7 Reasons Why Premillennialism is a Biblical Necessity

7 Reasons Why Premillennialism is a Biblical Necessity – Jonathan Brentner - https://www.jonathanbrentner.com/https/jonathan-brentner-g8fgsquarespacecom/config/2020/3/4/7-reasons-why-premillennialism-is-a-biblical-necessity Is belief in premillennialism vital to our hope? Is it biblically necessary to believe in Jesus’ thousand year reign seated on the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem?Absolutely, as we will see. Life in the eternal state will undoubtedly be spectacular, far beyond even our best experiences in this life. Randy Alcorn, in his book Heaven does an excellent job of expandingour imaginations regarding what life might be like on the new earth and in the New Jerusalem. We have much to look forward to when the words of Revelation 21-22 ring true throughout the new earth, the glorious city, and universe. We look forward to in an eternitywithout sin, death, suffering, sorrow, and pain (Rev. 21:1-4). If such is the case, does it matter what I believe about the millennial reign of Jesus? Yes! Premillennialism is a biblical necessity for the following reasons. 1. THE FATHER CANNOT BREAK HIS PROMISE TO HIS SON. In Psalm 2:7-8, we read this promise of the Father to the Son, “. . . The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nationsyour heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” The context clarifies this as a physical rule over the nations of the world in which Jesus rules with a “rod of iron” and dashes the nations “in pieces like a potter’s vessel” (Psalm 2:9-10). Thiscannot be a spiritual realm nor can it refer to the church; this remains an unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus ruling over a physical realm. The presence of rebellion and harsh judgment during Jesus’ reign as described in Psalm 2 also differentiates it from the eternal state where sin and death will no longerexist (Rev. 21:4). Since the conditions of Psalm 2 do not match our current experience and cannot apply to a spiritual domain, the church, or the eternal state, this Psalm must describe Jesus reign during the millennium. No other explanation fits with thewords of Psalm 2. A millennium, separate from the eternal state, is a biblical necessity because its absence would signify that the Father has reneged on a promise to his Son. That can neverhappen! 2. ONLY PREMILLENNIALISM MAINTAINS THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS One cannot deny the reality of a future millennium before the eternal state and at the same time interpret the prophetic words of Scripture in the way the authors intendedthem when they wrote them or in the way that their original audience would have understood them. Take the words of the prophet Zechariah, for example. He prophesied about a time after Jesus’ crucifixion when a great number of the Israelites would repent and recognizeJesus as their Messiah. Using words that absolutely cannot apply to anyone else except those of Jewish physical descent, the prophet pictures a time of much weeping as the Jewish people recognize the one “they have pierced” as the Messiah and weep signifyingtheir great regret and repentance (Zech. 12:10-13:1). Those who dismiss a future physical kingdom for Israel cannot interpret the words of the Zechariah in the way the prophet intended; it’s impossible for them to do so. Instead,they must retrofit an unrelated and foreign understanding to the text that is light years away from how the faithful in Israel would have understood it at the time or what the prophet intended when he penned the words. Zechariah 14 describes the Lord as “king over all the earth” (v. 9). This occurs in Jerusalem during a time when rebellion remains possible on the earth (see vv. 16-19).The prophet is not talking about a spiritual reign nor can one apply these words to the eternal state. This prophecy remains unfulfilled since Jesus has never reigned over all the nations in the manner described in this chapter. These texts from Zechariah are just a couple of the numerous examples of how only premillennialists guard the original intent of the writers of Scripture. Those who denythe reality of Jesus’ thousand-year reign from Jerusalem cannot make that claim. If Scripture can mean one thing when written and have an entirely different sense at a later time, we would no longer be able to trust it. The use of allegory erodes theobjectivity of Scripture by allowing interpreters to impose their own viewpoint on the text, interpretations that have nothing to do with the text at time God inspired it. Dr. Thomas Ice in his section on amillennialism in the book, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible prophecy, summed up this matter quite well: Basic to amillennialism is its lack of a consistent hermeneutic. It must abandon the literal hermeneutic of the historical, grammatical, and contextual approach for somedegree of allegorization. The amillennialist must supply ideas or concepts that one would not be able to find by simply reading the text. Allegorization, or spiritualization, brings a meaning from outside of a specific text to interpret it rather than basingthe interpretation on what is written in that specific passage. Only premillennialism protects the integrity of the words of the biblical prophets. 