tertiary issues
are not something
that we can be agnostic
or neutral about
because they have consequences
for our life and doctrine.
Even if you don't take
a position in your thoughts,
you're going to end up
taking a position
by default
in your actions
because they determine
how we obey God
and how we're faithful to Him.
So these are not issues
you can just be neutral about.
You do have to make a decision.
Then finally,
there are matters
of indifference.
That's the fourth category.
Things that don't actually matter.
Things that are immaterial
that the Bible
is not concerned about
such as what kind of church
building to worship in.
Whether those who distribute communion
should wear gloves or not.
Believe it or not,
churches disagreed
on these issues.
Whether the pastor
should wear a suit or not.
So we once had a church member
in our church
that believed that
I as a pastor
should not wear shorts
to our Wednesday prayer service.
And I disagreed with her.
I mean,
it's in my house.
Right?
But I disagreed with her.
But I actually,
during the entire time
that this church member
was in our church,
I did not wear shorts
to the prayer service.
Because it's a matter
of indifference.
It doesn't matter.
So it doesn't matter.
Okay, sure.
Like, I can do that.
That's easy for me to do.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
So these are matters
of indifference.
And in matters
of indifference,
out of humility,
we should be willing
to adapt ourselves
for the sake of others.
And that's what Paul writes about
in chapter 9
of 1 Corinthians.
For though I am free from all,
I have made myself
a servant to all
that I might win
more of them.
To the Jews,
I became as a Jew
in order to win Jews.
To those under the law,
I became as one
under the law,
though not being myself
under the law,
that I might win
those under the law.
To those outside the law,
I became as one
outside the law,
not being outside the law
of God,
but under the law of Christ,
that I might win
those outside the law.
To the weak,
I became weak,
that I might win the weak.
I have become all things
to all people,
that by all means
I might save some.
I do it all
for the sake of the gospel,
that I may share with them
in its blessings.
That's what we do
for things that are
matters of indifference.
Now, having established
these categories,
what criteria should we use
to triage our doctrines?
Orland asks four
very helpful questions
in the book.
First question is,
how clear is the Bible
on this doctrine?
I think clarity
would be affected
by how often
it is addressed
in Scripture,
how clearly
it is taught,
or whether it's something
that people
have not been able
to agree throughout
the history.
What is the doctrine's
importance to the gospel?
That's the second question
to ask.
Third,
what is the testimony
of the historical church
concerning the doctrine?
I think this one's
particularly important,
not more important
than the other questions,
but important because
every generation
has its own blind spots.
Because of our own
cultural context,
we have our own blind spots
that we can't see
some things.
And people from other cultures
who didn't have
those blind spots
but had different blind spots
can help us.
We can help each other see.
So what is the testimony
of the historical church
concerning this doctrine?
And then finally,
what is the doctrine's effect
upon the church today?
I think these are really
helpful questions
to keep in mind.
It's because of my answers
to these triage questions
that I consider,
so for example,
two doctrinal stances
of our church
that I get the most questions
about at membership interviews
is continuationism,
our belief that the gifts
of the Holy Spirit
continue today,
and complementarianism,
our belief in the roles
of distinct but non-interchangeable
roles of man and woman.
Now, I consider these,
based on my answers
to these triage questions,
to be secondary doctrines
that warrant dividing over
along denominational
and ecclesiastical lines
rather than as tertiary doctrines
of indifference.
Why?
Because they have clear
biblical support
and they have urgent implications
for our life and doctrine,
and because the church universal
had unanimous agreement
on these issues
until the 16th century
for continuationism
and 19th century
for complementarianism.
So also,
it's helpful to know,
this is another thing
to think about,
that the more intimately
and closely you partner
with someone in ministry,
the higher the level
of agreement you need.
So for example,
can I partner with Jews
and Muslims
in distributing food
to the poor
in our neighborhood?
Absolutely.
That's a common cause
that I can join them in,
gladly join them in,
to do that work.
Now, can I sit around
the circle with them
and sing worship songs
and pray with them?
Absolutely not.
