The Kingdom of God is a rich biblical topic and concept that has a very direct bearing on Christianity as a whole. Mistakes have been made in the past and mistakes are being made in the future regarding the Kingdom. Hopefully, we will be able to see that the topic at hand is not as difficult as Christians have made it and are making it. This treatment of the topic is very brief, but will suffice for the point I am making.
Mistake #1 - Confusing the Kingdom With Particular Nations, Rulers, and/or Leaders.
The theocracy or ‘Christendom’ error has been made numerous times in Christian history. Basically, this mistake confuses church and state into a type of ‘church-state’ that is governed by Christian leaders. I will be quick to point out that this is not a bad thing. After all, should even we as American Christians be casting our votes in elections for Godly candidates when there are Godly candidates available to vote for? I certainly think we should. However, the specific error I am referring to here is the confusion of a certain state (or kingdom, if you will) as being the Kingdom of God. The Church has laid this brick a few too many times in her history. Neither Rome nor Protestants are immune from this error historically. The Roman Emperor Constantine (4th century AD) promised his army victory if they all emblazed the cross on their shields and armor. ‘Christ is Lord’ became their battle cry. The ancient church historian Eusebius remarked, regarding Constantine, “Our divinely favored emperor, receiving, as it were, a transcript of the divine sovereignty, directs, in imitation of God Himself, the administration of this world’s affairs.” St. Augustine heralded a different view in his brilliant work “The City of God,” written in the 5th century AD, which incidentally is the view I am espousing here. Rome was eventually sacked and fell. However, this model continued to live on. Numerous monarchs over the next 1200 years or so considered themselves to be models of King David of Old Testament fame. Pope Urban II famously quipped, “If you must have blood, bathe in the blood of infidels,” referring to Islam. This was in 1095 AD, and of course if you know your history, the Crusades also happened in this era. Somehow, despite the failures of the Christendom idea, we still have clung to it, even to this day. Protestants are not immune either. Recently in American history, we’ve pushed through the dogma of Manifest Destiny. This resulted from the idea that the United States and its religious freedom was the Kingdom of God. But how free was it? Even recently Roman Catholic scholar Michael Novak said regarding the Pope (2006), that “His role is to represent Western civilization.” But is it? Does the Pope himself subscribe to that idea? I find it doubtful that he does. For one reason or another, Christians have not fully relinquished this idea, despite there being little biblical support for it; none in the New Testament. Thus, the confusion of the Kingdom of God with particular regimes, rulers, and leaders lives on, even now.
Mistake #2 - Liberation Theologies and Protestant Liberalism - Associating God’s Kingdom With Social and Political Activism
The first mistake sounds bad enough (and it is), but the second one isn’t any better. Protestant liberalism has a decided tendency to replace and/or redefine the entire gospel with ideas such as “incarnational living.” Essentially, the risen Christ is replaced by us, who now complete His work through social action and sometimes political action. Our loving God and loving others has somehow now become the Gospel. Brian McLaren is normative in this regard, as he delivers an increasingly well known quote from his book entitled “A Generous Orthodoxy.” McLaren opines, “I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents of the Christian religion…It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. I don’t hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus.” But McLaren’s opinion here misses the point and in effect changes the entire gospel. Instead of the gospel being a proclamation of Jesus Christ’s work on behalf of sinners, it now morphs into our living in imitation of Christ. There is an element of truth in this idea, but it isn’t the gospel, and it’s certainly not how the Kingdom of God is advanced. In short, God’s Kingdom is not advanced by our living like Jesus. In essence, this idea echoes Jesus’ statement “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” made in Matthew 22:37. The problem with making this the gospel is that Jesus wasn’t even talking about the gospel here. He is responding to the Pharisees (Matt 22:36) when they ask Him what is the greatest commandment. Thus, this is law (imperative), not gospel (indicative). Thus, this is not good news, but rather, a command that fallen man is incapable of obeying perfectly.
Closely related to this redefinition of the gospel is the ever increasingly popular idea of inclusivism. That is the idea that a person need not repent and believe the gospel to be saved. Incarnational living and redefining the gospel into law based on the “law of love” (incidentally, found in some form in every religion) are obvious bedfellows. You do not need the indicative of the gospel if the gospel is nothing more than following Jesus’ example, even though following Jesus’ example is only very partially doable at best. Can you atone for sin, for instance? Therefore, those within other religions need not convert to Christianity to be saved, as McLaren has opined above.
What is God’s Kingdom and How Does It Advance?
It’s terribly important to understand what the Kingdom of God is and how it advances, especially in light of the prevalent errors of not only our forbears, but of many people today. Although the incarnational living error is the prevalent one today, the confusion of the Kingdom with nations, rulers, and leaders is not dead either. It is interesting to point out that both errors are along the lines of confusing the Kingdom of God with an earthly political Kingdom. No matter what your view on the millennium, both amillennarians and premillennarians will agree on two things. First, that the Kingdom of God here. John the Baptist announced it and Jesus Christ brought it. Second, both will agree that right now, the Kingdom is not earthly and political. Beyond that, there are differences, but those differences involve what the Kingdom will look like post-Second coming. Therefore, since it is here and it is not earthly and political, it must lie somewhere else. Jesus gives us a big clue as to where the Kingdom is in John 3:3, when He says to Nicodemus, “Unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Those who are born again see it and those who are not born again cannot. If the Kingdom of God was earthly and political now, it would follow that it wouldn’t matter if one was born again or not. People would see it. Yet, this is exactly what the two errors propagate. In the first case, everyone ought to see God’s Kingdom through the advancement of it via holy wars, conquest, and the supposed Godliness of its leaders and rulers. In the second case, the Kingdom would be seen clearly by the social activism of the incarnational living of Jesus’ followers. Yet, Jesus says that a person must be born again to even see it. Therefore, the Kingdom cannot possibly be earthly right now. If it’s not earthly and physical and a person must be born again to even see it, it must therefore be spiritual. Those who are born again are part of it right now. The book of Hebrews gives us some insight, saying, “But you have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (Heb 12:22-24) A few verses later, we get more information: “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Heb 12:28-29) Paul’s discourse found in Galatians 4:21-31 is also helpful in this regard. The Kingdom of God is not something we are building through our conquest or social action. It is a kingdom that we receive. The kingdom is not built by us, but by God. “For he (Abraham) was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.” (Heb 11:10) “The heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22), “Mount Zion” (Heb 12:22), that no one can even see unless they are born again (John 3:3). The same kingdom that God has promised to build (Heb 11:10, Mat 16:18-19).
How then, does it advance? Very simply put, it advances through the work of the Holy Spirit via the means of preaching the gospel. The Great Commission, found primarily in Matthew 28:18-20 (also Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38-42), tells us to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you.” This is precisely able to be done because of what Jesus states in verse 18, that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” The Great Commission is not the cultural mandate found in Genesis 1:26-27, which says, “And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” The Great Commission is not a mandate to take dominion. Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, has come and taken dominion. Even now, Christ has dominion, which will not be fully brought to fruition until His glorious return. Only those in Christ will ultimately have dominion along with our risen Head. The Great Commission is first a foremost a command to make disciples by baptizing and teaching. Michael Horton comments that “The Great Commission is a mandate to gather, feed, and protect Christ’s sheep until the Great Shepherd Himself returns.” Thus, the Kingdom advances by the Holy Spirit’s work through the proclamation of the gospel. The gospel of the kingdom (Matt 24:14) is identical with the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19). Both of them refer to the building of the kingdom by God through the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, and the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) encompasses both of these.
Although it has been a staple of theological liberalism to pit Jesus’ words against the words of the apostles, especially Paul, in later books of the New Testament, interpreting Scripture in this manner drives a wedge between the apostles and Christ. Who better than the apostles to interpret Christ’s teachings? Michael Horton addresses this problem, saying, “However, the ‘red-letter’ method of interpretation assumes a deficient doctrine of Scripture. Jesus’ words, teachings, and actions were remembered, related, and interpreted by his apostles. Just as He had promised in the upper room, Jesus sent the Spirit so that they would remember everything that He taught them and would be able to pass it on to others…The whole bible is canon, and Scripture interprets Scripture. Besides revealing a seriously deficient view of Scripture, this contrast between Jesus and Paul rests on a misunderstanding of our Lord’s teaching concerning the kingdom. Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom is identical to Paul’s proclamation of the gospel of justification. Contrasting the kingdom with the church is another way of saying that the main point of Jesus’ commission consists in our social action rather than in the public ministry of Word and Sacrament. In other words, it’s another way of saying that we are building the kingdom rather than receiving it; that the kingdom of God’s redeeming grace is actually a kingdom of our redeeming works.” As Horton points out, this misses the point. Namely, that Jesus’ message of the kingdom was the forgiveness of sins and the beginning of the new creation, and these things cannot be separated from His promises to build his church (Matt 16:18) and give the keys to the kingdom to the apostles (Matt 16:19). The apostles clearly thought that this entailed preaching, sacrament, and discipline, not social action or confusion with the state or a certain leader. Acts 2 records what the apostles thought Jesus’ kingdom is. Peter’s sermon was hardly about incarnational living, but rather, to repent and believe for the forgiveness of sins. Peter gave the people at Pentecost the gospel (Acts 2:14-36), not a plea for imitation of the risen Christ. This is repeated by the apostles in Acts 3 as well as Acts 17. Likewise, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, pitched the same thing. See 1 Corinthians 15. Therefore, we surely do not need the advice of rehashed theological liberalism coming from men such as McLaren and Rob Bell (whose idea of the kingdom is bringing heaven to earth via loving action) to tell us that the Kingdom of God is here, since as we have seen, when they use this phrase, they mean something completely different than what Scripture does. Instead of finding something positive in the messages of these men, we ought rather look to Scripture, for a little leaven leavens the whole lump. Why praise them for one particular aspect when they have the gospel wrong? Is what they are pitching even Christian? J. Gresham Machen answered with a decisive “no” in his book “Christianity and Liberalism,” written in the early part of the 20th century. It’s amazing how the vast majority of what Machen wrote against nearly a century ago we are battling today in the form of the Emergent Church. It is no more than rehashed Protestant liberalism that the church fought against in another era.
God’s Kingdom will advance, for God Himself has promised to build it. Not by force, not by activism, but by God’s Word. The Kingdom of God continues to advance as the gospel is proclaimed and the Holy Spirit raises dead sinners to life.
8/23/11
Psalm 1
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on His law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in due season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish. (Psalm 1 ESV)
Psalm 1 has always been one of my favorite Psalms, and with the rest of Scripture, there is a whole lot of theology packed into this short first Psalm. Scripture itself is inexhaustible. That is to say, even the most learned theological scholar is constantly learning more and more each day from the Word of God. There is truly no limit to Scripture’s teaching. Psalm 1 is certainly no different in this regard. I shall do my best to make sense of it here!
The obvious comparison being made by the Psalmist here is between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked. There is a lot of good theology packed in to these six verses. The Psalmist uses God’s law as a marker of sorts here that distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked. The righteous man loves it, the wicked hates it. In fact, the wicked person can be described here as having no regard for God’s law and is one who is standing on his own merits. I think back to the book of Judges and the wicked rebellion of the Israelites, where the author of Judges concludes the book (as well as mentioning it another time) by saying “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25) And isn’t that exactly the case? The wicked (best described here as the unregenerate) always do what is right in their own eyes. They follow sin, since they do not follow the law, and sin is defined by the law. It is the normal comparison made in Scripture - my way (wicked) versus God’s way (righteous). Simply put, the regenerate man (the righteous) loves God’s teaching and desires to follow what He commands. The unregenerate man (the wicked) could care less. He follows himself and does what is right in his own eyes.
The Righteous Man
We see from the Psalm a few things that mark the regenerate person. First, we see that he is blessed. (Ps 1:1) He is blessed not because of what he does, but because of what God does. The rest of the description of the righteous man describes what that righteous man’s response is. What does a righteous man look like? We see first a downward progression of sorts. Walks not in the counsel of the wicked. Nor stands in the way of sinners. Nor sits in the seat of scoffers. From walks to stands to sits. The man who is righteous avoids these things precisely because they are sinful and wicked in the sight of God. But, says the Psalmist, the righteous man also delights in the law of the Lord. In this instance, “law” is best described as “teaching” or “instruction,” which would include the whole of Scripture. In the broader sense, we can use the term “law” in Scripture (and it is employed as such) as “God’s commands.” Notice that the Psalmist never says that the man is righteous *because* he follows the law. Such is not the biblical report. In fact, the law can only command. It has no inherent power to save or to make a person righteous. However, I see clear evidence here for the third use of the law, as a norm for Christian life. There has been a lot of attack on the third use of the law in recent years, as if desiring to follow God by obeying His commands is somehow unspiritual. But this forces a false choice. Basically, they are saying that anyone who desires to follow God’s commands is not following the Spirit. But Scripturally, this is patently false. The regenerate man has the law burned on his heart and desires to obey God. Obeying God is only found in his commands (law) not by some anti-intellectual false spirituality. Flesh this out far enough and the result is relative truth and religion based on inner experiences and subjectivism. Oh wait, that's pretty popular now days isn't it?
That is not to say we follow the law in order to be sanctified (or worse, to be saved, since that would be salvation by pure works), but that the result of our being saved is a love for God’s commands, precisely because the Spirit that indwells us will lead us to desire to obey God’s commands. Verse two tells us as much. The righteous man’s delight is in the law of the Lord, and on His law he meditates day and night. The righteous man will desire to obey God. Even in the New Covenant this is the case. Ezekiel pictures it this way: “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” (Eze 36:26-27) The regenerate person loves the law (teachings) of God. This of course does not put us under the law, for that would mean we are unregenerate in the first place. To be under the law is to have to perfectly keep it to gain any favor before God. Just breaking it once, and you’re guilty for breaking it all (Jam 2:10). Thus, God requires perfect obedience to His teachings precisely because God cannot command anything less because He is perfectly holy. We are not saved so we can live how we want to, for that is precisely how the wicked live. Rather, God ensures and promises in Ezekiel to give us a new heart and His Spirit, which will cause us to walk in His statutes, since we are unable to do so without God’s intervention through His descent in grace. Paul says that “on the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Rom 3:31) Thus, the third use of the law stands. It is a biblical idea and is in fact the result of a regenerate heart.
The choice forced is a false one (spirituality vs. your mind) precisely because of what following the Spirit looks like. When we follow the Spirit, He engages our mind and conforms us to the image of Christ. Christ perfectly fulfilled the law and obeyed God's commands to perfection. Therefore, to follow the Spirit will cause us (Ez 36:27) to walk in God's statutes. Forcing a choice between "Spirit" and "mind" is not the report of Scripture. The two go together and cannot be separated. Christianity is not based on inner mysticism and experience. It is based on God's Word. Therefore, when we follow the Spirit, we are driven to the Word of God (Joh 17:17), delight in His commands (Ps 1:1-2), and desire to obey Him since we have the law burned on our hearts (Ez 36:25-27). Our mind is renewed and engaged (Rom 12:1-2), not disengaged in favor of some higher false spirituality.
The Psalmist then makes an analogy, one that is repeated in a very similar manner in the New Testament. He compares the righteous man to a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in season. Water is used all over the New Testament not only as the means of baptism, but also as a reference to regeneration. So says Ezekiel just one verse before the previously quoted ones: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.” (Eze 36:25) The author of Hebrews picks this up in Hebrews 10:22: “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” And Paul says much of the same in 2 Corinthians 7:1and 1 Corinthians 6:11, and picks up a similar vein in Titus 3:5. Washing and water are very important analogies drawn in the New Testament. I don’t think this is exactly what the Psalmist is trying to say here, but washing and water and sprinkling with it are all ideas that Scripture is full of.