3. GOD CANNOT BREAK HIS COVENANTS WITH ISRAEL God could not have made it any clearer than He did in Chronicles 16:14-16; His covenant of the Land given to Abraham, Isaac, and the descendants of Jacob remains in effectforever. Why would God say it’s “an everlasting covenant” if he did not intend for us to understand it “as an everlasting covenant?” If the Lord says something is “everlasting,” it’s exactly that! It just doesn’t just go away or somehow reach an unspecifiedfulfillment ahead of forever. In Romans 11:1-2a Paul wrote this, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe ofBenjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” The words of Paul in Romans 11 and the words of those who deny a future glorious kingdom for Israel are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be true. Either the apostlePaul’s teaching regarding Israel in Romans 11 is false, or the amillennial viewpoint that denies a future restoration of the kingdom to Israel is incorrect. If the words of Paul are true, and they are, then all viewpoints that deny a glorious kingdom to Israel have no merit whatsoever because they overlook the permanence ofGod’s covenants with the Israelites. Only premillennialism maintains the belief that God will remain true to His covenants with Israel; only premillennialism adheres to Paul’s declaration in Romans 11 thatGod has not rejected Israel. 4. THE LORD CANNOT BREAK HIS PROMISE TO ISRAEL OF A FUTURE RESTORATION Did the Lord’s promises to Israel remain intact after the crucifixion? Yes, they did. We see this in Acts 1:6 when the disciples asked Jesus this question just before Hisascension; “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6)? The Savior’s response to their question speaks volumes, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority” (Acts 1:7). Notice that Jesus did not contradict, ridicule, or refute the premise of their question that He would restore a kingdom to Israel. Instead, He simply told his disciplesthey could not know the timing of this restoration as it was something the Father alone had “fixed by his own authority.” This interaction tells us three key things. First, after hearing Jesus teach about prophecy and the kingdom for several weeks after his resurrection, the disciples remainedconvinced He would someday restore Israel to a place of greatness. How is it possible that the Lord did not talk about Israel’s future after His resurrection (see Acts 1:3)? If the disciples had misunderstood His teaching on this critical matter, He surelywould have corrected them at this point. Instead, He only comments on their misguided timing. Second, in the Old Testament the Lord promised to “restore the fortunes” of Israel at least 14 times. Are we to say all these assurances to the Jewish people somehow symbolicallyapply to the church or that Jesus fulfilled them? And if this was the case, would He not have made this clear to His disciples before the time of His ascension? Of course He would have! In their question, the disciples repeated a phrase concerning Israel that occurred at least times in the Old Testament and Jesus did not contradict their understanding ofit. If anything, the Lord confirmed the premise of their question! Third, the disciples’ question confirms they regarded the Lord’s promise to them in Matthew 19:28 as literal. In this verse, Jesus assured them of a future place in rulingover Israel in His kingdom. And, He let their continuing assumption of just such a future kingdom for Israel stand before He returned to heaven. And, when Matthew recorded this promise decades later, he did not insert a note about how it no longer remained in effect. Instead, he let his primarily Jewish audienceat the time assume the continuing validity of Jesus’ promise regarding a future kingdom for Israel. If this somehow applied spiritual to the church, would not Matthew have said so or not recorded it as applying to the nation of Israel? Only premillennialism does not negate the repeated promises of God to restore a glorious kingdom to Israel and protects the promise Jesus made to His disciples in Matthew19:28. 5. THE CLEAR PROPHETIC INTENT OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION The book of Revelation begins with these words: “The revelation of Jesus Christ.” From beginning to end, the book contains Jesus’ revelation to us, His church. Yet manytoday treat the book as an allegory from which they can pick and choose what is symbolic and what is not. In essence, decide how to interpret the symbolism based on human reasoning rather then what the apostle John wrote. John’s choice of words totally negates the allegorical approach to the book of Revelation. The apostle uses the word “saw” 44 times by itself and 12 times with the word “looked.” He uses the word “heard” 30 times to indicate he was writing down words he heard. John purposely used the words of someone communicating God’s message based on what he saw and heard. Those writing allegory do not write as eyewitnesses to events, but Johndoes. Yes, the apostle employs symbolism and imagery in relating Jesus’ message about the future. His overriding intent, however, was to tell us specifically what he saw and heardconcerning the future, especially during a time of tribulation that will come upon the world. Jesus Himself confirmed that the words of the book as prophecy (Rev. 22:6) and warned against the practice of allegory that “takes away from the words of the bookof this prophecy” (Rev. 22:19, emphasis mine). Only premillennialism interprets the book of Revelation as future prophecy, the way both John and Jesus tells us we should interpret it. John recorded what he saw and heard. 