Because we would not be praying
to the same God
and there would be no way
to sing songs
to our God
without offending them deeply.
I'd have to witness
and be part of,
in some way,
idolatry
if I were forced to do that.
Now, can I sit around
the circle
and sing songs
and pray with
other Christians
with whom I disagree
on secondary doctrines?
Absolutely.
I'd be glad to do that.
But can I be
a member
of a same local church
with those same Christians
that disagree
on secondary doctrines?
No.
Because if the church
were governed
according to their convictions
on these secondary matters,
every week
I would be sitting there
having my conscience violated
and feeling like
I'm in disobedience
to scriptures.
Right?
Do you guys see
the difference,
the rising level
of intimacy and partnership
and the more degree
of agreement
and clarity you need?
Now, can I,
well, you know,
if,
can I then be
the same member
of the same local church
with Christians,
other Christians
who disagree
on tertiary matters?
Yes, absolutely.
But,
can I be
on the same
local church
eldership
with Christians
who disagree
on these tertiary matters?
In some cases,
no.
Because if we had
a church elder
in our church
who, for example,
thought that,
you know,
having live streaming
our service
is the best way
to reach the lost.
And they wanted
to do that
every single week.
And I'm convinced
from my convictions
that that would be
detrimental
to the health
of the church
because it communicates
false ideas
about what a church is
because to me,
church is by definition
a gathering.
And you don't gather
when you're watching
a service,
you're consuming.
Right?
And so,
that's a significant
disagreement
that affects
the life of the church.
So, like,
yes,
I can be,
if you think that,
you can be a member
of our church,
but can I have someone
who thinks differently
from me
be on the same
local church eldership?
Probably not.
And so,
that's what I mean.
These are things,
the higher,
the more intimacy
of partnership,
the more agreement
you need.
Now,
let's ask these
theological triage questions
of our passage
this morning,
Revelation 20,
1-6,
the doctrine
of the millennium.
How clear
is the Bible
on this doctrine?
It's not very clear.
Yeah.
Because,
when one of the main
difficulties
is that this is
the only passage
in all of Scripture
that explicitly
talks about
the millennial reign
of Christ.
It's the only one.
And so,
if you disagree
on this one passage,
then you really kind of
have nowhere else to go.
Right?
So,
it's not that clear.
Now,
what is this doctrine's
importance to the gospel?
It's neither essential
nor urgent
to the gospel.
It is consequential,
and I'll talk about
the implications
of it later on.
What is the testimony
of the historical church
concerning this doctrine?
The church
has had at least
two differing positions
on this doctrine
since at least
the second century A.D.
Already,
writing in the second century,
church father
Justin Martyr
speaks of the belief
that Christ will return
to establish
the millennial kingdom
this way.
I and many others
are of this opinion
and believe that
such will take place
as you assuredly
are aware,
but on the other hand,
I signify to you
that many who belong
to the pure
and pious faith
and are true Christians
think otherwise.
So,
already,
in the second century,
the church fathers
recognized that
there was a diversity
of views
on the millennium
and that it was not
something to divide over.
It's very different
from some of these
other secondary issues
I mentioned to you.
What is this doctrine's
effect upon the church today?
It does have some
significant effect
upon the church today
and I'm going to discuss
those later on
in my sermon.
However,
because,
as we have seen,
this doctrine
is not very clear,
does not have implications
for the gospel,
and it has been
disagreed upon
since the early church age.
That's why
I consider
the doctrine
of the millennium
to be a tertiary doctrine
over which
we should not divide.
So,
if you don't agree
with me
at the end
of my sermon today
and the sermon next week
on exactly
what the millennium is,
that's okay.
Please don't leave
the church for that.
As is the case
with other doctrines,
people can tend
toward doctrinal
sectarianism
or doctrinal minimalism
when it comes
to the millennium
as well.
And I'm on
too many mailing lists
and once in a while
I get an email
from some organization
that's emailing
all the local church pastors
that can find
with openings,
a list of openings
for other pastoral jobs.
I have never searched
for a different pastoral job,
so don't worry.
I've never searched
for another job,
period.
But they send me those
and it's interesting
to read those sometimes
because they'll tell you
what they're looking for
in a pastor
and sometimes
they're oddly specific.
And so,
one of those things
I saw was
that the pastor
has to be a
pre-tribulational rapture
dispensationalist
premillennialist.
Right.
So,
that was a requirement.
Now,
you guys laugh
but some churches
take this very seriously.
That church is using,
I think,
a tertiary issue
as a litmus test
for pastoral faithfulness.
And I don't think
that's good for the church.
They're ruling out
many faithful,
godly,
gifted pastors
by insisting on something
that the Bible talks about
only once.
It's not healthy,
in my opinion.
That's an example
of doctrinal sectarianism.
On the other hand,
we should also avoid
the pitfalls
of doctrinal minimalism
when it comes to this.
There are some people
who say,
post-millennial,
pre-millennial,
amillennial,
I have no idea,
I'm a pan-millennialist.
What does that mean?
It's all going to pan out
in the end.
I've heard a pastor
tell this joke,
it's pretty funny.
I see the appeal
of that kind of attitude,
but our view
of the millennium
has significant effects
upon the church today.
And we should cherish
and study
and obey
all of God's word.
Throwing our hands up
in the air
and not doing the hard work
of thinking deeply
about difficult
theological issues
is not a virtue.
So let's do some hard thinking
about Revelation 20.
There are four main views
on the meaning
of the binding of Satan
and the reign of Christ
during the millennium,
with much intramural debate
within each of them.
And so if I have the,
there are four views.
First is historic pre-millennialism.
Second,
that's the view I hold today.
So just so you know
how difficult this issue is,
I began the sermon series
in Revelation
as an amillennial,
number four.
And then by the time,
by the time we got
to this point
of our sermon series,
I'm now a historical
pre-millennial.
So this is a,
so if you don't know
what you think
about these issues,
I understand.
That's where I am.
The second,
dispensational pre-millennialism,
third, post-millennialism,
and fourth,
amillennialism.
I'm going to talk about
each of those.
Here's a diagram
that our one and only
John Buckley made for us
on short notice
this week.
This is now,
so yesterday,
Ed and I got some
good laughs looking
at the diagrams
on the different views
of the millennium online
because Christians
who are serious
about the Bible
are not always serious
about beautiful graphics.
And so this is now
officially the best-looking
diagram on the four views
of the millennium online.
Yeah.
And so,
thank you, John.
The historic pre-millennialism
is called historic
because it most closely
resembles the view
of the millennium
that the church fathers,
the majority of the church fathers,
held,
including Apostle John
who wrote,
I don't know,
I'm not saying
Apostle John held.
Apostle John's the one
who wrote Revelation.
Apostle John's
disciple Papias
and Polycarp
and Polycarp's
disciple Irenaeus
as well as other
notable church fathers
like Justin Martyr,
Tertullian,
Pseudo-Barnabas,
Methodius,
Lactantius,
Comodianus,
Theophilus,
Melito,
Hippolytus of Rome,
Victorinus of Petau,
Nepus,
Julius Africanus,
Tatian,
and Montanus.
They all believed
in historic
pre-millennialism.
Now,
the prefix pre-
means before.
So pre-millennialism
is the belief
that Christ will return
in his second coming
before the millennium reign.
He's going to come
to establish
the millennium reign.
So,
the people that,
I think this is what
makes the best sense
of the scriptural data,
but there's still
a lot of questions
and uncertainties
around it.
The most prominent
modern proponents
of this view
are D.A. Carson,
John Piper,
and Jim Hamilton,
among others.
Dispensational
pre-millennialism
shares the name
pre-millennialism
with historic
pre-millennialism
because it also says
that Christ's second coming
will take place
before the millennial reign,
so pre-millennial.
But then,
after that,
it departs sharply
from historic
dispensationalism.
Dispensational pre-mill
argues not only
that Christ will return
before the millennium,
but also
that he will return
for a secret
second coming
prior to that
to rapture
the believers.
so that they
don't have to endure
what they believe
is seven years
of tribulation,
the great tribulation.