What comes next is a teaching picked up later in Scripture by Christ Himself. That righteous tree that is planted by streams of water bears fruit. Matthew 12:33-37 gives a good example of this. How can a bad tree bear good fruit? Jesus teaches more of the same in Luke 6:43-44. We know that in both places He also states that “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Mat 12:34, Luk 6:44) Whatever is in your heart will come out of your mouth. The mouth follows the condition of the heart. Therefore, a regenerate person (good tree) will bear good fruit (desire to follow God’s teaching and will do so) and the unregenerate (bad tree) cannot even bear good fruit, precisely because even our best efforts are polluted garments. (Isa 64:6) Thus, we can see a defense of the third use all over this passage (Psalm 1). The righteous man bears good fruit because He loves God’s law and meditates on it, precisely because he has a new heart and is regenerate. The best analogy we can draw in this instance is that the righteous man bears fruit like a tree in a stream because he is planted by God and always watered by the Spirit. Even when the tree is in the desert, if the stream waters it, it will bear fruit. The righteous man is like this. No matter where he is, the Spirit goes with him, and he bears fruit.
His fruit does not wither away and he prospers. Now, we must be careful here, since numerous false teachers (*cough* Creflo Dollar *cough*) would have us believe that the word prosper here refers to financial prosperity, but such cannot be the case, especially in light of all of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels. Christians, simply put, are never guaranteed financial or worldly prosperity. To teach such is heretical nonsense. On the other hand, the Christian is said to prosper. Spiritually, that is. We prosper precisely because we are right with God. No longer judged by the law and held under its curse, we are now free to obey God in the law’s greatest intent by following the Spirit, who has put the law on our hearts.
The Wicked Man
You see from the Psalmist that the wicked man is quite the opposite of the righteous man. Verse 4 begins the short part on the wicked man, after seeing briefly what the way of the wicked is like in verse 1. There is a downward progression of sorts. The way of the wicked goes from bad to worse. Spurgeon had a great comment regarding this:
“When men are living in sin they go from bad to worse. At first they merely *walk* in the council of the careless and ungodly, who forget God -the evil is rather practical than habitual- but after that, they become habituated to evil, and they *stand* in the way of open sinners who willfully violate God’s commandments; and if let alone, they go one step further, and become themselves pestilent teachers and tempters of others, and thus they *sit* in the seat of the scornful. They have taken their degree in vice, and as true Doctors of Damnation they are installed.”
The progression ends, sadly, with sin being the way of life and being comfortable, evidenced by the sitting in the seat of the scornful. Sin has become comfortable and the way of life to the wicked.
The wicked do not delight in God‘s law, says the Psalmist. They have no desire for the law of God which essentially means they have no desire to obey God. They are like chaff that the wind drives away. Chaff is useless. After chaff is separated from grain it is blown away to be either trampled underfoot or burned. There are obvious correlations to judgment here. The wicked will not be able to stand before God, since they are doing what is right in their own eyes and have no desire to obey God. They have followed the way of the world and the way of sin that tells us that righteousness is no fun and that God is wrong. Just like Satan in the garden, the world preaches to us that we ought to do what we want and have fun! We will not surely die and we shall be as God! Not so, when we live worldly, and follow our own fleshly desires and vices that are sinful and disobedient to God, we are actually being as Satan and not as God. That road leads to death. We will surely die! Their own righteousness is filthy and is as useless as chaff in the wind before God. They hate His teaching, evidenced by the fact that they do not meditate on it and obey it. The New Testament picks this idea up as well, saying “Therefore, take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.” (Eph 6:13) The wicked will fail at this precisely because they do not have the armor of God and want nothing to do with it. Their eyes are blinded and their foolish hearts are darkened. (See Rom 1:18-32)
For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
The Psalm is concluded with this thought. Very simply put, there are only two types of people and two ways of life. Either a person is in Christ, who fulfilled the law of God so we can be raised in newness of life, or a person is in Adam and still under the law as pertaining to salvation. In essence, the two ways of life are determined completely by one’s relation to Christ. Everyone has a relationship to God. Either they are in Christ and are regenerate or they are in Adam and are unregenerate. There are no stages of this and no third option. As Psalm 1 points out so clearly, it is completely an either/or question. Is the person regenerate, and therefore declared righteous, released from the law’s curse, raised in newness of life, and have a desire to obey God in the law’s ultimate intent, to please God? Or is a person bound to keep that entire law through their own merit and thereby unregenerate? Ironically, the wicked have no desire to do this anyways and others rely on their own works to merit favor before God, making their obedience wicked since it is done out of the wrong motive.
King Solomon commented on the way of the wicked, saying: “There is a way that seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death.” (Prov 14:12)
There are a few things that are easily pointed out in summation.
1. The righteous man loves the teachings of God. Oh how I love God’s law! Is the response of the righteous.
2. The righteous man does not gain favor from God by their obedience to His teaching, but loves to obey His teaching out of sheer love and thankfulness to the Triune God who saved him.
3. The righteous man bears fruit which will not wither away.
4. The wicked generally have no desire for the teaching of God. They in fact hate it.
5. Even those wicked who attempt to follow the law to gain favor from God (legalism) are still wicked in that they are required to keep it perfectly. They cannot do this as they must keep it perfectly. However, since they are attempting to keep it in order to merit before God, even that is regarded as wicked, as the heart and motives are wrong.
6. The righteous will prosper, but the wicked ways will be driven away like chaff in the wind.
7. The righteous will be able to stand in the judgment as declared righteous, the wicked will not.
8. The difference between righteous and wicked depends on one’s status with God. Are they regenerate or unregenerate? In Christ or in Adam?
9. The righteous are heirs according to the promise (See Gal 3:29, John 3:16, etc), the wicked will perish.
There is no in between, as Psalm 1 points out. A very beautiful and clear Psalm that we can all learn from as Christians. The way of the righteous is the way of Jesus Christ, who tells us plainly that He IS “the way and the truth and the life.” (Joh 14:6) The only way to be counted as righteous is through Jesus Christ by the descent of God in grace, not by law-keeping in order to gain favor. Such has always been the way. More than just poetic, it is packed with theology. Let us hear the Word of God and learn from it.
Psalm 1 has always been one of my favorite Psalms, and with the rest of Scripture, there is a whole lot of theology packed into this short first Psalm. Scripture itself is inexhaustible. That is to say, even the most learned theological scholar is constantly learning more and more each day from the Word of God. There is truly no limit to Scripture’s teaching. Psalm 1 is certainly no different in this regard. I shall do my best to make sense of it here!
The obvious comparison being made by the Psalmist here is between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked. There is a lot of good theology packed in to these six verses. The Psalmist uses God’s law as a marker of sorts here that distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked. The righteous man loves it, the wicked hates it. In fact, the wicked person can be described here as having no regard for God’s law and is one who is standing on his own merits. I think back to the book of Judges and the wicked rebellion of the Israelites, where the author of Judges concludes the book (as well as mentioning it another time) by saying “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25) And isn’t that exactly the case? The wicked (best described here as the unregenerate) always do what is right in their own eyes. They follow sin, since they do not follow the law, and sin is defined by the law. It is the normal comparison made in Scripture - my way (wicked) versus God’s way (righteous). Simply put, the regenerate man (the righteous) loves God’s teaching and desires to follow what He commands. The unregenerate man (the wicked) could care less. He follows himself and does what is right in his own eyes.
The Righteous Man
We see from the Psalm a few things that mark the regenerate person. First, we see that he is blessed. (Ps 1:1) He is blessed not because of what he does, but because of what God does. The rest of the description of the righteous man describes what that righteous man’s response is. What does a righteous man look like? We see first a downward progression of sorts. Walks not in the counsel of the wicked. Nor stands in the way of sinners. Nor sits in the seat of scoffers. From walks to stands to sits. The man who is righteous avoids these things precisely because they are sinful and wicked in the sight of God. But, says the Psalmist, the righteous man also delights in the law of the Lord. In this instance, “law” is best described as “teaching” or “instruction,” which would include the whole of Scripture. In the broader sense, we can use the term “law” in Scripture (and it is employed as such) as “God’s commands.” Notice that the Psalmist never says that the man is righteous *because* he follows the law. Such is not the biblical report. In fact, the law can only command. It has no inherent power to save or to make a person righteous. However, I see clear evidence here for the third use of the law, as a norm for Christian life. There has been a lot of attack on the third use of the law in recent years, as if desiring to follow God by obeying His commands is somehow unspiritual. But this forces a false choice. Basically, they are saying that anyone who desires to follow God’s commands is not following the Spirit. But Scripturally, this is patently false. The regenerate man has the law burned on his heart and desires to obey God. Obeying God is only found in his commands (law) not by some anti-intellectual false spirituality. Flesh this out far enough and the result is relative truth and religion based on inner experiences and subjectivism. Oh wait, that's pretty popular now days isn't it?
That is not to say we follow the law in order to be sanctified (or worse, to be saved, since that would be salvation by pure works), but that the result of our being saved is a love for God’s commands, precisely because the Spirit that indwells us will lead us to desire to obey God’s commands. Verse two tells us as much. The righteous man’s delight is in the law of the Lord, and on His law he meditates day and night. The righteous man will desire to obey God. Even in the New Covenant this is the case. Ezekiel pictures it this way: “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” (Eze 36:26-27) The regenerate person loves the law (teachings) of God. This of course does not put us under the law, for that would mean we are unregenerate in the first place. To be under the law is to have to perfectly keep it to gain any favor before God. Just breaking it once, and you’re guilty for breaking it all (Jam 2:10). Thus, God requires perfect obedience to His teachings precisely because God cannot command anything less because He is perfectly holy. We are not saved so we can live how we want to, for that is precisely how the wicked live. Rather, God ensures and promises in Ezekiel to give us a new heart and His Spirit, which will cause us to walk in His statutes, since we are unable to do so without God’s intervention through His descent in grace. Paul says that “on the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Rom 3:31) Thus, the third use of the law stands. It is a biblical idea and is in fact the result of a regenerate heart.
The choice forced is a false one (spirituality vs. your mind) precisely because of what following the Spirit looks like. When we follow the Spirit, He engages our mind and conforms us to the image of Christ. Christ perfectly fulfilled the law and obeyed God's commands to perfection. Therefore, to follow the Spirit will cause us (Ez 36:27) to walk in God's statutes. Forcing a choice between "Spirit" and "mind" is not the report of Scripture. The two go together and cannot be separated. Christianity is not based on inner mysticism and experience. It is based on God's Word. Therefore, when we follow the Spirit, we are driven to the Word of God (Joh 17:17), delight in His commands (Ps 1:1-2), and desire to obey Him since we have the law burned on our hearts (Ez 36:25-27). Our mind is renewed and engaged (Rom 12:1-2), not disengaged in favor of some higher false spirituality.
The Psalmist then makes an analogy, one that is repeated in a very similar manner in the New Testament. He compares the righteous man to a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in season. Water is used all over the New Testament not only as the means of baptism, but also as a reference to regeneration. So says Ezekiel just one verse before the previously quoted ones: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.” (Eze 36:25) The author of Hebrews picks this up in Hebrews 10:22: “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” And Paul says much of the same in 2 Corinthians 7:1and 1 Corinthians 6:11, and picks up a similar vein in Titus 3:5. Washing and water are very important analogies drawn in the New Testament. I don’t think this is exactly what the Psalmist is trying to say here, but washing and water and sprinkling with it are all ideas that Scripture is full of.
What comes next is a teaching picked up later in Scripture by Christ Himself. That righteous tree that is planted by streams of water bears fruit. Matthew 12:33-37 gives a good example of this. How can a bad tree bear good fruit? Jesus teaches more of the same in Luke 6:43-44. We know that in both places He also states that “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Mat 12:34, Luk 6:44) Whatever is in your heart will come out of your mouth. The mouth follows the condition of the heart. Therefore, a regenerate person (good tree) will bear good fruit (desire to follow God’s teaching and will do so) and the unregenerate (bad tree) cannot even bear good fruit, precisely because even our best efforts are polluted garments. (Isa 64:6) Thus, we can see a defense of the third use all over this passage (Psalm 1). The righteous man bears good fruit because He loves God’s law and meditates on it, precisely because he has a new heart and is regenerate. The best analogy we can draw in this instance is that the righteous man bears fruit like a tree in a stream because he is planted by God and always watered by the Spirit. Even when the tree is in the desert, if the stream waters it, it will bear fruit. The righteous man is like this. No matter where he is, the Spirit goes with him, and he bears fruit.
His fruit does not wither away and he prospers. Now, we must be careful here, since numerous false teachers (*cough* Creflo Dollar *cough*) would have us believe that the word prosper here refers to financial prosperity, but such cannot be the case, especially in light of all of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels. Christians, simply put, are never guaranteed financial or worldly prosperity. To teach such is heretical nonsense. On the other hand, the Christian is said to prosper. Spiritually, that is. We prosper precisely because we are right with God. No longer judged by the law and held under its curse, we are now free to obey God in the law’s greatest intent by following the Spirit, who has put the law on our hearts.
The Wicked Man
You see from the Psalmist that the wicked man is quite the opposite of the righteous man. Verse 4 begins the short part on the wicked man, after seeing briefly what the way of the wicked is like in verse 1. There is a downward progression of sorts. The way of the wicked goes from bad to worse. Spurgeon had a great comment regarding this:
“When men are living in sin they go from bad to worse. At first they merely *walk* in the council of the careless and ungodly, who forget God -the evil is rather practical than habitual- but after that, they become habituated to evil, and they *stand* in the way of open sinners who willfully violate God’s commandments; and if let alone, they go one step further, and become themselves pestilent teachers and tempters of others, and thus they *sit* in the seat of the scornful. They have taken their degree in vice, and as true Doctors of Damnation they are installed.”
The progression ends, sadly, with sin being the way of life and being comfortable, evidenced by the sitting in the seat of the scornful. Sin has become comfortable and the way of life to the wicked.
The wicked do not delight in God‘s law, says the Psalmist. They have no desire for the law of God which essentially means they have no desire to obey God. They are like chaff that the wind drives away. Chaff is useless. After chaff is separated from grain it is blown away to be either trampled underfoot or burned. There are obvious correlations to judgment here. The wicked will not be able to stand before God, since they are doing what is right in their own eyes and have no desire to obey God. They have followed the way of the world and the way of sin that tells us that righteousness is no fun and that God is wrong. Just like Satan in the garden, the world preaches to us that we ought to do what we want and have fun! We will not surely die and we shall be as God! Not so, when we live worldly, and follow our own fleshly desires and vices that are sinful and disobedient to God, we are actually being as Satan and not as God. That road leads to death. We will surely die! Their own righteousness is filthy and is as useless as chaff in the wind before God. They hate His teaching, evidenced by the fact that they do not meditate on it and obey it. The New Testament picks this idea up as well, saying “Therefore, take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.” (Eph 6:13) The wicked will fail at this precisely because they do not have the armor of God and want nothing to do with it. Their eyes are blinded and their foolish hearts are darkened. (See Rom 1:18-32)
For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
The Psalm is concluded with this thought. Very simply put, there are only two types of people and two ways of life. Either a person is in Christ, who fulfilled the law of God so we can be raised in newness of life, or a person is in Adam and still under the law as pertaining to salvation. In essence, the two ways of life are determined completely by one’s relation to Christ. Everyone has a relationship to God. Either they are in Christ and are regenerate or they are in Adam and are unregenerate. There are no stages of this and no third option. As Psalm 1 points out so clearly, it is completely an either/or question. Is the person regenerate, and therefore declared righteous, released from the law’s curse, raised in newness of life, and have a desire to obey God in the law’s ultimate intent, to please God? Or is a person bound to keep that entire law through their own merit and thereby unregenerate? Ironically, the wicked have no desire to do this anyways and others rely on their own works to merit favor before God, making their obedience wicked since it is done out of the wrong motive.
King Solomon commented on the way of the wicked, saying: “There is a way that seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death.” (Prov 14:12)
There are a few things that are easily pointed out in summation.
1. The righteous man loves the teachings of God. Oh how I love God’s law! Is the response of the righteous.
2. The righteous man does not gain favor from God by their obedience to His teaching, but loves to obey His teaching out of sheer love and thankfulness to the Triune God who saved him.
3. The righteous man bears fruit which will not wither away.
4. The wicked generally have no desire for the teaching of God. They in fact hate it.
5. Even those wicked who attempt to follow the law to gain favor from God (legalism) are still wicked in that they are required to keep it perfectly. They cannot do this as they must keep it perfectly. However, since they are attempting to keep it in order to merit before God, even that is regarded as wicked, as the heart and motives are wrong.
6. The righteous will prosper, but the wicked ways will be driven away like chaff in the wind.
7. The righteous will be able to stand in the judgment as declared righteous, the wicked will not.
8. The difference between righteous and wicked depends on one’s status with God. Are they regenerate or unregenerate? In Christ or in Adam?
9. The righteous are heirs according to the promise (See Gal 3:29, John 3:16, etc), the wicked will perish.
There is no in between, as Psalm 1 points out. A very beautiful and clear Psalm that we can all learn from as Christians. The way of the righteous is the way of Jesus Christ, who tells us plainly that He IS “the way and the truth and the life.” (Joh 14:6) The only way to be counted as righteous is through Jesus Christ by the descent of God in grace, not by law-keeping in order to gain favor. Such has always been the way. More than just poetic, it is packed with theology. Let us hear the Word of God and learn from it.
8/2/11
Works of the Law
One of the hottest discussions in Christianity throughout the ages has been in reference to the relationship of “works” in the book of James (Js 2:14-26) and the phrase employed by St. Paul “works of the law.” Some Roman Catholics, at least since the middle ages, have argued that the phrases are completely different from each other. Many Roman Catholics today favor this interpretation, even some apologists. After all, this is one of the direct interpretations of Scripture that the Reformers were fighting against. This interpretation, if correct, has direct bearing on the Protestant (and biblical) doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone), denying it outright. The Reformers held that man is justified before God by faith alone and only on the merits of Christ’s work alone. Rome countered that this was not the case, and that man is justified by faith plus works; made official Roman dogma at Trent. To understand the Roman Catholic view on justification, we must go to the Council of Trent, which speaks at length regarding justification. Therefore, the Roman Catholic view of justification is that we are not justified by faith alone, but rather, by faith plus works. A cursory reading of Scripture should show us quite conclusively that this is not the case and indeed is literally impossible, unless we are willing to allow for God accepting less than perfection. Hence, Rome solves this dilemma in that they deny the imputed righteousness of Christ to all who believe with the doctrine of purgatory, which is a perfectly logical doctrine if imputed righteousness is false and a person can be partially justified. As an aside, it is quite ironic that Rome denies imputed righteousness while a person is yet alive on Earth but in essence affirms it in purgatory, after death.
It is also quite right to point out that Protestants do not deny the importance of good works in the life of a Christian. We simply deny that these good works are capable of meriting anything before God, who demands absolute perfection. Protestant doctrine holds that we are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone. It will result in good works springing from a changed nature that desires to please God. Therefore, since God still demands absolute perfection and conformity to His law since He hasn’t changed, it is literally impossible for a person to be justified on these grounds, since not only have all sinned (Rom 3:23), and all are born sinful (Ps 51:5, Rom 5:12-21), but one transgression of God’s Holy Law renders us guilty of breaking all of it (Js 2:10). Simply put, if mankind must stand before God on account of their own righteousness, nobody can possibly be justified, since none have fulfilled the Law in its entirety. If we claim we have no sin, we are liars, according to St. John (1 Jn 1:8-10). Save for one. Jesus Christ.
Let us examine all of the passages that are relevant to the topic at hand. Namely, those which use the phrase “works of the Law” and those that speak about justification and works.
All Scriptures quoted from the ESV.
Romans 3:20: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:27-28: Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:2: For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Romans 4:4: Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Romans 4:6: Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works.
Galatians 2:15-16: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:2: Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Galatians 3:5-6: Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith - just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness?
Galatians 3:10-14: For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the law, and do them. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith. But the law is not of faith, rather The one who does them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree - so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
And then, James 2:14-26.
Thus, Scripture gives us tons of passages that speak about works. To gain an understanding about what the Scriptural teaching is on the topic, we need to define a few things, or else we end up in limbo and the conclusions we come to can easily be refuted on Scriptural grounds. But before we do that, let’s check out all the passages that speak of “works of the law,” since that ultimately is the phrase that gets isolated by those who will in the end disagree with the conclusion that will be drawn here.
Per Scripture, the works of the law will not justify anyone. The question then becomes: what does “works of the law mean?” Generally, there are two main options put forth in regard to this question. First, we have the Roman Catholic idea that “works of the law” refers to Jewish ceremonial observance. Quite often, they appeal to circumcision and other ceremonial rites. Indeed, in Galatians, Paul is rebuking the Judaizers for adding Jewish rites to Christ alone for salvation. They appeal to James chapter 2; especially when James says that works justify a person. The second explanation is the Protestant one, which I will be defending here. That is, that “works of the law” refers to trying to merit any favor before God by good works of law-keeping, which includes of course, the ten commandments. In this interpretation, James is not speaking of the doctrine of justification that declares us righteous before God, but rather, speaking of the difference between a false and spurious faith and a real faith. Faith without works is dead, says James.
Scripture gives us numerous clues as to what the works of the law are. We are told that: No one will be justified by the works of the law…Since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20), and instead through faith in Christ. (Gal 2:15-16)
We also know that the Spirit is received by faith and not works of the law (Gal 3:2), all who rely on works of the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10), no one is justified before God by the law (Gal 3:11), and the one who relies on works of the law must keep the entire book of the law and live by them. (Gal 3:10-11) Hence, we need Christ (Gal 3:12-14), who fulfilled the law on our behalf by becoming a curse for us through His crucifixion (Gal 3:12-14).
We also have the following information regarding works:
If Abraham was justified by works, he could have boasted (Rom 4:2). If works are what justify us before God, we are given our due and not a gift. (Rom 4:4) And we are saved by grace through faith, apart from works. (Eph 2:8-9)
When we boil this down, what we need to determine is if works of the law refers simply to Jewish observance and ceremonial actions or if it refers to doing any work that is in line with the law for justification. Some Roman Catholic apologists take this line of thought. I am convinced that this is not the official position of Rome on the issue though, and we will get to that later. But, we must refute this as well, since it would seem that this interpretation, although not the official Roman Catholic one, is a very popular one used by Roman Catholics. Romans 3 and Galatians are the places we need to go to determine this. And to get a clue as to which answer is proper, we need to examine what St. Paul says regarding works of the law and the reasoning he gives as to why these works of the law cannot justify us.
We first can see that in Romans 3, St. Paul tells us that no human being will be justified by works of the law because through the law comes knowledge of sin. That is, the law is what shows us what sin is. It is to break God’s law. We therefore cannot be justified by these works, since the law shows us what sin is and we have knowledge of this sin through the law that God has given. We also know that St. Paul gave us more reasoning in the same passage, contrasting faith and works at the conclusion off Romans 3. He states here that “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28) and then “since God is one - who will justify the circumcised (Jews) by faith and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) through faith.” (Rom 3:30) He likewise was not an antinomian as he stated the next verse: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Rom 3:31) The point here is that St. Paul is talking about upholding the law as someone who is already justified. Thus, in essence, what he is claiming, as he also does in Galatians, is that following the law is not the manner in which a person is justified before God.
He goes on in Galatians 2 with more of the same, saying that “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.” (Gal 2:16a) This coming directly after saying that he is a Jew and not a Gentile, and neither of them will be justified by law-keeping. He concludes his thought in verse 21, saying “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Gal 2:21)
But Galatians 3 is really the killer for the Jewish observance interpretation, as St. Paul states that “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Gal 3:10) And then, “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:11) And then of course continues on to explain the removal of the law’s curse through Christ’s crucifixion, precisely because we are incapable of being justified by law-keeping.
All of this is fine and dandy, but we also need to answer the question, “how are good works defined?” Because good works must be defined according to something. If they lie outside of God’s law, then in fact an argument could be made for the Jewish observance argument. However, this argument implies that the law itself is only for Jews, and only Jews in the pre-Christ era will be judged according to God’s law. I find this line to be problematic for this interpretation, since everyone universally is considered to be “in Adam,” precisely because Adam sinned and we are born sinners and we also sin, which is simply put - breaking of God’s law. Thus, by definition, sin is defined by God’s law. When we sin, that is exactly what we are doing - missing the mark of God’s holiness. Now I ask then - what answer does Scripture give us in regards to what sin is? The law, of course. Likewise, to not sin would then also be to adhere to the law, which of course means that we are not justified by not sinning. But we also must insist on taking this even another step further. That is to say, that good works are defined by the law as well. Jesus Christ Himself states in Matthew 22:37-40: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the prophets.” This answer our Lord gave was in response to the question “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” (Matt 22:36) This answer that Christ gave is often called the Great Commandment (not to be confused with the Gospel or the Great Commission). Therefore, Christ sums up the law itself by loving God and loving neighbor. Now, good works must be defined in this manner. The works that are done that please God fall in these two categories. Thus, good works themselves are defined by following the law, since the summary of the law is found in Matthew 22:37-40, given by Christ. Thus, our good works cannot justify us, since good works are in essence following the law, since that is the answer Scripture gives us as to what pleases God. Therefore, it is spurious to create a category of good works apart from the law of God, since God Himself is the only one who defines what a good work is, and the answer Scripture gives us as to what actually is a good work is essentially a work pleasing to God that is in line with His law. That (His law) is what He has given us that to define what sin is, and by correlation, what sin is not.
We also must say a couple other things, because all of this could lead us to believe that our sanctification is done by law-keeping, even though our justification is clearly not. Some would affirm this idea. I must reject it for a couple reasons. First, we are conformed to the image of Christ by following the Holy Spirit, not doing works. We do works, yes. But we do not do works just to follow the law. That would be absurd. St. Paul had something like this in mind in the beginning of Galatians 3, when he states “Let me ask you this only: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal 3:2-3) In essence, God does not save us from the curse of the law and justify us apart from our works just to drive us right back to the law to be sanctified.
Second, we also must say that the law is good, righteous, and holy, and there is nothing wrong with the third usage of it. That is, the law gives us a norm for Christian life. Specifically, the Decalogue (ten commandments). But, we do not follow the law for law-keeping sake, as St. Paul rejects in Galatians 3:2-3. On the other hand, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, we now, as New Covenant believers, have the law written upon our hearts (see Eze36:25-27), and we are conformed to Christ by following the Spirit, who brings us to Christ through grace and drives us to desire to please Him. But we also must guard against inventing our own laws that add to God’s. God has given us His, and His is what He has said is pleasing to Him. How presumptuous of us to add our own laws that we think should please Him and neglect the one He has given us!
This all brings us to James. What was James talking about? We have already shown above that good works are best defined on a Scriptural basis ultimately by keeping God’s law, and we have numerous clear statements from St. Paul that no one will be justified by works of the law (Rom 3:20, 28, Gal 2:16, Gal 3:10-14) and that, in more general terms, the biblical report is that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and this is not of ourselves, but is rather God’s gift - which then drives us to good works. (Ephesians 2:8-10) James however, at first glance seems to disagree with Paul. This is not possible of course. As an aside, even a great man of God and theologian Martin Luther had problems reconciling Paul and James. Luther was unsure as to the canonicity of the book of James. But, perhaps Luther simply may not have seen James’ passage in the right light. Digging in, it’s pretty clear what James is trying to say. James makes such statements as “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (Jms 2:14) “Show me your faith apart from your works and I will show you my faith by my works.” (Jms 2:18) And then, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” (Jms 2:21) And, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (Jms 2:24)
The point we need to recognize here is that James is not erecting a false dichotomy between faith and works and separating them to the point of being completely different. If this is the case, then faith becomes no more than mental assent, and Scripture, specifically the New Testament, denies that idea everywhere else. Likewise, faith and obedience are treated as essentially the same in numerous other places in Scripture. They can be distinguished, but never separated. For instance, John 3:36, Hebrews 5:9, Romans 1:5, and Romans 16:26. The biblical report is that true faith will obey. The fruits of the Spirit will be borne, and good works will be the result. Thus, we can discern that even in James 2, that what James is contrasting is not faith and works, but true faith and false faith. He makes this clear by using demons as an example. Even they believe, he says. (Jms 2:19) When viewed in this light, Paul and James are completely consistent with each other. Paul was fighting against legalists in Galatians - those who would add works in order to be justified, while James was fighting the opposite battle; antinomianism. That is, faith with no works, which is a false and dead faith. Our faith needs to be shown by our works, and if our faith is real, it will be. Likewise, James cannot be blasting the Reformation distinctive of justification by faith alone in verse 24, for then he would not only be contradicting Paul, but also creating a new category of works that are classified outside of God’s law, which, as seen above, is very unlikely. Proponents of justification by works love to point out that the only time the phrase “faith alone’ appears in Holy Writ is in James 2:24, when James says that we are not justified by faith alone. But James does not mean it in the same sense that the Reformers and St. Paul meant it. That is, he is not creating a dichotomy between faith and works to the point they are separate, but rather, he is fighting against antinomianism, those who have a false profession but a lifestyle that contradicts what they say. This is the epitome of lying, obviously. The people James is referring to are clearly people who have the same “belief” as the demons he mentions in verse 19. That is, they believe Christ is who he claimed, but they do not possess a faith given by the Spirit of God and do not have the law written on their hearts, evidenced by their lack of works. Therefore, these people are not shown to be just simply by their profession of faith. They may even be part of the visible church, but their professions are severely lacking. Hence all the warnings in Hebrews. There were numerous people in the visible church who had false professions then, and numerous ones who have false professions now. We see that what James is saying here is not that man is justified by doing good works, as if they are a cause for merit, because Paul plainly rebukes that idea, but rather, that a true profession of faith will result in a desire to follow God and obey. A true faith will work.. It’s that simple, especially in numerous other places in Scripture the just are said to “live by faith.” (Rom 1:17, 2 Cor 5:7, etc) Therefore, the works that we do come from our faith, which is the result of a new nature implanted by the Holy Spirit through regeneration. It is precisely in this light that Paul can command us to “work out our own salvation” (Phi 2:12) because “it is God who works in you.” (Phi 2:13) God has worked it in, therefore, we need to work it out, through our obedience and works. This working out can only be done because we already possess salvation, not in order to earn it. If we did not possess it, Paul could not say that “it is God who works in you.” We know, only the adopted children of God have God working in them, since only the saved are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (Rom 8:7-10)
But it is also quite important to point out that I just spent a bunch of time refuting the position of *some* Roman Catholic apologists and of *some* Roman Catholic parishioners. On the other hand, I am convinced that this position is NOT the official position of the Roman Catholic church, as evidenced by the Council of Trent. Therefore, I desire to be very careful not to misrepresent the Roman Catholic position on justification, lest I attempt to refute a straw man, which is absolutely not what I desire to do. As a Reformed guy, I recognize the annoyance of straw men and recognize that refuting a straw man doesn’t really refute anything. Dr. Robert Sungenis, perhaps the most formidable Roman Catholic apologist of the day (seriously - chew on some of his arguments some time, they‘re very well done in many cases), agrees with Reformed Theology in the sense that “works of the law“ cannot be referring to ceremonial observance. Sungenis quotes: “Various Catholic apologists today, when teaching on the meaning of the "works of the law," will often explain it as referring to the ceremonial law of Israel, to the exclusion, or the virtual exclusion, of the remaining law in Israel. (The ceremonial law refers to all the ritual religious practices, such as circumcision, eating kosher foods, priestly sacrifices, seventh-day sabbath observance, etc). Sad to say, that answer is at best a half-truth, and at worst, it is a distortion of the Catholic teaching on Justification.”
He continues “One of the reasons these apologists categorize "works of the law" as referring to the ceremonial law is that they have found it to be an easy polemical tool against Protestants. Protestants say that St. Paul condemns ALL work as having any part in Justification. The Catholic apologist counters by saying that when Paul uses the phrase "works of the law" he does not mean ALL works; he only means the works of the ceremonial law of Israel.”
Now, granted, I think the above arguments I made are a fairly decent refutation of that “easy polemical tool.” I believe that Dr. Sungenis would most likely agree with what I have written above regarding the works of the law (although he would disagree with my explanation of James 2). Sungenis then concludes (regarding this works of the law interpretation): “…the answer he gives as to the distinguishing characteristic (the ceremonial law) is only partially correct, and in being such, it is the wrong answer to this most crucial question.” He also points out, rightfully so, that the biggest Roman Catholic authority on justification, the Council of Trent, never uses that argumentation, and never even went so far to even speak of the ceremonial law regarding justification. Earlier theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with Dr. Sungenis in this regard, and it would seem, most relevant theologians claimed by Rome. Thus, Sungenis, after a long and drawn out argument, says this: “In other words, "works of the law" are precisely what the phrase says - they are works performed in a system of law; works performed under a legal contract; works wherein legal payment is expected. The moral and ceremonial laws, as well as the civil laws of Israel, were all part of the legal system of the Old Covenant -- a legal system that had to be set aside in order to make room for the New Covenant, a system of grace.”
In the main, his arguments seem satisfactory to me as regarding what works of the law are. Sungenis also has some excellent insight when he says the following: “It is important to note that in Romans 4 Paul is teaching that Abraham was Justified by means of the New Covenant of grace, which, because of Christ's anticipated sacrifice, could stretch all the way back to the time of Abraham and beyond, in order to save men. That is why, for example, Hebrews 11:4-7 mentions the prominent saints of old, beginning with Abel and Enoch and Noah, who were saved by faith -- the faith required by the New Covenant in Christ. It is the same reason that Hebrews 11:26 says that Moses "considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt," or why 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that of those who left Egypt "a spiritual rock followed them; and that rock was Christ." The only way anyone was justified in the Old Covenant was on the basis of what Christ would do in the New Covenant.”
But I do not quite understand how the next statement he made can be drawn, when he says: “On the other hand, the circumcision Paul mentions in Romans 4:9-12, and the circumcision in which Abraham and his progeny received, represent the Old Covenant, a covenant of law which had no power to save anyone.” It is important to point out, in this case, that the circumcision Abraham received could not have been a circumcision putting him into a system of law, since the covenant made with Abraham came 430 prior to the giving of the system of law at Sinai that Israel was under. (Gal 3:17) Therefore, the sacrament of circumcision given to Abraham was in essence a sacrament that pointed to circumcision of the heart, which is the result of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant by Jesus Christ. (See Gen 17:1-14) It is no wonder then, that Reformed Theology, as well as Roman Catholicism, sees baptism as the sacrament that replaces circumcision, although the conclusions they draw beyond that are different. Likewise, baptism then symbolizes circumcision of the heart. This of course is to assume that the promise made to Abraham is not the Old Covenant, per se, as that phrase is commonly used too refer to the law given at Sinai, but rather, is the promise of the New Covenant in its pre-Christ form. Thus, to echo Sungenis, even Abraham and all the other elect of God that lived before Christ were indeed justified by grace and not by law keeping of any form.
All of this leads Trent and Dr. Sungenis to answer the question “But aren’t we supposed to obey the moral law?” With an answer that goes like this: “If the moral law is included with the ceremonial law as that which condemns mankind, how does that square with the fact that we are supposed to obey the moral commands of the Old Testament, but not obey the ceremonial commands? The answer is very simple. We are not obeying the moral laws of the Old Covenant. We are obeying the principles of the moral laws found in the Old Covenant. More than that, we are obeying the much improved moral laws, which God placed in the New Covenant. The New Covenant of Jesus Christ borrows from the good laws of the Old Covenant and makes them better.” He then continues: “But notice this important point: It is the WHOLE system of the Old Covenant that must go, not just a part here or there. Those who teach that "works of the law" refers only to the ceremonial law are essentially teaching that only PART of the Old Covenant was set aside. What about the ceremonial law? Isn't it true that we are not to obey the ceremonial law any longer, and didn't Paul make that clear in, for example, Colossians 2:16; while also teaching in Romans 13:9 that we are to obey the moral laws? Well, we already answered the "moral law" question above. We are obeying the principles of the Old Covenant decalogue, but we are no longer under the Old Covenant itself. As for our not obeying the ceremonial laws any longer, that is true, but it is true in the same way that we are no longer obeying the moral laws of the Old Covenant. Rather, we are obeying the principles of the Old Covenant ceremonial laws.” Of course, these ceremonial laws that are now in effect are represented in Catholicism by the seven sacraments.
This brings us to the Roman Catholic view on justification, as articulated by Dr. Sungenis. Sungenis argued at length that the works of the law cannot save us and that the entire law has been set aside. Then he argues this, regarding justification, after using James 2:24 and Romans 2:6-13 as his support: “The reason these works can be rewarded with justification and eternal life is simply that they are NOT rewarded on the basis of debt or law, but on the basis of grace. The only kind of works Paul disallows for justification are works performed in the system of Law, which is a legal system totally devoid of grace. Works performed in the system of grace are always meritorious, because God, by His very nature, seeks to reward those who do good. So notice that its not the KIND of works that is at issue, but the SYSTEM in which one performs those works -- a system of Law (the Old Covenant) or a system of Grace (the New Covenant). One gets into the system of grace by accepting God in faith. Once one believes, then he can work for God, and as he works God will reward him graciously for his efforts. The more one believes and works, the closer he comes to God until, one day, his life is over and God takes him home. There, in heaven, he will receive the ultimate reward of grace.”
And now, it would seem, we have a fuller definition and idea of what the Roman Catholic view of justification is. We must, however, point out some inconsistencies with this view. First of all, after arguing that the whole law has been set aside by the inauguration of the New Covenant and therefore doing the works of the law in order to be justified, Sungenis then argues in the above paragraph that since we are not under the law, we CAN be justified by performing the works that are set forth in the law, or at least, the principles of them. It is important to point out here that Protestants do not reject what we refer to as the third use of the law (also called the normative usage). What we mean by this is that the law can provide the “norms” for Christian life. When we look in Scripture and ask “What pleases God?” The answer Scripture gives us is His law. It would seem then, that the main difference between our two schools of theology revolve around the idea of merit. In Protestant Reformed Theology (including Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Reformational Anglicans), good works are not spurned and licentious living is not endorsed. In fact, we would put forth the argument that such fruits are an indication of a person who is unsaved and therefore not justified. Contrary to popular straw man-ology, Reformed Theology does not promote vile living and antinomianism, and contrary to some dispensationalists, Reformed Theology likewise does not put the Christian under the law. Both of these charges are false. In the same manner, I do not wish to misrepresent Rome; hence my reading of Trent and Dr. Sungenis (who, as I mentioned above, I hold in high regard as a quality theologian - in the sense that he is very thorough, honest, and difficult to refute in many cases). However, at the risk of gaining howls of protests from my Roman Catholic friends, I will state this: If we are attempting to be justified by our works, whether they be from the law or from the principles of the law, it is difficult for me to conclude that we would be under grace, no matter what we call it. In short, it is difficult to see much difference between works justifying us in a system of law or in a system of grace. In both cases, we make God our debtor and attempt to be justified by something we do. If our works are done to gain merit from God and to justify us, it seems to me that grace is completely undermined. The argument quickly degenerates into something like this: Well, we cannot be justified by the works of the law if we are under the law, but we can be justified by the works of the law if we are under grace. Same works, different systems. Thus, the phrase works of the law, to Sungenis, does not mean simply the works done that align with God’s law, but rather, the works done that align with God’s law for people that are under God’s law. Therefore, these same exact works of the law are meritorious for Christians who are not under the law. Same works, same law, but the status of the person is what makes the difference. Thus it would follow that it would not matter much if we claim to be in the New Covenant if we are relying on our works to justify us, especially if those are the same works that are sharply defined by the law of God, since, as Sungenis has claimed, “that its not the KIND of works that is at issue, but the SYSTEM in which one performs those works.” It is, however, pertinent to this topic to point out that St. Paul uses the phrase “works OF the law.” There is no mention by St. Paul in any of these specific passages to “works done UNDER the law” or “works done in a SYSTEM of law.” He simply points out that the works of the law cannot justify. This would imply that the system one is under is irrelevant, since the works OF the law would be the same in either case. Sungenis is forced to change St. Paul's words from works OF the law to works done IN A SYSTEM of law or works done UNDER the law.
Sungenis then concludes: “So, we see that the New Covenant, even though in some respects it is a much improved covenant, in another sense it is even more demanding, for with much freedom comes much responsibility. Now, as opposed to the Old Covenant Law being our judge, such that it could convict us for murder but not be able to peer into our heart to see if we actually hated our brother (cf., Matthew 5:21-24), God, in the New Covenant, is able to peer into our heart and know our most secret motives. And it is upon this basis that the New Covenant judges us (1 Corinthians 4:5; 9:27). Fortunately, God infuses grace into our soul upon confession of sin so that when He looks at us He sees a purified being, justified in His sight. But if we spurn his New Covenant graces, then we will receive the "severer" punishment, a punishment even harsher that what was given in the Old Covenant.”
Looked at in this light (and I would agree with this), Christ’s definitions of the law are even more demanding. It’s also important to note that Christ did not abolish the law, but rather, abolished the theocracy that swore “all this we will do” and failed to do it - namely, because it was impossible for Israel to perfectly obey on a national level, thereby gaining the promised land, and by extension, the eternal rest. Another thing is that since God is an unchanging God, He likewise does not change His law. Granted, more of it is revealed in different books of Scripture, but His entire law remains the same. God’s law is still God’s law and no one has ever been justified by it (because the law can only command) and no one has been justified by doing the works of it, since once again, the law can only command. Therefore, it is impossible to be justified before God by doing, since when God commands us to “do” His requirement for justification based on that doing is nothing less than perfect obedience to all of His precepts. God cannot command anything less. Such would be a violation of his holiness and a compromise on His part. God, by His nature, does not and cannot do this. This was one major point of giving Israel the law and having Israel herself swear the oath, thereby calling the curses on herself for violation, precisely to point us to Christ, who is the law keeper and fulfiller. However, the Abrahamic promise is not like that. God Himself and God alone passed through the halves of the slaughtered animals and not Abraham, thereby calling the curses down on Himself for violation. (Gen 15:12-17) Likewise, God made good on this promise by sending Christ to bear the sins of His people, as Christ took the curse upon Himself by hanging on a tree. (Gal 3:10-14) God alone took the oath for the Abrahamic promise and also the fulfillment thereof - the New Covenant, since God had already taken the oath and promised to take it once again in the ultimate fulfillment thereof. Abraham himself swore nothing. This is completely in contrast to Israel swearing obedience at Sinai and in the numerous renewals of the law found throughout the Old Testament. (Joshua 24, for one) Therefore, how is it possible to be justified by our swearing and doing via doing the works of the law, (even under grace) if we are part of a covenant of grace which God Himself has sworn upon Himself the curses? As Horton has pointed out quite well in his excellent work “Introducing Covenant Theology,” the Sinai covenant given to Israel is a classic suzerainty treaty, where the great King (in this case God) initiates a covenant with a people (in this case Israel) because the great King had done something on their behalf. This is why the giving of the law at Sinai begins with “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Exo 20:2) It begins by stating what God had done for them, and therefore, since He did this, He can then command the following stipulations. In this case, God goes on to give Israel the Decalogue, followed by other various laws that take up Exodus 20-23. When we get to Exodus 24, we see that Israel confirms the covenant by swearing “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do.” (Exo 24:3) The covenant demands perfect obedience on a national level in order to inherit the promised land. Of course, Israel failed miserably on numerous occasions, precisely because perfect national obedience was impossible. God cannot command anything less than perfect obedience, as has been pointed out. Yet God did not cast off Israel. However, God never remembered Israel based on the covenant given at Sinai, since they continually broke that covenant and God Himself swore nothing and therefore was not obligated to remember them at all. In fact, they deserved death and nothing less.
But He remembered Israel based on the covenant He made with Abraham, which was not a classic suzerainty treaty where the great King commanded and the vassal them swore, but rather, it was much closer to another type of covenant called a royal grant. God unilaterally promised and then took the oath Himself. As opposed to Sinai, when God said do all this and only then you will live, the promise given to Abraham was different. God in essence said: “I will do this and you will live.” Quite different. God therefore, dispenses His grace on the basis of His promise (the covenant of grace) and not on the basis of obeying His law, since the works of the law cannot justify, but only God’s grace can. Setting up a new system based on seven sacraments (new and better ceremonies, per Sungenis) is in essence to set up another legal system of ceremonial observance with grace dispensed through these ceremonies and likewise comes very close to denying that there was nothing in God’s law that was gracious, which would be false. On the other hand, we can also observe that in essence Rome has set up the New Covenant as nothing more than a better system of law, and per their definitions, I would agree that it is better. But it still has the form of law in many ways; namely, as it pertains to justification, where Rome claims we ARE justified by obedience to the law (or at least, to the better principles of God’s law), and this is possible only because we are under grace, or in a different system.
This however, confuses works and grace, one of the very things Sungenis labored to point out that the contrast of the two is Paul’s major emphasis in Romans. Another way of saying this is that it confuses law and Gospel, or imperatives and indicatives. This leads Rome to claim, per Sungenis: “In the Old Covenant the ceremonial laws were merely signs and seals of God's promises. But in the New Covenant the ceremonies, that is, the seven sacraments, are not only signs but they do the very thing that the sign signifies! For example, the sign of Baptism replaced the sign of Circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant but it had no power to save. But Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant that actually saves us in the act of being baptized! Not only that, but baptism can be given to Jew and Gentile, male and female, child and adult. It is universal and salvific.” I do not deny that God does work through the sacraments as means of grace, and I do not view the sacraments as works of man, but rather, as gracious works of God as He descends to us, but I have a hard time accepting a system which holds to infused grace, basically turning grace into a metaphysical substance, and salvation through a sacramental system and justification with works of the law (even though we are under grace, per Rome) involved. It is a basic confusion of works and grace, turning works into something meritorious that can gain us more grace, but only if we are under grace in the first place. It almost makes one wonder -and this is a mere observation on my part- if there is some sort of sliding scale of justification in this system, where grace is infused via the sacraments and by good works of the principles of the law, and if non-Catholics need to do that much more good works to have the grace infused that they aren’t receiving through the sacraments. I do know that Roman Catholicism does open up ways of salvation for non-Roman Catholics, but I have to wonder as to how? Obviously, these people who potentially could die in a state of grace are not receiving the Catholic sacraments and therefore not being infused by grace via the sacraments. Therefore, the only option left is infused grace via good works, since the sacraments are ruled out and so is faith in Christ. This of course, overthrows much of the New Testament and it’s emphasis on faith in Christ and what you are left with is purely salvation as a reward for good works. I don’t see any way around this. I would argue that Rome was much more consistent before Vatican II, when they officially opened up salvation to Protestants, Muslims, Jews (by religion), and even Pagans. That said, I am sure Rome has some reason for dogmatizing such, although it would seem to not make much sense on a theological basis.