6. AMILLENNIALISM OPENS THE DOOR TO HERESY History demonstrates that over time, amillennialism leads to a further erosion of biblical truth opening the door to heresy. It has done so in the past; it is happeningnow; it will certainly occur again. In order to deny the future glorious kingdom for Israel, one must relegate a multitude of Old Testament prophecies regarding the future of Israel to allegory. Such interpretationsdiminish the importance of words in the Bible and thereby open the door for other biblical texts to fall victim to allegory. This diminished importance on the original intent of God’s Word explains why amillennialism so easily morphs into heresies such as Preterism, the belief that Jesus returnedto earth in AD 70 and in doing so fulfilled most, if not all, of future biblical prophecy. Amillennialists and preterists take an almost identical approach to Old Testament prophecy and the book of Revelation; they only differ on the timing of the second coming,which preterists say has already happened. Dominion theology also has its roots in the identical allegorical approach to biblical prophecy used by amillennialists and preterists. The church in the United Kingdom exemplifies how amillennialism so easily morphs into false beliefs. Although I receive several e-mails from a great number of premillennialistswho live there, the leaders of the church in the United Kingdom have long since rejected it in favor of amillennialism. The events of January of 2020 show how their adherence to amillennialism has led to a further erosion of God’s truth. During this month, churches in Scotland and Englanddisinvited Franklin Graham to speak because of his views on the LBGTQ agenda. Bryan Kerr, a Church of Scotland pastor in Lanark said this, “Franklin Graham isn’t the voice of Christianity.” So much for the church in Scotland being an example of why one shouldadopt its amillennialism as one pastor told me I should do. Once a pastor, church, or denomination relegates a clear prophet passage to allegory, at some point later on this precise methodology gets applied to other passages andmore false teaching ensues. Only premillennialism guards the integrity of the words of all of Scripture. 7. ONLY PREMILLENNIALISM CONTINUES THE WORK OF THE REFORMERS Luther and Calvin, along with other Reformers of their time, returned the church to a more literal interpretation of Scripture. Their approach to God’s Word restored thedoctrine of justification by faith that had also fallen victim to false teaching during the dark ages as the church expended its use of allegory beyond prophetic passages of Scripture to those dealing with salvation. Luther and Calvin recognized the considerable damage allegory interpretations had done to the purity of the Gospel and both firmly denounced its usage in interpreting God’sworld. Despite their condemnation of it, the Reformers failed to apply their sound principles of scriptural interpretations to prophetic portions of Scripture. Since then, Bible scholars have continued to reverse the trend of the dark ages where allegorical interpretations expanded from prophecy to contaminate the purity of theGospel. Since the Reformation, many teachers and writers have expanded the use of the Reformer’s principles of literal interpretation from passages on justification to those regarding prophecy. They have continued the Reformation by applying a literal approachto biblical prophecy. Dr. William Watson wrote an article called The Rise of Philo-Semitism and Premillennialism During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.[i] He documents how the nextgeneration after the time of the Reformers turned away from the allegorical interpretations of John Calvin and Martin Luther and as a result, biblical prophecies regarding a future kingdom for Israel sprang to life. Dr. Watson lists over 45 writers who from1585 to 1800 expressed some level of belief in premillennialism; he provides quotes from many of them. Perhaps the most well-known premillennialist during this era was Isaac Newton. His study of the books of Daniel and Revelation led him to conclude in 1706 that God wouldagain make Israel a nation after which the Jewish people would build another temple that the antichrist would desecrate in the middle of the tribulation. Newton believed Jesus would return with his saints after this terrible time on the earth and establisha thousand year reign upon the earth in Jerusalem. Dr. Andy Woods describes the trend in this way: “The Reformers, in essence, knocked over a domino. And once it fell, the Holy Spirit raised up others who could go even furtherand knock over more dominoes—using the same method that the Protestant Reformers retrieved from Antioch.”[ii] The Sola Scriptura and Scripture interprets Scripture principles championed by the Reformers later became the needed spark for resurgence of premillennialism that dominatedBible-believing churches during the twentieth century. It might seem as though I am overly harsh on amillennialists and perhaps I am. My objections to this teaching have grown substantially during the past three years. Sadly,they have swung the pendulum back the use of allegory that reverts biblical prophecy back to the dark ages and always, always opens the door to additional false teaching. Note: Please consider signing up for my newsletter on the homepage of my website at https://www.jonathanbrentner.com/. It will greatly help me in reaching more people. Thanks!!! [i] William Watson, The Rise of Philo-Semitism and Premillennialism During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, on the Pre-Trib Research Center website @ https://www.pre-trib.org/articles/all-articles [ii] Dr. Andy Woods, Ever Reforming (Taos, NM: Dispensational Publishing House, Inc., 2018), p. 64. VISIT: PROPHECY WATCHER WEEKLY NEWS: HTTP://PROPHECY-WATCHER-WEEKLY-NEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM