A few days ago a reader sent me an interesting message. He said, “As I read through your blog … I was struck to ask you one single question—so what? So what if what you say about Jesus in Matt 24 is real, what does it mean for us?” Other friends have also asked this question. It deserves an answer.
Our previous posts (here) have proposed an improved prophetic model. We call it inmillennialism. It rests on the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5–38), 1 Cor 15, and Rev 20.
Two series of posts then applied this model to Hebrews and Revelation. We are now working our way through Matthew.
The “so what?” question asks us to explain the reason for these efforts. To answer it, we will use the following categories: Vision, Apologetics, Legacy, Understanding, and Experience. These will show the VALUE of inmillennialism. This post will deal with the first three.
Vision
Inmillennialism matters because it defines our vision for the kingdom. The Scriptures teach us to contemplate the end of any project from its beginning. Jesus said, “Which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?” (Luke 14:28). A person builds a building twice, once in his mind and once in the physical world. His mental concept of the final product guides his physical activity during construction.
The Lord Jesus came to establish his kingdom. He has a goal in mind for it and has revealed that goal in the Scriptures. Inmillennialism says it involves more than where we will spend eternity. It includes the conversion of the nations to Christ.1
We should adopt God’s kingdom-vision. That requires a proper view of prophecy. Either we are working to convert the nations or we are not. Our prophetic model determines our goal.
God rebuked Israel for not keeping his vision for them in mind. He said, “O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!” (Deut 32:29; emphasis added). God meant for them to be an example to the nations (e.g., Deut 4:6).
Israel would forget that vision. The result would be catastrophic. God wanted them to consider the outcome. This consideration should have altered their behavior in the present.
God has decreed a positive outcome for the kingdom of heaven. We should contemplate it and allow it to give direction and meaning to our daily activities. Donald S. Whitney illustrates how this works.
Imagine six-year-old Kevin, whose parents have enrolled him in music lessons. After school every afternoon, he sits in the living room and reluctantly strums “Home on the Range” while watching his buddies play baseball in the park across the street. That’s discipline without direction. It’s drudgery.
Now suppose Kevin is visited by an angel one afternoon during guitar practice. In a vision he’s taken to Carnegie Hall. He’s shown a guitar virtuoso giving a concert. Usually bored by classical music, Kevin is astonished by what he sees and hears. The musician’s fingers dance excitedly on the strings with fluidity and grace. Kevin thinks of how stupid and klunky his hands feel when they halt and stumble over the chords. The virtuoso blends clean, soaring notes into a musical aroma that wafts from his guitar. Kevin remembers the toneless, irritating discord that comes stumbling out of his.
But Kevin is enchanted. His head tilts slightly to one side as he listens. He drinks in everything. He never imagined that anyone could play the guitar like this.
“What do you think, Kevin?” asks the angel.
The answer is a soft, slow, six-year-old’s “W-o-w!”
The vision vanishes, and the angel is again standing in front of Kevin in his living room. “Kevin,” says the angel, “the wonderful musician you saw is you in a few years.” Then pointing at the guitar, the angel declares, “But you must practice!”
Suddenly the angel disappears and Kevin finds himself alone with his guitar. Do you think his attitude toward practice will be different now? As long as he remembers what he’s going to become, Kevin’s discipline will have a direction, a goal that will pull him into the future. Yes, effort will be involved, but you could hardly call it drudgery.2
Kevin’s optimistic vision of his future gave meaning to his current task. His view of daily practice changed. This change would not have happened if the angel had shown him an incompetent musician.
And so it is with the kingdom-vision God has given us in Scripture. Inmillennialism says it is optimistic. The messianic age will bring wonderful results. “The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea” (Isa 11:9; cp. the context).
Like Whitney’s young guitarist, the end gives meaning to the present. Our kingdom activities are meaningful, in part, because of what they will produce.
The apostle Paul uses a soldier metaphor to teach this lesson. We conduct spiritual warfare knowing the result. He said,
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:3–5)
This agrees with what he told the Corinthians earlier. Christ “must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor 15:25–26).
God’s army will overcome all opposition in the messianic age. This is important. Soldiers who believe their side will win are likely to fight well. Those who believe they will lose will be less likely to do so.
Not all prophetic models present an optimistic vision for the kingdom in history. Amillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism say the kingdom as it now exists will decrease in influence. They say it will not destroy all other kingdoms (Dan 2:44). It will not produce a world of converted nations.
Our purpose here is not to justify kingdom optimism. We have done that elsewhere. Our point is that the prophetic model we adopt matters. Our choice affects our vision for the kingdom in history. This affects how we view the routine kingdom tasks in our lives.
Apologetics
Inmillennialism matters because it affects how we approach apologetics. This is “the art of explaining the faith in such a way as to make a reasoned defence against its detractors.”3
We emphasized apologetics in an earlier post (here). Atheists have attacked the Christian faith because of the Bible’s prophetic statements. Many of the attacks involve time statements Jesus made. Here is one:
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matt 16:27–28)
On another occasion, Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matt 24:34). “These things” included the parousia or “coming” of Christ (Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39). They comprised the “great tribulation” (Matt 24:21) and the collapse of the cosmos (Matt 24:29).
Atheists use simple logic. These things did not happen in the lifetime of Jesus’s hearers. They did not occur in his generation. Jesus was wrong. That mistake makes him a false prophet. So, Christianity is a false religion.
Most prophetic models agree with everything in this logical sequence except the conclusion. Inmillennialism provides a consistent framework for these time statements. The ability to take them at face value allows us to defend the faith against such attacks.
Our prophetic model determines how we defend the faith against such attacks. It matters in apologetics.
Legacy
Inmillennialism matters because it describes our legacy. From ancient times God’s people have told the story of their heritage. Moses reminded Israel of God’s dealings with them (Deut 1–3). God had given them the law at Horeb (Mt. Sinai). He then commanded them to start their wilderness journey (Deut 1:6–7). As Moses spoke, Israel had come for the second time to the borders of their inheritance.
But the story must continue. The next chapter was before them. Moses said Israel must “go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them” (Deut 1:8).
About a thousand years later, Israel returned from Babylonian captivity. The Levites again told the nation’s story (Neh 9:1–38).
They said God had called Abraham out of idolatry and made a covenant with him. His descendants would inherit “the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite” (Neh 9:8).
They repeated what Moses had said about Egypt. God had redeemed them from bondage. He then gave them the law at Mount Sinai (Neh 9:9–14).
They also advanced the story. They rehearsed how God had blessed them to take possession of their land as Moses said they would (Neh 9:22–25). But, “they did evil again before” God (Neh 9:28) and went into Babylonian captivity. In his great mercies, God “did not make an end of them or forsake them” (Neh 9:31). He brought them back into their land.
About four hundred years later, Stephen again told Israel’s story (Acts 6:8–7:53). He was on trial for what he preached. He had said, “Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us” (Acts 6:14).4
As Stephen faced martyrdom for his preaching, he repeated Israel’s time-honored story. He told of Abraham, Moses, and the Exodus from Egypt (Acts 7:2–36). He mentioned the exile to Babylon as the Levites had done (Acts 7:43).
But Stephen, too, advances the story. Moses had “said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear” (Acts 7:37). Stephen said Jesus was that prophet. Israel’s story would continue in him.
Paul confirmed this when he told Israel’s story in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:16–41). He spoke of the Exodus and the conquest of the promised land (Acts 13:16–19). He described the period of the judges and the establishment of the monarchy under Saul (Acts 13:20–21).
God promised David, Israel’s second king, a son to sit on his throne forever (2 Sam 7:11–16; Acts 2:30). Paul lived about four hundred years after Israel returned from Babylon. He said the promised son had appeared. He was Jesus (Acts 13:22–41).
Once more the story advances. The Jews judged themselves “unworthy of everlasting life.” So, Paul turned to the Gentiles. Of them, “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:42–48). Paul completed the story in places like 1 Cor 15.
Now, we must tell Israel’s complete story. We can only do so with a proper view of prophecy. Inmillennialism says God has redefined Israel. Now, we are children of Abraham by faith (e.g., Gal 3:7). God has also redefined the promised land. It is now the entire world and every nation in it. Through warfare using spiritual weapons, the true Israel (cp. Rom 9:7) will subdue them all.
Other prophetic models tell Israel’s story in different ways. Our purpose here is not to defend inmillennialism’s version. We want to show that our prophetic model matters. It determines how we view and speak about our legacy.
Conclusion
Our next post will explore how prophecy affects our understanding of key passages. It will also show how our prophetic model affects our experience of God and his salvation.
We will defer our conclusion until we have completed our VALUE proposition.
Footnotes
- See He Must Reign. The list of posts here contain references to this optimism.
- Donald S. Whitney, Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life, Rev. ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), 15–16.
- Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies (London: Martin Manser, 2009), s.v. apologetics.
- Jesus had preached the same message earlier (e.g., Matt 24:1–3; John 4:21–24).
4 comments
Greetings Bro Mike,
In your latest article you stated that not all prophetic models present an optimistic vision for the Kingdom. Considering the prophetic models mentioned in your article, I would agree with you. However, you neglected to mention what has been referred to by Bible students as “post millennialist”. Although this view is loaded with possibilities of being misunderstood, it is, I believe, scriptural. There are those who believe that the millennium will be ushered in gradually. I reject this view, but instead believe that the millennium will be ushered in by the intervention of Christ and the earth shall be filled with the knowledge and glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. This is an optimistic view is it not? Christ will come before the millennium, but not in His great and final return. He will return before the millennium spiritually, in great judgment and mercy, that will result in the greatest revolution which has come to past since the days of the apostles. Do not dismiss this view as not even worthy of further consideration. Many of the English Purtians taught this, as well as one of the greatest minds America ever produced, Jonathan Edwards.
Ralph Dale
Brother Ralph,
Thank you for this input. You are correct about the optimism of postmillennialism. I was rushing to finish the post and neglected to mention it. I will correct this defect in the next post.
I am closer to postmillennialism than any of the traditional views. It may interest you to review my synopsis of it here.
Yours in Christ,
Mike
Ralph, I appreciate you bringing up postmillennialism (though I didn’t see it as an oversight on Mike’s part, as he was just mentioning the major systems that don’t have an optimistic view). It seems sometimes that the optimistic or postmil viewpoint has become so out of favor in so many Christian circles that people can’t even imagine that anyone would hold it. I can’t remember ever even hearing it expressed when I was growing up. I’m now intrigued to go back and read some of the writings of Jonathan Edwards and others to see their perspective. I’ve spent more time (and really enjoyed) reading modern postmils like Ken Gentry.
Mike, I gather from your linked posts, that the main difference between inmillennialism and postmillennialism seems to be the understanding of the parousia as a present ongoing reality rather than a future event. Is that correct? Are there other major differences?
It also seems like most postmillennials come from the reformed tradition, while baptists typically seem to be pre- or a-mil. Have you ever thought about whether or not there is anything about the inmillennial position that fits better with a baptist theology than traditional postmil would? Might be a non sequitur question, but it just made me curious.
I like the illustration with the angel. It makes a powerful point. Thanks!