Therefore, our works and obedience show us to be true children of the King, and not antinomian (no works) or legalist (works to gain life and merit from God) posers. We do good works not to gain anything from God, but simply because we love God, being the recipients of a new heart, and desire nothing more than to please Him and obey his commands. Nothing can be more joyful. Both antinomianism and legalism are errors, and both are considered to be another Gospel. Legalism is condemned by Paul in Galatians 1:6-10,and antinomianism condemned by James in James 2:14-26. Therefore, our works cannot justify us, as this would make God a debtor to us, no matter what motive or reason or system we put forth, but rather, can only be the fruit of a real faith that God has so gifted to the believer. (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 12:3, Heb 12:2) God is no respecter of persons and we cannot, in our sinful fallen state, gain favor with God by anything we do, lest we overthrow God’s perfect holiness in the process. God has commanded perfection ever since the dawn of creation. He cannot command anything less, because anything less would be a compromise of His holiness. Thus, we must be in Christ, our sin-bearer, the perfect lamb of God, with His righteousness, which is perfect, imputed to us. Paul sums up the relationship between faith and works nicely in Ephesians, and on this note we shall be finished here.
Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Due to all the above reasons, I remain a convinced Protestant.
It is also quite right to point out that Protestants do not deny the importance of good works in the life of a Christian. We simply deny that these good works are capable of meriting anything before God, who demands absolute perfection. Protestant doctrine holds that we are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone. It will result in good works springing from a changed nature that desires to please God. Therefore, since God still demands absolute perfection and conformity to His law since He hasn’t changed, it is literally impossible for a person to be justified on these grounds, since not only have all sinned (Rom 3:23), and all are born sinful (Ps 51:5, Rom 5:12-21), but one transgression of God’s Holy Law renders us guilty of breaking all of it (Js 2:10). Simply put, if mankind must stand before God on account of their own righteousness, nobody can possibly be justified, since none have fulfilled the Law in its entirety. If we claim we have no sin, we are liars, according to St. John (1 Jn 1:8-10). Save for one. Jesus Christ.
Let us examine all of the passages that are relevant to the topic at hand. Namely, those which use the phrase “works of the Law” and those that speak about justification and works.
All Scriptures quoted from the ESV.
Romans 3:20: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:27-28: Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:2: For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Romans 4:4: Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Romans 4:6: Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works.
Galatians 2:15-16: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:2: Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Galatians 3:5-6: Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith - just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness?
Galatians 3:10-14: For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the law, and do them. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith. But the law is not of faith, rather The one who does them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree - so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
And then, James 2:14-26.
Thus, Scripture gives us tons of passages that speak about works. To gain an understanding about what the Scriptural teaching is on the topic, we need to define a few things, or else we end up in limbo and the conclusions we come to can easily be refuted on Scriptural grounds. But before we do that, let’s check out all the passages that speak of “works of the law,” since that ultimately is the phrase that gets isolated by those who will in the end disagree with the conclusion that will be drawn here.
Per Scripture, the works of the law will not justify anyone. The question then becomes: what does “works of the law mean?” Generally, there are two main options put forth in regard to this question. First, we have the Roman Catholic idea that “works of the law” refers to Jewish ceremonial observance. Quite often, they appeal to circumcision and other ceremonial rites. Indeed, in Galatians, Paul is rebuking the Judaizers for adding Jewish rites to Christ alone for salvation. They appeal to James chapter 2; especially when James says that works justify a person. The second explanation is the Protestant one, which I will be defending here. That is, that “works of the law” refers to trying to merit any favor before God by good works of law-keeping, which includes of course, the ten commandments. In this interpretation, James is not speaking of the doctrine of justification that declares us righteous before God, but rather, speaking of the difference between a false and spurious faith and a real faith. Faith without works is dead, says James.
Scripture gives us numerous clues as to what the works of the law are. We are told that: No one will be justified by the works of the law…Since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20), and instead through faith in Christ. (Gal 2:15-16)
We also know that the Spirit is received by faith and not works of the law (Gal 3:2), all who rely on works of the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10), no one is justified before God by the law (Gal 3:11), and the one who relies on works of the law must keep the entire book of the law and live by them. (Gal 3:10-11) Hence, we need Christ (Gal 3:12-14), who fulfilled the law on our behalf by becoming a curse for us through His crucifixion (Gal 3:12-14).
We also have the following information regarding works:
If Abraham was justified by works, he could have boasted (Rom 4:2). If works are what justify us before God, we are given our due and not a gift. (Rom 4:4) And we are saved by grace through faith, apart from works. (Eph 2:8-9)
When we boil this down, what we need to determine is if works of the law refers simply to Jewish observance and ceremonial actions or if it refers to doing any work that is in line with the law for justification. Some Roman Catholic apologists take this line of thought. I am convinced that this is not the official position of Rome on the issue though, and we will get to that later. But, we must refute this as well, since it would seem that this interpretation, although not the official Roman Catholic one, is a very popular one used by Roman Catholics. Romans 3 and Galatians are the places we need to go to determine this. And to get a clue as to which answer is proper, we need to examine what St. Paul says regarding works of the law and the reasoning he gives as to why these works of the law cannot justify us.
We first can see that in Romans 3, St. Paul tells us that no human being will be justified by works of the law because through the law comes knowledge of sin. That is, the law is what shows us what sin is. It is to break God’s law. We therefore cannot be justified by these works, since the law shows us what sin is and we have knowledge of this sin through the law that God has given. We also know that St. Paul gave us more reasoning in the same passage, contrasting faith and works at the conclusion off Romans 3. He states here that “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28) and then “since God is one - who will justify the circumcised (Jews) by faith and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) through faith.” (Rom 3:30) He likewise was not an antinomian as he stated the next verse: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Rom 3:31) The point here is that St. Paul is talking about upholding the law as someone who is already justified. Thus, in essence, what he is claiming, as he also does in Galatians, is that following the law is not the manner in which a person is justified before God.
He goes on in Galatians 2 with more of the same, saying that “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.” (Gal 2:16a) This coming directly after saying that he is a Jew and not a Gentile, and neither of them will be justified by law-keeping. He concludes his thought in verse 21, saying “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Gal 2:21)
But Galatians 3 is really the killer for the Jewish observance interpretation, as St. Paul states that “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Gal 3:10) And then, “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:11) And then of course continues on to explain the removal of the law’s curse through Christ’s crucifixion, precisely because we are incapable of being justified by law-keeping.
All of this is fine and dandy, but we also need to answer the question, “how are good works defined?” Because good works must be defined according to something. If they lie outside of God’s law, then in fact an argument could be made for the Jewish observance argument. However, this argument implies that the law itself is only for Jews, and only Jews in the pre-Christ era will be judged according to God’s law. I find this line to be problematic for this interpretation, since everyone universally is considered to be “in Adam,” precisely because Adam sinned and we are born sinners and we also sin, which is simply put - breaking of God’s law. Thus, by definition, sin is defined by God’s law. When we sin, that is exactly what we are doing - missing the mark of God’s holiness. Now I ask then - what answer does Scripture give us in regards to what sin is? The law, of course. Likewise, to not sin would then also be to adhere to the law, which of course means that we are not justified by not sinning. But we also must insist on taking this even another step further. That is to say, that good works are defined by the law as well. Jesus Christ Himself states in Matthew 22:37-40: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the prophets.” This answer our Lord gave was in response to the question “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” (Matt 22:36) This answer that Christ gave is often called the Great Commandment (not to be confused with the Gospel or the Great Commission). Therefore, Christ sums up the law itself by loving God and loving neighbor. Now, good works must be defined in this manner. The works that are done that please God fall in these two categories. Thus, good works themselves are defined by following the law, since the summary of the law is found in Matthew 22:37-40, given by Christ. Thus, our good works cannot justify us, since good works are in essence following the law, since that is the answer Scripture gives us as to what pleases God. Therefore, it is spurious to create a category of good works apart from the law of God, since God Himself is the only one who defines what a good work is, and the answer Scripture gives us as to what actually is a good work is essentially a work pleasing to God that is in line with His law. That (His law) is what He has given us that to define what sin is, and by correlation, what sin is not.
We also must say a couple other things, because all of this could lead us to believe that our sanctification is done by law-keeping, even though our justification is clearly not. Some would affirm this idea. I must reject it for a couple reasons. First, we are conformed to the image of Christ by following the Holy Spirit, not doing works. We do works, yes. But we do not do works just to follow the law. That would be absurd. St. Paul had something like this in mind in the beginning of Galatians 3, when he states “Let me ask you this only: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal 3:2-3) In essence, God does not save us from the curse of the law and justify us apart from our works just to drive us right back to the law to be sanctified.
Second, we also must say that the law is good, righteous, and holy, and there is nothing wrong with the third usage of it. That is, the law gives us a norm for Christian life. Specifically, the Decalogue (ten commandments). But, we do not follow the law for law-keeping sake, as St. Paul rejects in Galatians 3:2-3. On the other hand, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, we now, as New Covenant believers, have the law written upon our hearts (see Eze36:25-27), and we are conformed to Christ by following the Spirit, who brings us to Christ through grace and drives us to desire to please Him. But we also must guard against inventing our own laws that add to God’s. God has given us His, and His is what He has said is pleasing to Him. How presumptuous of us to add our own laws that we think should please Him and neglect the one He has given us!
This all brings us to James. What was James talking about? We have already shown above that good works are best defined on a Scriptural basis ultimately by keeping God’s law, and we have numerous clear statements from St. Paul that no one will be justified by works of the law (Rom 3:20, 28, Gal 2:16, Gal 3:10-14) and that, in more general terms, the biblical report is that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and this is not of ourselves, but is rather God’s gift - which then drives us to good works. (Ephesians 2:8-10) James however, at first glance seems to disagree with Paul. This is not possible of course. As an aside, even a great man of God and theologian Martin Luther had problems reconciling Paul and James. Luther was unsure as to the canonicity of the book of James. But, perhaps Luther simply may not have seen James’ passage in the right light. Digging in, it’s pretty clear what James is trying to say. James makes such statements as “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (Jms 2:14) “Show me your faith apart from your works and I will show you my faith by my works.” (Jms 2:18) And then, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” (Jms 2:21) And, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (Jms 2:24)
The point we need to recognize here is that James is not erecting a false dichotomy between faith and works and separating them to the point of being completely different. If this is the case, then faith becomes no more than mental assent, and Scripture, specifically the New Testament, denies that idea everywhere else. Likewise, faith and obedience are treated as essentially the same in numerous other places in Scripture. They can be distinguished, but never separated. For instance, John 3:36, Hebrews 5:9, Romans 1:5, and Romans 16:26. The biblical report is that true faith will obey. The fruits of the Spirit will be borne, and good works will be the result. Thus, we can discern that even in James 2, that what James is contrasting is not faith and works, but true faith and false faith. He makes this clear by using demons as an example. Even they believe, he says. (Jms 2:19) When viewed in this light, Paul and James are completely consistent with each other. Paul was fighting against legalists in Galatians - those who would add works in order to be justified, while James was fighting the opposite battle; antinomianism. That is, faith with no works, which is a false and dead faith. Our faith needs to be shown by our works, and if our faith is real, it will be. Likewise, James cannot be blasting the Reformation distinctive of justification by faith alone in verse 24, for then he would not only be contradicting Paul, but also creating a new category of works that are classified outside of God’s law, which, as seen above, is very unlikely. Proponents of justification by works love to point out that the only time the phrase “faith alone’ appears in Holy Writ is in James 2:24, when James says that we are not justified by faith alone. But James does not mean it in the same sense that the Reformers and St. Paul meant it. That is, he is not creating a dichotomy between faith and works to the point they are separate, but rather, he is fighting against antinomianism, those who have a false profession but a lifestyle that contradicts what they say. This is the epitome of lying, obviously. The people James is referring to are clearly people who have the same “belief” as the demons he mentions in verse 19. That is, they believe Christ is who he claimed, but they do not possess a faith given by the Spirit of God and do not have the law written on their hearts, evidenced by their lack of works. Therefore, these people are not shown to be just simply by their profession of faith. They may even be part of the visible church, but their professions are severely lacking. Hence all the warnings in Hebrews. There were numerous people in the visible church who had false professions then, and numerous ones who have false professions now. We see that what James is saying here is not that man is justified by doing good works, as if they are a cause for merit, because Paul plainly rebukes that idea, but rather, that a true profession of faith will result in a desire to follow God and obey. A true faith will work.. It’s that simple, especially in numerous other places in Scripture the just are said to “live by faith.” (Rom 1:17, 2 Cor 5:7, etc) Therefore, the works that we do come from our faith, which is the result of a new nature implanted by the Holy Spirit through regeneration. It is precisely in this light that Paul can command us to “work out our own salvation” (Phi 2:12) because “it is God who works in you.” (Phi 2:13) God has worked it in, therefore, we need to work it out, through our obedience and works. This working out can only be done because we already possess salvation, not in order to earn it. If we did not possess it, Paul could not say that “it is God who works in you.” We know, only the adopted children of God have God working in them, since only the saved are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (Rom 8:7-10)
But it is also quite important to point out that I just spent a bunch of time refuting the position of *some* Roman Catholic apologists and of *some* Roman Catholic parishioners. On the other hand, I am convinced that this position is NOT the official position of the Roman Catholic church, as evidenced by the Council of Trent. Therefore, I desire to be very careful not to misrepresent the Roman Catholic position on justification, lest I attempt to refute a straw man, which is absolutely not what I desire to do. As a Reformed guy, I recognize the annoyance of straw men and recognize that refuting a straw man doesn’t really refute anything. Dr. Robert Sungenis, perhaps the most formidable Roman Catholic apologist of the day (seriously - chew on some of his arguments some time, they‘re very well done in many cases), agrees with Reformed Theology in the sense that “works of the law“ cannot be referring to ceremonial observance. Sungenis quotes: “Various Catholic apologists today, when teaching on the meaning of the "works of the law," will often explain it as referring to the ceremonial law of Israel, to the exclusion, or the virtual exclusion, of the remaining law in Israel. (The ceremonial law refers to all the ritual religious practices, such as circumcision, eating kosher foods, priestly sacrifices, seventh-day sabbath observance, etc). Sad to say, that answer is at best a half-truth, and at worst, it is a distortion of the Catholic teaching on Justification.”
He continues “One of the reasons these apologists categorize "works of the law" as referring to the ceremonial law is that they have found it to be an easy polemical tool against Protestants. Protestants say that St. Paul condemns ALL work as having any part in Justification. The Catholic apologist counters by saying that when Paul uses the phrase "works of the law" he does not mean ALL works; he only means the works of the ceremonial law of Israel.”
Now, granted, I think the above arguments I made are a fairly decent refutation of that “easy polemical tool.” I believe that Dr. Sungenis would most likely agree with what I have written above regarding the works of the law (although he would disagree with my explanation of James 2). Sungenis then concludes (regarding this works of the law interpretation): “…the answer he gives as to the distinguishing characteristic (the ceremonial law) is only partially correct, and in being such, it is the wrong answer to this most crucial question.” He also points out, rightfully so, that the biggest Roman Catholic authority on justification, the Council of Trent, never uses that argumentation, and never even went so far to even speak of the ceremonial law regarding justification. Earlier theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with Dr. Sungenis in this regard, and it would seem, most relevant theologians claimed by Rome. Thus, Sungenis, after a long and drawn out argument, says this: “In other words, "works of the law" are precisely what the phrase says - they are works performed in a system of law; works performed under a legal contract; works wherein legal payment is expected. The moral and ceremonial laws, as well as the civil laws of Israel, were all part of the legal system of the Old Covenant -- a legal system that had to be set aside in order to make room for the New Covenant, a system of grace.”
In the main, his arguments seem satisfactory to me as regarding what works of the law are. Sungenis also has some excellent insight when he says the following: “It is important to note that in Romans 4 Paul is teaching that Abraham was Justified by means of the New Covenant of grace, which, because of Christ's anticipated sacrifice, could stretch all the way back to the time of Abraham and beyond, in order to save men. That is why, for example, Hebrews 11:4-7 mentions the prominent saints of old, beginning with Abel and Enoch and Noah, who were saved by faith -- the faith required by the New Covenant in Christ. It is the same reason that Hebrews 11:26 says that Moses "considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt," or why 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that of those who left Egypt "a spiritual rock followed them; and that rock was Christ." The only way anyone was justified in the Old Covenant was on the basis of what Christ would do in the New Covenant.”
But I do not quite understand how the next statement he made can be drawn, when he says: “On the other hand, the circumcision Paul mentions in Romans 4:9-12, and the circumcision in which Abraham and his progeny received, represent the Old Covenant, a covenant of law which had no power to save anyone.” It is important to point out, in this case, that the circumcision Abraham received could not have been a circumcision putting him into a system of law, since the covenant made with Abraham came 430 prior to the giving of the system of law at Sinai that Israel was under. (Gal 3:17) Therefore, the sacrament of circumcision given to Abraham was in essence a sacrament that pointed to circumcision of the heart, which is the result of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant by Jesus Christ. (See Gen 17:1-14) It is no wonder then, that Reformed Theology, as well as Roman Catholicism, sees baptism as the sacrament that replaces circumcision, although the conclusions they draw beyond that are different. Likewise, baptism then symbolizes circumcision of the heart. This of course is to assume that the promise made to Abraham is not the Old Covenant, per se, as that phrase is commonly used too refer to the law given at Sinai, but rather, is the promise of the New Covenant in its pre-Christ form. Thus, to echo Sungenis, even Abraham and all the other elect of God that lived before Christ were indeed justified by grace and not by law keeping of any form.
All of this leads Trent and Dr. Sungenis to answer the question “But aren’t we supposed to obey the moral law?” With an answer that goes like this: “If the moral law is included with the ceremonial law as that which condemns mankind, how does that square with the fact that we are supposed to obey the moral commands of the Old Testament, but not obey the ceremonial commands? The answer is very simple. We are not obeying the moral laws of the Old Covenant. We are obeying the principles of the moral laws found in the Old Covenant. More than that, we are obeying the much improved moral laws, which God placed in the New Covenant. The New Covenant of Jesus Christ borrows from the good laws of the Old Covenant and makes them better.” He then continues: “But notice this important point: It is the WHOLE system of the Old Covenant that must go, not just a part here or there. Those who teach that "works of the law" refers only to the ceremonial law are essentially teaching that only PART of the Old Covenant was set aside. What about the ceremonial law? Isn't it true that we are not to obey the ceremonial law any longer, and didn't Paul make that clear in, for example, Colossians 2:16; while also teaching in Romans 13:9 that we are to obey the moral laws? Well, we already answered the "moral law" question above. We are obeying the principles of the Old Covenant decalogue, but we are no longer under the Old Covenant itself. As for our not obeying the ceremonial laws any longer, that is true, but it is true in the same way that we are no longer obeying the moral laws of the Old Covenant. Rather, we are obeying the principles of the Old Covenant ceremonial laws.” Of course, these ceremonial laws that are now in effect are represented in Catholicism by the seven sacraments.
This brings us to the Roman Catholic view on justification, as articulated by Dr. Sungenis. Sungenis argued at length that the works of the law cannot save us and that the entire law has been set aside. Then he argues this, regarding justification, after using James 2:24 and Romans 2:6-13 as his support: “The reason these works can be rewarded with justification and eternal life is simply that they are NOT rewarded on the basis of debt or law, but on the basis of grace. The only kind of works Paul disallows for justification are works performed in the system of Law, which is a legal system totally devoid of grace. Works performed in the system of grace are always meritorious, because God, by His very nature, seeks to reward those who do good. So notice that its not the KIND of works that is at issue, but the SYSTEM in which one performs those works -- a system of Law (the Old Covenant) or a system of Grace (the New Covenant). One gets into the system of grace by accepting God in faith. Once one believes, then he can work for God, and as he works God will reward him graciously for his efforts. The more one believes and works, the closer he comes to God until, one day, his life is over and God takes him home. There, in heaven, he will receive the ultimate reward of grace.”
And now, it would seem, we have a fuller definition and idea of what the Roman Catholic view of justification is. We must, however, point out some inconsistencies with this view. First of all, after arguing that the whole law has been set aside by the inauguration of the New Covenant and therefore doing the works of the law in order to be justified, Sungenis then argues in the above paragraph that since we are not under the law, we CAN be justified by performing the works that are set forth in the law, or at least, the principles of them. It is important to point out here that Protestants do not reject what we refer to as the third use of the law (also called the normative usage). What we mean by this is that the law can provide the “norms” for Christian life. When we look in Scripture and ask “What pleases God?” The answer Scripture gives us is His law. It would seem then, that the main difference between our two schools of theology revolve around the idea of merit. In Protestant Reformed Theology (including Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Reformational Anglicans), good works are not spurned and licentious living is not endorsed. In fact, we would put forth the argument that such fruits are an indication of a person who is unsaved and therefore not justified. Contrary to popular straw man-ology, Reformed Theology does not promote vile living and antinomianism, and contrary to some dispensationalists, Reformed Theology likewise does not put the Christian under the law. Both of these charges are false. In the same manner, I do not wish to misrepresent Rome; hence my reading of Trent and Dr. Sungenis (who, as I mentioned above, I hold in high regard as a quality theologian - in the sense that he is very thorough, honest, and difficult to refute in many cases). However, at the risk of gaining howls of protests from my Roman Catholic friends, I will state this: If we are attempting to be justified by our works, whether they be from the law or from the principles of the law, it is difficult for me to conclude that we would be under grace, no matter what we call it. In short, it is difficult to see much difference between works justifying us in a system of law or in a system of grace. In both cases, we make God our debtor and attempt to be justified by something we do. If our works are done to gain merit from God and to justify us, it seems to me that grace is completely undermined. The argument quickly degenerates into something like this: Well, we cannot be justified by the works of the law if we are under the law, but we can be justified by the works of the law if we are under grace. Same works, different systems. Thus, the phrase works of the law, to Sungenis, does not mean simply the works done that align with God’s law, but rather, the works done that align with God’s law for people that are under God’s law. Therefore, these same exact works of the law are meritorious for Christians who are not under the law. Same works, same law, but the status of the person is what makes the difference. Thus it would follow that it would not matter much if we claim to be in the New Covenant if we are relying on our works to justify us, especially if those are the same works that are sharply defined by the law of God, since, as Sungenis has claimed, “that its not the KIND of works that is at issue, but the SYSTEM in which one performs those works.” It is, however, pertinent to this topic to point out that St. Paul uses the phrase “works OF the law.” There is no mention by St. Paul in any of these specific passages to “works done UNDER the law” or “works done in a SYSTEM of law.” He simply points out that the works of the law cannot justify. This would imply that the system one is under is irrelevant, since the works OF the law would be the same in either case. Sungenis is forced to change St. Paul's words from works OF the law to works done IN A SYSTEM of law or works done UNDER the law.
Sungenis then concludes: “So, we see that the New Covenant, even though in some respects it is a much improved covenant, in another sense it is even more demanding, for with much freedom comes much responsibility. Now, as opposed to the Old Covenant Law being our judge, such that it could convict us for murder but not be able to peer into our heart to see if we actually hated our brother (cf., Matthew 5:21-24), God, in the New Covenant, is able to peer into our heart and know our most secret motives. And it is upon this basis that the New Covenant judges us (1 Corinthians 4:5; 9:27). Fortunately, God infuses grace into our soul upon confession of sin so that when He looks at us He sees a purified being, justified in His sight. But if we spurn his New Covenant graces, then we will receive the "severer" punishment, a punishment even harsher that what was given in the Old Covenant.”
Looked at in this light (and I would agree with this), Christ’s definitions of the law are even more demanding. It’s also important to note that Christ did not abolish the law, but rather, abolished the theocracy that swore “all this we will do” and failed to do it - namely, because it was impossible for Israel to perfectly obey on a national level, thereby gaining the promised land, and by extension, the eternal rest. Another thing is that since God is an unchanging God, He likewise does not change His law. Granted, more of it is revealed in different books of Scripture, but His entire law remains the same. God’s law is still God’s law and no one has ever been justified by it (because the law can only command) and no one has been justified by doing the works of it, since once again, the law can only command. Therefore, it is impossible to be justified before God by doing, since when God commands us to “do” His requirement for justification based on that doing is nothing less than perfect obedience to all of His precepts. God cannot command anything less. Such would be a violation of his holiness and a compromise on His part. God, by His nature, does not and cannot do this. This was one major point of giving Israel the law and having Israel herself swear the oath, thereby calling the curses on herself for violation, precisely to point us to Christ, who is the law keeper and fulfiller. However, the Abrahamic promise is not like that. God Himself and God alone passed through the halves of the slaughtered animals and not Abraham, thereby calling the curses down on Himself for violation. (Gen 15:12-17) Likewise, God made good on this promise by sending Christ to bear the sins of His people, as Christ took the curse upon Himself by hanging on a tree. (Gal 3:10-14) God alone took the oath for the Abrahamic promise and also the fulfillment thereof - the New Covenant, since God had already taken the oath and promised to take it once again in the ultimate fulfillment thereof. Abraham himself swore nothing. This is completely in contrast to Israel swearing obedience at Sinai and in the numerous renewals of the law found throughout the Old Testament. (Joshua 24, for one) Therefore, how is it possible to be justified by our swearing and doing via doing the works of the law, (even under grace) if we are part of a covenant of grace which God Himself has sworn upon Himself the curses? As Horton has pointed out quite well in his excellent work “Introducing Covenant Theology,” the Sinai covenant given to Israel is a classic suzerainty treaty, where the great King (in this case God) initiates a covenant with a people (in this case Israel) because the great King had done something on their behalf. This is why the giving of the law at Sinai begins with “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Exo 20:2) It begins by stating what God had done for them, and therefore, since He did this, He can then command the following stipulations. In this case, God goes on to give Israel the Decalogue, followed by other various laws that take up Exodus 20-23. When we get to Exodus 24, we see that Israel confirms the covenant by swearing “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do.” (Exo 24:3) The covenant demands perfect obedience on a national level in order to inherit the promised land. Of course, Israel failed miserably on numerous occasions, precisely because perfect national obedience was impossible. God cannot command anything less than perfect obedience, as has been pointed out. Yet God did not cast off Israel. However, God never remembered Israel based on the covenant given at Sinai, since they continually broke that covenant and God Himself swore nothing and therefore was not obligated to remember them at all. In fact, they deserved death and nothing less.
But He remembered Israel based on the covenant He made with Abraham, which was not a classic suzerainty treaty where the great King commanded and the vassal them swore, but rather, it was much closer to another type of covenant called a royal grant. God unilaterally promised and then took the oath Himself. As opposed to Sinai, when God said do all this and only then you will live, the promise given to Abraham was different. God in essence said: “I will do this and you will live.” Quite different. God therefore, dispenses His grace on the basis of His promise (the covenant of grace) and not on the basis of obeying His law, since the works of the law cannot justify, but only God’s grace can. Setting up a new system based on seven sacraments (new and better ceremonies, per Sungenis) is in essence to set up another legal system of ceremonial observance with grace dispensed through these ceremonies and likewise comes very close to denying that there was nothing in God’s law that was gracious, which would be false. On the other hand, we can also observe that in essence Rome has set up the New Covenant as nothing more than a better system of law, and per their definitions, I would agree that it is better. But it still has the form of law in many ways; namely, as it pertains to justification, where Rome claims we ARE justified by obedience to the law (or at least, to the better principles of God’s law), and this is possible only because we are under grace, or in a different system.
This however, confuses works and grace, one of the very things Sungenis labored to point out that the contrast of the two is Paul’s major emphasis in Romans. Another way of saying this is that it confuses law and Gospel, or imperatives and indicatives. This leads Rome to claim, per Sungenis: “In the Old Covenant the ceremonial laws were merely signs and seals of God's promises. But in the New Covenant the ceremonies, that is, the seven sacraments, are not only signs but they do the very thing that the sign signifies! For example, the sign of Baptism replaced the sign of Circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant but it had no power to save. But Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant that actually saves us in the act of being baptized! Not only that, but baptism can be given to Jew and Gentile, male and female, child and adult. It is universal and salvific.” I do not deny that God does work through the sacraments as means of grace, and I do not view the sacraments as works of man, but rather, as gracious works of God as He descends to us, but I have a hard time accepting a system which holds to infused grace, basically turning grace into a metaphysical substance, and salvation through a sacramental system and justification with works of the law (even though we are under grace, per Rome) involved. It is a basic confusion of works and grace, turning works into something meritorious that can gain us more grace, but only if we are under grace in the first place. It almost makes one wonder -and this is a mere observation on my part- if there is some sort of sliding scale of justification in this system, where grace is infused via the sacraments and by good works of the principles of the law, and if non-Catholics need to do that much more good works to have the grace infused that they aren’t receiving through the sacraments. I do know that Roman Catholicism does open up ways of salvation for non-Roman Catholics, but I have to wonder as to how? Obviously, these people who potentially could die in a state of grace are not receiving the Catholic sacraments and therefore not being infused by grace via the sacraments. Therefore, the only option left is infused grace via good works, since the sacraments are ruled out and so is faith in Christ. This of course, overthrows much of the New Testament and it’s emphasis on faith in Christ and what you are left with is purely salvation as a reward for good works. I don’t see any way around this. I would argue that Rome was much more consistent before Vatican II, when they officially opened up salvation to Protestants, Muslims, Jews (by religion), and even Pagans. That said, I am sure Rome has some reason for dogmatizing such, although it would seem to not make much sense on a theological basis.
Therefore, our works and obedience show us to be true children of the King, and not antinomian (no works) or legalist (works to gain life and merit from God) posers. We do good works not to gain anything from God, but simply because we love God, being the recipients of a new heart, and desire nothing more than to please Him and obey his commands. Nothing can be more joyful. Both antinomianism and legalism are errors, and both are considered to be another Gospel. Legalism is condemned by Paul in Galatians 1:6-10,and antinomianism condemned by James in James 2:14-26. Therefore, our works cannot justify us, as this would make God a debtor to us, no matter what motive or reason or system we put forth, but rather, can only be the fruit of a real faith that God has so gifted to the believer. (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 12:3, Heb 12:2) God is no respecter of persons and we cannot, in our sinful fallen state, gain favor with God by anything we do, lest we overthrow God’s perfect holiness in the process. God has commanded perfection ever since the dawn of creation. He cannot command anything less, because anything less would be a compromise of His holiness. Thus, we must be in Christ, our sin-bearer, the perfect lamb of God, with His righteousness, which is perfect, imputed to us. Paul sums up the relationship between faith and works nicely in Ephesians, and on this note we shall be finished here.
Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Due to all the above reasons, I remain a convinced Protestant.
7/26/11
What Then, is Faith?
It is a terribly important question that needs to be answered. What exactly is faith? Throughout church history, numerous opinions and ideas have developed on what the content of faith is. Some would have us believe that the sum total of faith is simply to believe that Christ existed and was who He said He was. Medieval scholars, reflecting a Romanizing tendency, would have us believe that faith is simply faith in everything the authoritative and infallible church teaches, hence the later dogma of implicit faith. Others would have us believe that true faith is simply an assent to true doctrines. Now, we must grant that in all three of these, there is an element of truth. We had better believe Christ is who He said He is. We also are wise if we take the council of the history of the Christian church as they followed the canon of the covenant, which is Scripture. After all, the same Holy Spirit who leads us into truth lead them into truth many years ago. And we should hope that God will reveal correct doctrines to us. Faith is a huge topic in Scripture, and it behooves us to define it properly. We know from Scripture numerous things regarding faith. For instance:
Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Romans 5:1: Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 2:8: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God.
So, among other things, we know from Scripture that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, we are justified by faith, and we are saved by grace through faith, which is the gift of God. Scripture has much more to say about faith as well, but for our purposes here, the goal we are shooting for is to define what faith is.
First, let us explore some ideas regarding faith that either are incorrect or incomplete.
a. That faith is a mental assent to certain facts.
In the case of Christian faith, this is certainly part of faith, but it is not a saving faith. It does not tell us the whole story and in effect, it ends up with a decided antinomian tendency. Some theologians of a free grace bent, tend to go this far as well, such as Zane Hodges. Now granted, I tend to sit on the fence line of the discussion between free grace and Lordship salvation, but I believe taking the free grace stance to this level is an unhealthy extreme and ends up defining faith in a way that is not biblical. Hodges has written that conversion to Christ involves “no spiritual commitment whatsoever.” One wonders if repentance and sanctification are eliminated altogether. On the other hand, some within the Lordship camp have essentially ruined assurance of salvation altogether, or at the very least made it completely subjective, connecting assurance of salvation with the inward work of the Holy Spirit and by extension, not sinning. This cannot be the case, however, as will be discussed below. If the free grace position is defined properly, it guards against antinomianism and rejects legalism. Likewise, so does the Lordship position. Properly defined, free grace salvation is not “easy-believism,” as is the charge that many Lordship proponents level at the stance. Also, Lordship does not smuggle in works, as many free gracers charge. If Lordship proponents are referring to the stance of the extremists such as Hodges, their charges are justified. The problem that the extreme free grace proponents must guard against is the outright elimination of repentance from the Gospel call and the Christian life. This wrong idea of faith is precisely what James was writing against in James 2:14-26. This faith that he is battling against is a “faith” that is nothing more than a mental belief in facts. It is a faith that says: “I believe that Christ is who he said. He is the Son of God and lived, was crucified, and raised. Then He ascended to heaven.” Now, this is all completely true and every Christian person who has ever lived believes this. But, this is not a full definition of saving faith. There is more to it, for as James says: “Even the demons believe - and shudder!” Thus, we can assert that even Satan and his minions believe this much. They all know for a fact that God is one and that Jesus Christ lived, died, and was raised. Thus, this definition of faith cannot be the biblical one.
b. That faith is assent and belief to church teaching.
This definition was mainly put forth by medieval scholars and has carried over into Roman Catholicism, even to this day. To be fair, even in modern Roman Catholicism, they do not rule out personal faith in Christ by this, but this is generally how the Catechism tends to define faith. However, due to this definition, faith in essence became something that justifies only when that faith is completed by working through love. Thus, what is referred to as justifying faith basically became another virtue, in the same vein as hope or love. This basically makes faith an act of doing on the part of the person, as opposed to an act of receiving. The major issue with this definition is of course that the object of said faith is not Christ, but rather the church.
c. That faith is an assent to true doctrines.
From the outset, we can say that faith is going to assent to true doctrines, in the same way that faith will assent to who Christ is, as that is a true doctrine. Again we have a partial definition that does not tell us the entire story. Some factions within Christianity have taken this idea to the point of salvation by knowledge, damning everyone else in the process. That is to say, if a person claiming to be a Christian cannot articulate certain doctrines of the faith, then they are viewed as reprobates. The point that is missed in all of this is that clarity of articulation and perfect doctrine is a far cry from outright rejection of truth, when true and proper doctrines are presented to the believer.
So then, what is faith? We can say that faith involves more than just assent and more than just knowledge. I would argue that faith involves knowledge and assent, but also trust. Faith is given sharper definition by doctrine, but that faith is not directed at the doctrines for doctrine sake, but is directed towards our Triune God as He has shown Himself to us through the redeemer, the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Edmund Schlink, a Lutheran scholar, has said this: “The faith here spoken of is not that possessed by the devil and the ungodly, who also believe the history of Christ’s suffering and resurrection from the dead, but we mean such true faith as believes that we receive grace and forgiveness of sin through Christ.” In other words, faith that is true does not merely assent and acknowledge the truth about Christ, but receives and clings to Christ, because not only did He accomplish His glorious work for mankind, but specifically, for me. Agreeing with the Lutheran definition, the Heidelberg Catechism says much of the same: “True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a firm confidence which the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.” And John Calvin in The Institutes adds: Faith is “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”
We also must realize that faith in itself is not a cause. Faith receives, it does not merit. Thus, when we speak of justification, we should recognize that it cannot be faith itself that is the grounds of that justification. It cannot be the basis, as only the meritorious work of Christ can be. Faith receives - it lays hold of Christ and His merits. Michael Horton has some good insight here when he states that “Strictly speaking, one is not justified by faith but by Christ’s righteousness which is received through faith.” Since faith receives and cannot be considered a cause, we must likewise recognize that faith itself does not look inwardly, since the faith that we are given comes to us not from our inner being, but from a source outside of ourselves. Horton says again that “This means that in the act of justification faith is itself completely passive, receiving a gift, not offering one. The faith that justifies is immediately active in love, honoring God and serving neighbor, but this active love is faith’s fruit, not the act of justifying faith itself.” Horton continues, “Given our native instincts, we can always turn gospel back into law - in this case, by making faith into faithfulness, the act of receiving into an act of working.”
All of this, is of course diametrically opposed to much of the above definitions of faith that do not do the biblical example justice. In Arminianism, for example, faith is turned into a cause, essentially making faith itself the reason and basis as to how we are accepted into God’s family. This, fleshed out to its conclusion, turns faith into a work of merit that garners us favor before God, elevating faith to an act of the will and not a gift of God, and turning it into an instrument to gain acceptance before the Triune God. Such would be an addition to the work of Christ in salvation, and we essentially would be left with Christ’s work + my acceptance. On the contrary, the Biblical example has our faith as a channel which receives the benefits flowing from God. Our faith itself is a gift, as Ephesians 2:8, Romans 12:3, and Hebrews 12:2 remind us. Likewise, liberal theologies turn faith into inner experience and fall into the pit of Gnosticism or mysticism in many cases. Mysticism destroys the theological doctrine that salvation comes to us from an external source through the God-ordained means of grace that he has provided. This leads Horton to conclude that “In all of these ways, faith loses its specific object (Christ and all His benefits)and therefore its proper character as an act of receiving that which has already been achieved for us. In the act of justification, we must insist, faith merely receives, embraces, and clings to Christ; it does not do anything but receives everything.”
Therefore, faith, by definition is not just a hopeful, wishful, or even highly probable opinion. How can it be that? If someone is banking their life on what amounts to “a good chance,” how can that be considered a true faith? Eat your heart out, Blaise Pascal. I have heard it said by numerous folks that it is impossible to know anything with much of a degree of certainty. And most of these folks claimed to be Christians! I hearken back to John Calvin’s words that faith is “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.” Faith is also not something that we naturally can concoct up ourselves in anything we would like, of which faith in Christ would be a subset, because we do not naturally have faith in the work of Christ. It is not an inherent property of human nature. I have seen Romans 12:3 yanked out of context to support the idea that everyone universally has faith. Specifically, the finale of the verse which says that “each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” But the same apostle writes in his second letter to the Thessalonians “For not all have faith.” (2 Thess 3:2) Faith, likewise, cannot be said to be some sort of general trust and belief in God and the promises He has made. That would amount to a slightly elevated mental assent. Nay - faith, true faith, is defined by the Gospel, says Horton, “is the specific conviction of the heart, mind, and will that God is gracious to us in Jesus Christ on the basis of God’s Word. Faith is clinging to Christ.”
We also must recognize that inherent in the faith that is given to us is assurance. Scripture speaks at length about assurance. Thus, if God has inspired the authors of Scripture to write regarding assurance, it is a topic that should be studied and learned. As we have seen far above, the author of Hebrews begins the 11th chapter by saying that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for.” Contrary to this passage, Roman Catholic teaching does not allow for assurance, since faith is linked directly to assent to the teachings of the church. Even when this faith is worked out through love, believers can still not have assurance of being finally saved. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.” But, having assurance of final salvation is regarded as presumptuous or even arrogant. The Reformers insisted that this could not be the case. In fact, they argued in an opposite direction. Namely, that faith IS assurance precisely because Christ’s work that merits salvation is finished and complete. Likewise, the Reformers argued that even though our faith and repentance remain imperfect this side of glory, we can still have assurance because assurance comes from outside of ourselves. Again we see that faith does not gain assurance by looking inward. Our assurance is not increased by our doing or our loving. Granted, subjectively speaking, we certainly can experience different levels of assurance precisely because our faith and repentance can and do waver as we await the final day. However, believers in Christ have objective assurance because the work of Christ is not an inward experience, but rather an historical objective fact. Lutheran and Reformed confessions have agreed on this definition regarding assurance. We grant that some later branches of Reformed Theology, namely the Puritans, tended to separate faith from assurance, as did some Pietistic Lutherans. The problem with this separation is that now assurance is based on how much faith a person has or how ‘good’ it is. This of course makes assurance wholly subjective, since it looks inwardly instead of externally to the unchanging Christ, whose work is complete, and to a God who will never waver. Likewise, Romans 12:3 tells us that God has assigned measures of faith to all of His children. Thus, instead of looking to the finished work of Christ, we end up looking inwardly, and our assurance is shaken, since we are sinful, changing, and downright fickle creatures in some regards. Ah, but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Heb 13:8)
Therefore, we see that faith is much more than bare assent or bare knowledge of true doctrines, although those two things are certainly important and faith indeed will receive as much. It is also a complete trust in God to save me, through the work of Jesus Christ, which is given to us by grace alone and received through faith alone, which causes us then to work in love. And likewise, we see that we can have assurance - not by looking inwardly at what we are doing or how we are “walking,” but by looking externally at the finished work of Christ. We indeed have come to “Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24)
Hebrews 11:1-3: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Amen.
Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Romans 5:1: Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 2:8: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God.
So, among other things, we know from Scripture that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, we are justified by faith, and we are saved by grace through faith, which is the gift of God. Scripture has much more to say about faith as well, but for our purposes here, the goal we are shooting for is to define what faith is.
First, let us explore some ideas regarding faith that either are incorrect or incomplete.
a. That faith is a mental assent to certain facts.
In the case of Christian faith, this is certainly part of faith, but it is not a saving faith. It does not tell us the whole story and in effect, it ends up with a decided antinomian tendency. Some theologians of a free grace bent, tend to go this far as well, such as Zane Hodges. Now granted, I tend to sit on the fence line of the discussion between free grace and Lordship salvation, but I believe taking the free grace stance to this level is an unhealthy extreme and ends up defining faith in a way that is not biblical. Hodges has written that conversion to Christ involves “no spiritual commitment whatsoever.” One wonders if repentance and sanctification are eliminated altogether. On the other hand, some within the Lordship camp have essentially ruined assurance of salvation altogether, or at the very least made it completely subjective, connecting assurance of salvation with the inward work of the Holy Spirit and by extension, not sinning. This cannot be the case, however, as will be discussed below. If the free grace position is defined properly, it guards against antinomianism and rejects legalism. Likewise, so does the Lordship position. Properly defined, free grace salvation is not “easy-believism,” as is the charge that many Lordship proponents level at the stance. Also, Lordship does not smuggle in works, as many free gracers charge. If Lordship proponents are referring to the stance of the extremists such as Hodges, their charges are justified. The problem that the extreme free grace proponents must guard against is the outright elimination of repentance from the Gospel call and the Christian life. This wrong idea of faith is precisely what James was writing against in James 2:14-26. This faith that he is battling against is a “faith” that is nothing more than a mental belief in facts. It is a faith that says: “I believe that Christ is who he said. He is the Son of God and lived, was crucified, and raised. Then He ascended to heaven.” Now, this is all completely true and every Christian person who has ever lived believes this. But, this is not a full definition of saving faith. There is more to it, for as James says: “Even the demons believe - and shudder!” Thus, we can assert that even Satan and his minions believe this much. They all know for a fact that God is one and that Jesus Christ lived, died, and was raised. Thus, this definition of faith cannot be the biblical one.
b. That faith is assent and belief to church teaching.
This definition was mainly put forth by medieval scholars and has carried over into Roman Catholicism, even to this day. To be fair, even in modern Roman Catholicism, they do not rule out personal faith in Christ by this, but this is generally how the Catechism tends to define faith. However, due to this definition, faith in essence became something that justifies only when that faith is completed by working through love. Thus, what is referred to as justifying faith basically became another virtue, in the same vein as hope or love. This basically makes faith an act of doing on the part of the person, as opposed to an act of receiving. The major issue with this definition is of course that the object of said faith is not Christ, but rather the church.
c. That faith is an assent to true doctrines.
From the outset, we can say that faith is going to assent to true doctrines, in the same way that faith will assent to who Christ is, as that is a true doctrine. Again we have a partial definition that does not tell us the entire story. Some factions within Christianity have taken this idea to the point of salvation by knowledge, damning everyone else in the process. That is to say, if a person claiming to be a Christian cannot articulate certain doctrines of the faith, then they are viewed as reprobates. The point that is missed in all of this is that clarity of articulation and perfect doctrine is a far cry from outright rejection of truth, when true and proper doctrines are presented to the believer.
So then, what is faith? We can say that faith involves more than just assent and more than just knowledge. I would argue that faith involves knowledge and assent, but also trust. Faith is given sharper definition by doctrine, but that faith is not directed at the doctrines for doctrine sake, but is directed towards our Triune God as He has shown Himself to us through the redeemer, the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Edmund Schlink, a Lutheran scholar, has said this: “The faith here spoken of is not that possessed by the devil and the ungodly, who also believe the history of Christ’s suffering and resurrection from the dead, but we mean such true faith as believes that we receive grace and forgiveness of sin through Christ.” In other words, faith that is true does not merely assent and acknowledge the truth about Christ, but receives and clings to Christ, because not only did He accomplish His glorious work for mankind, but specifically, for me. Agreeing with the Lutheran definition, the Heidelberg Catechism says much of the same: “True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a firm confidence which the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.” And John Calvin in The Institutes adds: Faith is “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”
We also must realize that faith in itself is not a cause. Faith receives, it does not merit. Thus, when we speak of justification, we should recognize that it cannot be faith itself that is the grounds of that justification. It cannot be the basis, as only the meritorious work of Christ can be. Faith receives - it lays hold of Christ and His merits. Michael Horton has some good insight here when he states that “Strictly speaking, one is not justified by faith but by Christ’s righteousness which is received through faith.” Since faith receives and cannot be considered a cause, we must likewise recognize that faith itself does not look inwardly, since the faith that we are given comes to us not from our inner being, but from a source outside of ourselves. Horton says again that “This means that in the act of justification faith is itself completely passive, receiving a gift, not offering one. The faith that justifies is immediately active in love, honoring God and serving neighbor, but this active love is faith’s fruit, not the act of justifying faith itself.” Horton continues, “Given our native instincts, we can always turn gospel back into law - in this case, by making faith into faithfulness, the act of receiving into an act of working.”
