A friend asked me to develop a 15-page summary of inmillennialism, my framework for the interpretation of biblical prophecy. This post is the first part of that summary. The next three or four posts will provide the remainder. Once this is done, I plan to post a downloadable PDF of the entire document.
The existing prophetic models—historic premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism—are inadequate. They do not explain the Bible’s entire prophetic message.
One problem involves prophetic time statements. For example, Jesus said, “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:28). And, he placed his parousia—which current prophetic models call his second coming—in his generation (Matt. 24:3, 27, 34, 37, 39). Such statements present problems for current prophetic models.
Atheists attack Christianity at this point. For example, Bertrand Russell’s first objection to Christianity involved Matt. 16:28. Jesus failed to return as he predicted. So, he was not divine.1
Christian writers sometimes say the same things about passages like this. The “prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical and had been fulfilled at Pentecost.”2 “The prediction did not happen, requiring clarification or even revision.”3 These statements destroy the inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16).
Conservative writers wish to avoid such conclusions, but the available prophetic models fail them. These writers have invented questionable interpretive devices to help explain these time statements. Elastic time comes from a misuse of Peter’s teachings. Yes, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8). But, this truth does not allow us to dismiss difficult time statements. Dual fulfillment also comes into play. A prophecy constrained by a clear time statement can, if needed, have two or more fulfillments. At least one of them will fit the writer’s prophetic system. Prophetic perspective can also help. Using it, commentators put prophecies with imminent timestamps in the distant future. They only appeared near to the prophet because he could not see intervening periods. Users of these devices do not explain the parameters that govern their use. Their chief criteria seem to be, “when all else fails, use these.”
The current prophetic models resemble Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the solar system. The results it produced kept it alive for more than a millennium. But, its fundamental flaw—the wrong center for the solar system—created problems. Discrepancies between its predictions and actual observations accumulated. The system required corrective devices to account for these differences. Ptolemaic astronomers invented epicycles, “eccentric” positions, and equants. They needed them to explain the phenomena. None of these contrivances were intuitive. None came from observations. The astronomers invented them to make a flawed system viable. Elastic time, dual fulfillment, and prophetic perspective are their prophetic equivalents.
Copernicus challenged the prevailing astronomical model. He presented a simple, intuitive, and elegant model. It required no corrective devices. Copernicus’s major challenge was the monumental shift in perspective his system required.
Like astronomers needed heliocentricity, Christians need a new prophetic framework. Our existing options do not explain the Scriptural phenomena. I am not the theological equal to Copernicus. Still, I wish to present inmillennialism as a more satisfactory prophetic system. It explains Scripture better than the existing options, including difficult time statements. Like the Copernican model, it needs no corrective devices.
The major challenge for inmillennialism is the shift in the prophetic perspective it requires. My justification for making this shift follows.
Method
Here are assumptions built into my method. Authority. I assume the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). The Bible is God-breathed and authoritative. “The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek . . . [are] immediately inspired by God. . . . In all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.”4
Hermeneutics. Authorial intent—human and divine—is critical to the proper understanding of a passage. Context is the most important factor in determining that intent. The previous usage often determines the meaning of prophetic images.
Perspicuity. God intends for his people to understand the Scriptures. God hid some mysteries until the Messianic Age. He has now revealed them “unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph 3:5). Some things are difficult to decipher (2 Pet. 3:16). With study and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we can rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Understanding prophecy is possible.
The analogy of faith. To discover the prophetic model built into Scripture, we must risk something. We must acknowledge our preconceptions and biases. A text’s meaning cannot rest on its conformity to our previous assumptions. Scripture must interpret Scripture and tradition must give way to the Word of God.
Beginning points. Inmillennialism rests on two passages, the Olivet Discourse and First Corinthians 15. The reasons for this are few and simple.
Paul said, “the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations . . . now is made manifest to his saints” (Col. 1:26). We begin in the New Testament because it reveals the mystery.
The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5–36) is our starting point. It is the second-longest prophetic passage in the New Testament. The longest, Revelation, is not the best starting point because of its challenging signs (Rev. 1:1). The Olivet Discourse contains few such signs (e.g., Matt. 24:29). It comprises clear declarative statements. This encourages us to start our prophetic model here.
The Olivet Discourse accounts for the last days of the Mosaic Age, to the Temple’s fall. First Corinthians 15 links these days to the end of the Messianic Age. It shows how the final resurrection fits within Christ’s reign. It, too, comprises clear declarative statements. This allows us to erect the superstructure of our model.
These two passages provide the basis of inmillennialism. Other passages provide details but do not alter the model.
The Olivet Discourse
We will use Matthew as our primary account of the Olivet Discourse. It is longer and more structured than the versions in Mark and Luke. Here is Matthew’s chiastic structure:
A. Exhortation: observe!—the Temple will be destroyed (Matt. 24:1–2).
B. When question: what will be the time? (Matt. 24:3a)
C. Sign question: what will be the sign? (Matt. 24:3b)
C.* Sign answer: the signs of associated events, symbols (Matt. 24:4–31)5
B.* When answer: this is the time (Matt. 24:32–36)
A.* Exhortation: observe! (Matt. 24:37–25:46); watch! (Matt. 24:42, 43; 25:13)
The Discourse begins with Jesus’s prophecy of the Temple’s fall. The disciples ask questions about this event. Jesus responds. No other subject enters this discussion.
Most interpreters disagree with this assessment. They find the end of the cosmos in the Olivet Discourse. This is a mistake generated by assumptions in their prophetic frameworks.
The following posts will show everything in the Olivet Discourse pertains to the Temple’s fall.
Footnotes
- Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, trans. Paul Edwards (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957).
- Sherman E. Johnson, “The Gospel According to St. Matthew,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1951), 457. Emphasis added.
- Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 435. Emphasis added.
- The Baptist Confession of Faith & the Baptist Catechism, (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2010), 1:8.
- The above painting is David Roberts’s Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem, 1796. The digital file (here) is in the public domain (PD-1923).
2 comments
Awesome Mike!!! Thanks for sharing. Can’t wait to read the rest.
Thank you!