And it's only
after that secret
rapture,
that secret second coming,
and then the
great tribulation,
and then he will
come in public,
in a public second coming,
to bring about
the millennium.
That's what
dispensational
pre-millennialism
believes.
So,
if you can't tell,
so that's the first picture,
is Christ on the cross,
first coming,
and that
the middle here,
that's the secret
second coming
for church only,
it's raptured,
and then the tribulation,
the second coming,
that's the picture
of Christ on his white horse
from Revelation 19,
and then the millennium,
and then the final judgment.
So that's the picture.
It's beautiful.
The most,
this dispensational
pre-millennialism
began in earnest
with the 19th century
Plymouth Brethren
pastor named
John Nelson Darby,
you may have heard
his name before,
and became prominent
due to the influence
of Dallas Theological Seminary
and the popularity
of Hal Lindsay's book,
The Late Great Planet Earth,
and the Left Behind series,
which I mentioned to you before,
Tim Leahy
and Jerry B. Jenkins.
The most prominent
proponent of this view
nowadays is
John MacArthur,
who describes himself
as a leaky dispensationalist.
The fact that
this is a modern innovation
is an argument against it.
This view
is not attested
among any of the church fathers.
Moreover,
the idea
of a rapture
is not found
anywhere
in the book of Revelation.
It's based,
people who believe it
based it on
1 Thessalonians 4,
16 to 17,
which says,
For the Lord himself
will descend from heaven
with a cry of command,
with the voice
of an archangel,
and with the sound
of the trumpet of God,
and the dead in Christ
will rise first.
Then we who are alive
who are left
will be caught up together
with them in the clouds
to meet the Lord
in the air,
and so we will always
be with the Lord.
So dispensational premils
argue that that's
meeting the Lord
within the air
refers to us
being caught up in heaven
to live with Jesus.
That's a secret rapture.
However,
I've mentioned this
to you before,
that the Greek word
translating meet
has a very specific meaning.
It's a word
that is used
in Greek literature
to mean going out
to meet someone
who is already
on his way to you.
So it's a way
of going out
to meet,
to welcome,
and escort them back
to where you're going
together.
Or if your enemy
is coming out
to meet you
and you go out
to meet them
who's already
on their way to you,
it's about meeting
halfway so that
you can come back.
So it's not a word
that describes
meeting him
and then going
away somewhere.
It's a word
that describes
meeting Jesus
in the air
as a way of
greeting an important
dignitary
and then coming back
to where you guys
are going together.
And so that's,
I don't think,
the right interpretation
of that word,
of that passage
in general.
And another passage
that's often used
to argue for the rapture
is John 14,
1-3,
where Jesus says,
Let not your hearts
be troubled.
Believe in God.
Believe also in me.
In my Father's house
are many rooms.
If it were not so,
would I have told you
that I go to prepare
a place for you?
And if I go and prepare
a place for you,
I will come again
and I will take you
to myself
that where I am
you may be
also.
That's another passage
that people point to
as an example
of the rapture,
the secret second coming
rapture.
However,
I do think this passage
is talking about
Jesus' return.
But I think it's
talking about
his final second coming
and I think there's
only one second coming
in the Bible
when Jesus brings about
the new heaven
and the new earth,
establishes the holy city
in New Jerusalem
which comes down
out of heaven
from God.
And so Jesus
returns to the Father
and prepares these rooms,
places for his disciples
and then in his second coming
he brings down
the heavenly Jerusalem
where he will take
his people
to dwell with him.
I think that makes
the best sense
of John 14.
Nowhere does John 14
say that this is
speaking of Christ's
secret return
prior to his second coming.
I just don't think
that doctrine
is in scripture
at all.
All that to say,
arguments for
the secret return
of Christ
to rapture
the saints
are few
and I think
not very strong.
but the reason
why people
subscribe
to dispensational
premio
is not primarily
because they're
persuaded by
these proof texts,
they're not that
persuasive,
but because
they have bought
into dispensationalism
as a theological
system,
as a system
of biblical
interpretation.
Dispensationalism
is the belief
that God
has ordered
human history
into seven main
dispensations
or administrations
and one of its
main tenets
of dispensationalism
is their literal
hermeneutic,
the way they
interpret the Bible
literally
wherever possible.
And because of that,
it's a system
that is very
attractive
to theological
conservatives
who have
a very high
view of scripture,
which is me.
And for this reason,
they expect
the Old Testament
prophecies about Israel
being restored
to the land of Canaan,
for example,
and about the temple
being restored,
for example.
They see these
as not being fulfilled
figuratively
and spiritually
in Jesus Christ,
but as they
believe that those
things will be
literally and
physically be fulfilled
in the land of Israel
in the physical
temple on Mount Zion.
So they maintain
a strict distinction
between Israel,
which is made up
for ethnic Jews,
and the church.
That's why I think
they find this
system persuasive.
However,
a problem with this view
is that the Bible
itself understands
some of the Old Testament
prophecies concerning
the nation of Israel
as being fulfilled
spiritually in Jesus Christ.
For example,
Revelation 2, 9,
and 3, 7
that we saw,
Jesus denounced
those who say
that they are Jews
and are not,
but are a synagogue
of Satan.
This was a condemnation
of ethnic Jews
who rejected
their Messiah,
Jesus,
and persecuted Christians.
Those who believe
in Jesus Christ,
according to Revelation,
are the true Jews,
not those who are
merely ethnic
descendants of Israel.
The promises
that God gave
to the Jews
in the Old Testament
do not belong
to the children
of the flesh,
as Paul writes,
but to the children
of the promise
in Romans 9, 6-8.
It's the spiritual
descendants of Israel,
not the physical
descendants of Israel,
ethnic Jews,
who make up true Israel.
For,
it says in Romans 2,
27-28,
no one is a Jew
who is merely
one outwardly,
nor is circumcision
outward and physical,
but a Jew is one inwardly,
and circumcision
is a matter of the heart
by the spirit,
not by the letter.
And that's why
in James 1-1,
it addresses all Christians,
both Jews and Gentiles,
as dispersed
12 tribes of Israel.
We are the true
Israel of God.
Likewise,
the ultimate restoration
of the Jerusalem temple
does not happen
before Christ's return,
but after Christ's return,
as we see
in Revelation 21.
And it describes
the people of God,
the old covenant
people of God,
represented by
the 12 tribes,
the 12 sons of Jacob,
and the 12 apostles,
the New Testament
covenant people of God,
represented by the 12 apostles,
they make up
this new city
of Jerusalem.
So Revelation itself
does not insist
on maintaining
a strict distinction
between Israel
and the church.
Revelation unites them
as the people of God,
and this is why
I don't find
dispensational premill
to be persuasive.
But why does this matter?
Many dispensational
premillennialists
follow Hal Lindsey's view
in the late
great planet Earth
and believe
that, for example,
the Arab-Israel war
and the establishment
of the state of Israel
in 1948 in Palestine,
as well as Israel's victory
in the Six-Day War
and regaining control
of the Sinai Peninsula
and, most importantly,
city of Jerusalem,
they believe that
these are literal
fulfillments
of Old Testament prophecy.
They also believe
that a literal
physical temple
will eventually
be rebuilt
on Mount Zion
where currently
the Dome of the Rock,
the Islamic mosque, sits.
So in other words,
dispensational premill
leads Christians
to see the nation
of Israel
as a fulfillment
of biblical prophecy
and therefore support
Israel as a political entity.
Now, please don't hear
what I'm not saying.
I'm not saying
that God doesn't have
any future plans
for the Jewish people.
I think he does,
according to Romans 11, 25 to 26.
I think there will be
a softening of the hearts
of the Jewish people
and many of them
will come to faith,
saving faith in Jesus Christ
in the end times.
I love the Jewish people.
We have some Messianic Jews
in our church.
I love the Jewish people
even if for no other reason
than the fact
that my King
and my Savior is Jewish.
If Jesus weren't born
among the Jews,
then I would still
be condemned in my sin
for salvation is from the Jews,
Jesus said in John 4, 22.
And so this is not my,
I'm not trying to share
a political opinion
on what's going on
with Israel and Palestine.
I'm very supportive
of the Jewish people
and love the Jewish people.
However, with that said,
the state of Israel
is not a fulfillment
of the promises of God
to his people.
The church of Jesus Christ
is the fulfillment
of God's promises
to his people.
So the true temple of God
is not one
that will be physically rebuilt
on Mount Zion.
It is the people of God
who are indwelled
by the Holy Spirit.
That's why Paul writes
about how we are
the temple of the Holy Spirit.
So the Jews
are not our brothers
and sisters
in the family of God.
The Messianic Jews are.
And the Palestinian Christians are.
They are our brothers
and sisters in Christ.
You guys understand
what I'm saying?
So it has significant implications
for how we understand
what's going on
in the world today.
People who subscribe,
so I'm going to go
to Postmill now,
people who subscribe
to Postmillennialism
argue that Christ's
second coming
will be after the millennium.
That's why it says post,
which means after.
So Postmillennialists
believe that Christ
will return
after the millennium.
Generally,
some people believe
that the millennium
is already happening,
and others believe
that there will be
an amazing spread
of the gospel
and an infiltration
of the values
of the kingdom
and scriptural principles
at all levels
of society,
and then a true millennium
where there's peace
and harmony
and faithfulness
to God all around
will take place
later on,
closer to the end.
That's what some people believe.
And Postmill
believe that there
will eventually be
a pervasive influence
of the gospel
at all levels
of human society
and government
before Christ returns.
They often cite
Habakkuk 2.14
and Isaiah 11.9
saying that the earth
will be filled
with the knowledge
of the Lord,
glory of the Lord
as the waters
cover the sea.
They believe
that the Great Commission
teaches that
the Great Commission
anticipates a time
when most people
in the world
will become Christians.
That's what they believe.
Because Matthew 24.14
tells us that
the gospel of the kingdom
will be proclaimed
throughout the whole world
as a testimony
to all nations,
and then the end
will come.
Postmails think
that before Christ's
second coming,
there will be
an unprecedented spread
and acceptance
of the gospel
and the most of the world
will be converted
to Christianity.
However,
that verse does not say
that the gospel
of the kingdom
will be accepted
throughout the whole world.
It says that
the gospel of the kingdom
will be proclaimed
throughout the whole world.
In fact,
in the immediately
preceding verses,
Matthew 24.9-13,
Jesus prophesies
that Christians
will be delivered
up to tribulation
and put to death
and be hated
by all nations
for Christ's name's sake
and that many
will fall away
and betray one another
and that many
false prophets
will arise
and lead many astray.
Jesus continues,
because lawlessness
will be increased,
the love of many
will grow cold,
but the one
who endures to the end
will be saved.
Before the end
of the world
and the second coming
of Christ,
lawlessness
will not decrease,
it will increase.
and the love of God
will not grow hot,
it will grow cold
among many.
But the one
who endures to the end
will be saved.
Matthew 7,
Jesus teaches very clearly
that many enter
by the wide gate
and the easy way
that leads to destruction,
but that only a few
enter by a narrow gate
and a hard way
that leads to life.
And speaking of his return
in Luke 18.8,
Jesus asks
a rhetorical question.
When the Son of Man comes,
will he find faith
on the earth?
The implied answer
is no.
He will not find
faith on the earth.
So today,
there has been
a minor resurgence
of postmillennialism
due to theologians
like R.J. Rushdooney,
who's passed now,
but he's considered
the father of Christian
reconstructionism.
And he was the inspiration
of the modern
homeschooling movement.
I don't have anything
against homeschooling.
I've homeschooled
my kids before,
but it did come
from this postmill.
It was inspired
a postmill mindset.
The most prominent
proponent of postmill
nowadays is probably
Pastor Douglas Wilson,
who is highly influential
among the ranks
of Christian nationalists.
He is a pastor
who did an interview
with Tucker Carlson
on Christian nationalism.
And the Christian
book publisher
he started
Canon Press
steadily pushes out
books that espouse
postmillennialism,
including The Case
for Christian Nationalism
by Stephen Wolf.
The allure
of postmillennialism
is that it focuses
our attention
on the world
here and now
rather than
on the world to come.
It promises victory
for Christians
and about ushering in
an age of godliness.
However,
as Pastor Jeremy Sexton
notes in his
D'Amelios article
on postmillennialism,
a biblical critique,
he writes,
postmillennialism's
disworldly conception
of Christ's kingdom
lays the theological
and spiritual seedbed
for a culture warriorism
characterized by
carnal warfare
and worldly stratagems.
If you look at Christians
who are the most
strident political activists
in the U.S. today,
many of them
are postmills.
But we must remember
what Jesus said
in John 18, 36.
My kingdom is not
of this world.
If my kingdom
were of this world,
my servants
would have been fighting
that I might not
be delivered over
to the Jews.
But my kingdom
is not from the world.
And according to
Revelation 11, 15,
the kingdom of the world
becomes the kingdom
of our Lord
and of His Christ
when?
Not when we
Christianize the world,
but when Christ returns
in His second coming.
Now,
this doesn't mean
that we stop
loving our neighbors
or stop doing good
to everyone
as the Bible
commends us to do.
Political involvement
can be a form
of loving our neighbor
and doing good
to our neighbors.
Moreover,
we should continue
to pray the Lord's prayer,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth
as it is in heaven.
We pray for that
and we should seek that
and strive to see
the will of God
done on earth
as it is in heaven.
So I'm not denying
these things.
But we should go about
doing good works
and loving our neighbors
with our ultimate hope
in the return
of our king
rather than
in the election
of your preferred president.
Do you guys see
what I'm saying?
If we see it
as our primary duty
to bring about
the millennial kingdom,
then we're going
to be prone
to taking things
into our own hands
and we're going
to value success
and win
in the culture
over faithfulness.
Next is
amillennialism.
A is an alpha
privative.
It's a prefix
that negates.
For example,
if you say
that you're an atheist
and you're not a theist,
you don't believe
in God.
So amillennialism
means no millennium
or at least
no literal millennium.
It's not
exactly an accurate term
because amillennialists
do not deny
that there is a millennium
because it's in the Bible.
You have to believe
the millennium.
It's in the Bible.
You just disagree
on what it looks like.
So amillennialists
believe that the millennium
is happening right now.
The entire church age
between the first coming
and the second coming
of Christ
is the figurative millennium
is the way
amillennials believe it.
So some people
call it instead
inaugurated millennium.
We might call it
inmillennialism
because in
is the prefix
that means now
or present
or in.
And so if that
ever catches on
that was coined here
so you heard it
here first.
It's not going
to catch on.
Like Postmill
and Amill
like Postmill
Amill also says
that the devil
is presently
imprisoned in the abyss
but they believe
that this binding
is more limited
than the way
Postmill's understand it.
And so even though
there will be
a long period
during which
the gospel will spread
bringing about
spiritual flourishing
throughout the world
they believe
Amill's believe
that the gospel
influence will not
penetrate all levels
of society
and human government.
So in a sense
this is the way
Paul, one of our elders
described it
that Amill
is a more cynical
version of Postmill.
They're very similar.
I think this is
the next most
plausible interpretation
of Revelation 21-6
after historic
premillennialism
and there's a number
of very strong arguments
that I'm going to
share with you
next week
about that support
Amillennialism.
And Amillennialism
I think understandably
for this reason
like historic
premillennialism
has strong representation
among the church fathers
including Augustine
one of my favorites
Origen
Dionysius of Alexandria
Eusebius of Caesarea
Epiphanius of Salamis
Ephraim the Syrian
and Theodoret of Cyrus
another one of my favorites.
And so
I think that's why
I think Amill
if you guys walk away
either Amill
or historic premillennial
I think I'll be pretty happy.
And the most prominent
modern proponents of Amill
are G.K. Beale
and Sam Storms.
You guys have probably
heard those names before.
Now which millennium view
you hold
is not essential
to the gospel
nor urgent
for our life
and doctrine
but it is consequential
as we've seen.
And all the views
that I have mentioned
do fall within
the pale of orthodoxy.
orthodoxy.
But you should also be aware
that difficult passages
like this
and difficult books
like Revelation
are easy to twist
to our own purposes
and many cults
throughout the ages
have done that.
If you look at cults
and study
what they teach
many of them
their defining texts
are from Revelation.
For example
within the last year
we have had two people
visit our church
both of whom
were recently involved
in a cult
that twisted Revelation
into various
heretical beliefs
including claiming
that their respective
founders are the
second coming
of Jesus Christ.
So Shincheonji
Church of Jesus
it's a Korean cult
we had one person
come who was involved
in that before
known as the Temple
of the Tabernacle
of the Testimony
as well as Mormonism
also known as
the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints
both claim
that their founders
are the only people
who are capable
of deciphering
the symbols of Revelation
and making it known
to the followers of God.
So beware.
In 2 Peter 3
16-17
Peter speaks
of the letters
written by the Apostle Paul
in this manner.
There are some things
in them
that are hard to understand
which the ignorant
and unstable
twist to their own destruction
as they do
the other scriptures.
You therefore
beloved
knowing this beforehand
take care
that you are not
carried away
with the error
of lawless people
and lose
your own stability.
Not only does
this verse reveal
the apostolic
self-awareness
that the New Testament
apostles were writing
authoritative scripture
it also comforts us
by acknowledging
that some parts
of scripture
like some of the
letters of Paul
and like the book
of Revelation
are indeed hard
to understand.
So that's okay.
This calls for
extra vigilance
and extra care
in interpreting
the book of Revelation
and difficult passages
like chapter 20.
We must be
like the noble
Bereans
of Acts 17-11
who received
the word
with all eagerness
examining the scripture
daily to see
if these things
were so.
Right?
Andrew and Ed
and I spend
scores of hours
pouring over
the biblical text
every time
before we preach
a sermon.
Why do we do that?
Even really difficult passages
why do we
why do we do that?
Why am I
why don't I just
skip this?
That's what a lot
of people do
when they preach
Revelation.
It's not because
we just
I don't know
want to know
or know something
and teach something
like if we just
like teaching
and hearing our voices
we could do
a lot of other jobs.
It's because
it's God's word.
It's because
if you have
labored over
problem sets
and poured over
difficult books
that you have to read
for your job
or for your school
and if you have
done that
why would we not
do that
with the very
word of God?
He is the king
of kings
and lord of lords.
He's the creator
of all the earth.
Why would we not
pour over every word
that he has said to us?
If you received
a love letter
from the love
of your life
would you not
cherish it
and read every word
and memorize it
and read it again
and smile over it
as you're reading it?
Why do we not
do that with
the word of God
in which God
speaks to us?
Communicates his love
for us?
His salvation plan
to us?
That's why we do this.
Not so that we can
get into an argument
with somebody about it.
So let's be a people
who search the scriptures
with diligence
in humble faith
asking God
to grant us understanding
and let us engage
in careful
and responsible
theological triaging
relating to one another
and engaging
with different
theological positions
on tertiary matters
with appropriate
humility
and charity.
Let's pray together.
Father,
we thank you
for the gift
of your word.
Lord,
we thank you
that your word
teaches us
so that we might
know your will
and discern your good
and acceptable
and perfect will
and that we might
be transformed
by the renewal
of our mind.
We thank you
for that,
Lord.
But we thank you
also that through
passages that are
hard to understand,
you also humble us.
So, Lord,
help us to be a church
that combines
both clarity
and confidence
and humility
and charity
in the way
we hold
your word.
Grow us
in the way
we cherish
your word
and believe
your word
and study
your word.
Make us like
the noble Bereans,
Lord,
that we might honor
you in all of our lives.
In Jesus' name
we pray.
Amen.