All of this, is of course diametrically opposed to much of the above definitions of faith that do not do the biblical example justice. In Arminianism, for example, faith is turned into a cause, essentially making faith itself the reason and basis as to how we are accepted into God’s family. This, fleshed out to its conclusion, turns faith into a work of merit that garners us favor before God, elevating faith to an act of the will and not a gift of God, and turning it into an instrument to gain acceptance before the Triune God. Such would be an addition to the work of Christ in salvation, and we essentially would be left with Christ’s work + my acceptance. On the contrary, the Biblical example has our faith as a channel which receives the benefits flowing from God. Our faith itself is a gift, as Ephesians 2:8, Romans 12:3, and Hebrews 12:2 remind us. Likewise, liberal theologies turn faith into inner experience and fall into the pit of Gnosticism or mysticism in many cases. Mysticism destroys the theological doctrine that salvation comes to us from an external source through the God-ordained means of grace that he has provided. This leads Horton to conclude that “In all of these ways, faith loses its specific object (Christ and all His benefits)and therefore its proper character as an act of receiving that which has already been achieved for us. In the act of justification, we must insist, faith merely receives, embraces, and clings to Christ; it does not do anything but receives everything.”
Therefore, faith, by definition is not just a hopeful, wishful, or even highly probable opinion. How can it be that? If someone is banking their life on what amounts to “a good chance,” how can that be considered a true faith? Eat your heart out, Blaise Pascal. I have heard it said by numerous folks that it is impossible to know anything with much of a degree of certainty. And most of these folks claimed to be Christians! I hearken back to John Calvin’s words that faith is “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.” Faith is also not something that we naturally can concoct up ourselves in anything we would like, of which faith in Christ would be a subset, because we do not naturally have faith in the work of Christ. It is not an inherent property of human nature. I have seen Romans 12:3 yanked out of context to support the idea that everyone universally has faith. Specifically, the finale of the verse which says that “each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” But the same apostle writes in his second letter to the Thessalonians “For not all have faith.” (2 Thess 3:2) Faith, likewise, cannot be said to be some sort of general trust and belief in God and the promises He has made. That would amount to a slightly elevated mental assent. Nay - faith, true faith, is defined by the Gospel, says Horton, “is the specific conviction of the heart, mind, and will that God is gracious to us in Jesus Christ on the basis of God’s Word. Faith is clinging to Christ.”
We also must recognize that inherent in the faith that is given to us is assurance. Scripture speaks at length about assurance. Thus, if God has inspired the authors of Scripture to write regarding assurance, it is a topic that should be studied and learned. As we have seen far above, the author of Hebrews begins the 11th chapter by saying that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for.” Contrary to this passage, Roman Catholic teaching does not allow for assurance, since faith is linked directly to assent to the teachings of the church. Even when this faith is worked out through love, believers can still not have assurance of being finally saved. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.” But, having assurance of final salvation is regarded as presumptuous or even arrogant. The Reformers insisted that this could not be the case. In fact, they argued in an opposite direction. Namely, that faith IS assurance precisely because Christ’s work that merits salvation is finished and complete. Likewise, the Reformers argued that even though our faith and repentance remain imperfect this side of glory, we can still have assurance because assurance comes from outside of ourselves. Again we see that faith does not gain assurance by looking inward. Our assurance is not increased by our doing or our loving. Granted, subjectively speaking, we certainly can experience different levels of assurance precisely because our faith and repentance can and do waver as we await the final day. However, believers in Christ have objective assurance because the work of Christ is not an inward experience, but rather an historical objective fact. Lutheran and Reformed confessions have agreed on this definition regarding assurance. We grant that some later branches of Reformed Theology, namely the Puritans, tended to separate faith from assurance, as did some Pietistic Lutherans. The problem with this separation is that now assurance is based on how much faith a person has or how ‘good’ it is. This of course makes assurance wholly subjective, since it looks inwardly instead of externally to the unchanging Christ, whose work is complete, and to a God who will never waver. Likewise, Romans 12:3 tells us that God has assigned measures of faith to all of His children. Thus, instead of looking to the finished work of Christ, we end up looking inwardly, and our assurance is shaken, since we are sinful, changing, and downright fickle creatures in some regards. Ah, but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Heb 13:8)
Therefore, we see that faith is much more than bare assent or bare knowledge of true doctrines, although those two things are certainly important and faith indeed will receive as much. It is also a complete trust in God to save me, through the work of Jesus Christ, which is given to us by grace alone and received through faith alone, which causes us then to work in love. And likewise, we see that we can have assurance - not by looking inwardly at what we are doing or how we are “walking,” but by looking externally at the finished work of Christ. We indeed have come to “Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24)
Hebrews 11:1-3: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Amen.
6/7/11
Gospel
Christianity - What The Gospel Is - And What It Isn’t
Getting the Gospel right is terribly important. If we get it wrong, we have, by definition, a false Gospel. Scripture warns us that false Gospels are damning. The apostle Paul says in Galatians 1:8-9: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a Gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Those are some strong words from the apostle Paul. False Gospels are accursed. Thus, getting the Gospel right is of utmost importance.
What the Gospel is not
There are a lot of goofy ideas that have crept into Christianity regarding what the Gospel is. Not everyone who claims Christ has the Gospel correct, and the sad truth about this lamentable situation is that tons of people that lay claim to Jesus Christ may be trusting in a false Gospel.
False Gospel #1: Love God and Love Others
Although this is a true statement, this isn’t the Gospel. This is probably the single biggest error made today, that the Gospel is simply to love God and love others. Jesus Himself tells us in response to the Pharisees asking the question: “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” (Matthew 22:36) Jesus replies: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40) Notice what question Jesus is answering here - it was about the LAW, not the Gospel. Loving God and loving other is commanded of us, but it isn’t the Gospel. We know from elsewhere in Scripture that no one can possibly be justified by doing the Law. First, James tells us that “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” (James 2:10) Paul states: “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith.” (Galatians 3:11) Are we to love God and love others? Of course we are. No Christian would answer any differently. But it’s not what justifies us and not what saves us.
False Gospel #2: God Loves You and Has a Wonderful Plan for Your Life
Again, we have a statement that isn’t totally wrong. God does love us and God’s plan is always the best plan. But this is not the Gospel either.
False Gospel #3: Jesus Died So You Can Have Your Best Life Now
Oh really? I wonder what the apostles would have said to this? History tells us they were all martyred. Not only that, but doesn’t Jesus call us to give up self serving? We are told to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow him. Likewise, Paul tells us: “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our Spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs - heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him. (Romans 8:16-17) Contrary to the false Gospel preached by Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and all the other Word-Faith nonsense pushers, Paul states something totally contrary to what they swear is Christianity. Paul says: we’re going to suffer for Christ. Word-Faith says: through God, we will become healthy and wealthy. What a bunch of trash.
Another slogan or saying worth mentioning here is: “Live the Gospel.” Although this in itself is not a false Gospel, per se, we also must recognize that this statement, although very popular, is false on the face of it. The reason is that we do not “live the Gospel.” The Gospel is not about us, and we are not the Gospel. The essence of the Gospel is that it is good NEWS. It’s not good living, it’s not good advice. It’s news - it happened. It is the pronouncement and proclamation of an objective historical event. Namely, the work of Christ.
The Gospel is, as alluded to above, a proclamation of the finished work of Christ. Paul reminds us: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5) The Gospel is about what Christ DID, not what we do. In other words, it’s just not about us. We may live in light of the Gospel, but we do not live the Gospel itself. And Christianity, at its heart, is a Gospel. In opposition to all other false religions of man, Christianity is about what God has done for us in Christ, as opposed to what we do to gain God. It’s divine accomplishment versus human striving to reach God. It’s about what was done on our behalf by Jesus Christ. Therefore, repent and believe the Gospel.
2/23/11
Premillennialism? Not me...
Why I am not a Premillennialist: A Short Case Against Premillennialism and for Amillennialism
I have contemplated blogging on this particular subject for quite some time now. It’s an important subject, to be sure. Yet on the other hand, I don’t see it as a subject worth dividing over. The majority of people I know are premillennial, and dispensational premillennial at that. (as opposed to historic premillennialism) And of course, these many folks that I know are no less Christian than those of us who are not premillennialists. However, I have noticed that premillennialists, especially of the dispensational variety, are very quick to levy derogatory terms at non-premillennialists. In this blog I first intend to show that the labeling done by premillennialists towards non-premillennialists is quite unfair and is not representative of what non-premillennialists hold to, sometimes even crossing over into serious misrepresentation. After covering these straw men arguments that are used against non-premillennialists (specifically covenant theologians), I will then move into the major premise of this blog. That is, why I am not a premillennialist.
It is of importance to note, from the outset, that much of the disagreements I put forth in this essay are directed at dispensationalism. But I also must say in reply to that a few things. First, I do not consider dispensationalist heresy or by any means outside of orthodox Christianity. The system as a whole has taken quite a lot of heat since its inception. It’s origins are generally attributed to J. N. Darby, originator of the Plymouth Brethren movement, which Darby simply called the Brethren. While it is true that Darby may have been the first one, and surely one of the first, to systematize dispensationalism, that does not make it inherently incorrect simply based on its newness as a system. As always, our infallible covenant canon is Holy Writ, and our infallible guide is the Holy Spirit. Thus, my comments, criticisms, and disagreements with dispensationalist thought should not be taken as scathing insults, and hopefully I can be objective enough to avoid straw men and ad hominem attacks in my disagreements with the system. I now will push forth into my arguments against premillennialism and in favor of amillennialism. I seek to show that amillennial eschatology is certainly not just a big spiritualization of Scripture, but rather, arises from a literal and consistent interpretation of the Word, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture and the clear to guide us in our interpretations of the vague (analogia fidei - the analogy of faith). I do of course heartily accept dispensational thinkers as brothers and sisters in Christ, and indeed, as no less “Christian” than the rest of us. That said, my disagreements with the system are many, and fundamental to how orthodox Christianity has, for the entire church age, understood the canon of the covenant, that is, the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God.
Although dispensationalists, especially in recent days, have undertaken quite a bit of straw men arguments and even ad hominem attacks, seeming to insist that they know covenant theology better than the covenanters themselves no matter how loudly the covenanters protest, covenant theologians have done the same thing. Neither side is immune from the fallen human nature we have received from Adam’s sin. Thus, this debate is an “in-house” discussion, as it were. The tone of it, in the interest of Christian charity, should be kept gracious. We have the same gospel, after all, and therefore are both members of the body of Christ. The charge of heresy should for certain be kept completely out of this discussion, and I will not use it here, unless it pops up in a quote that I use. There will always be the normal back-and-forth between the two camps, making each others position look extreme. As much as the dispensationalists insist that covenanters are “replacement” theologians (we’re not, I’ll cover that below), the covenanters love to label the dispensationalists as Sensationalists, or DispenSensationalists. I will do my best to deal faithfully with the Biblical texts I quote as well as the arguments I formulate, knowing full well that as for now all of us see through a glass dimly and none of us has perfect knowledge. Our salvation remains by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and all for the glory of God alone; not by some neo-Gnostic idea of salvation by perfect knowledge, or by some inner experience through a personal revelation, as many seem to assert these days. But, as salvation has always been, it comes to us externally, accomplished by the historical and objective finished work of the God-man Jesus Christ, who alone is worthy of our praise and worship. It is finished, said our Lord. The rest is mere out-workings of how that finished work of redemption is applied. Let us begin by addressing the common arguments dispensationalists use against covenant theologians.
Argument #1: Covenant Theology is “Replacement” Theology
This is by far the biggest charge levied at CT. It has unfortunately nearly gotten to the point in premillennial circles where this terminology is basically an assumption, or a given. What they mean by this is simple: they accuse covenanters of holding to the belief that the Gentile church has “replaced” Israel (the ethnic Jews) as God’s chosen people. And sadly, when I have tried to explain that this is not what covenanters believe, they insist that we do. Evidently they know what we believe better than we do.
The problem is, as any Covenant Theologian will tell you, this is an unfounded accusation, and is certainly not what Covenant Theology teaches. What CT teaches is much better described as “expansion” theology as opposed to “replacement” theology. CT teaches that there has always been one people of God, called the elect, who are comprised of Jew, Gentile, and every other nationality and race imaginable. In Old Testament this was comprised mostly ethnic Jews, but even then, there were Gentiles grafted in (Rahab and Ruth, for example). Upon the coming of the messiah, who is Jesus Christ, the covenants are fulfilled and the New Covenant inaugurated. The key to this stance is to identify who the heirs of the promise given to Abraham are. Per Paul, who was the apostle to the Gentiles, the heirs of the promise are those in Christ. (Gal 3:16, 29)
Paul as well gives us one particular discourse that proves there are more than one Israel. In Romans 9:6 he makes the statement: “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” This verse alone shows that it is not ethnic descent that makes one a member of the Israel of God, or the “Spiritual” Israel. He then argues further: “and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” (Rom 9:7-8 ESV) Paul then argues further that God has been electing whom He will to salvation, even within national Israel, as Paul uses examples from Israel’s history. (Rom 9:9-23) Then the all important statement: “even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Rom 9:24) Thus, God has elected His people from ethnic Israel as well as from the Gentiles, as He has always done.
Thus, the heirs of the promise given to Abraham are those of the same faith as Abraham, whether they be Jewish or Gentile, not the ethnic Jews, who are children according to the flesh. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles is very clear in this regard. (See Rom 9:6-29, Gal 3:15-29, Gal 4:21-31, Eph 2:11-3:6)
Argument #2: Covenanters don’t interpret Scripture literally.
This argument is sloppy at best, especially in light of the New Testament. The dispensational hermeneutic insists that Old Testament prophecy is the determinant of interpreting New Testament prophetic data. On the other hand, Covenant Theology sees the data in the New Testament as the determinative category by which Old Testament prophecy and future eschatology is to be interpreted. This of course leaves dispensationalists and their supposed literal interpretation in some pretty awkward spots by insisting on an Old Testament literal interpretation of a passage that has been reinterpreted by an apostle in light of the messianic age that has dawned in Jesus Christ.
This is how Covenant Theologians interpret prophecy: According to Floyd Hamilton, “In fact a good working rule to follow is that the literal interpretation of the prophecy is to be accepted a) unless the passages contain obviously figurative language, or b) unless the New Testament gives authority for interpreting them in other than a literal sense, or c) unless a literal interpretation would produce a contradiction with truths, principles, or factual statements contained in non-symbolic books of the New Testament. Another obvious rule to be followed is that the clearest New Testament passages in non-symbolic books are to be the norm for the interpretation of prophecy, rather than obscure or partial revelations contained in the Old Testament. In other words we should accept the clear and plain parts of Scripture as a basis for getting the true meaning of the more difficult parts of Scripture.”1
Charles Ryrie expresses the dispensational hermeneutic: “Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation…The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ - His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection - were all fulfilled literally. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament…The dispensationalist claims to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible.”2
The two methods of interpretation are certainly not the same, but they are not so different as to end up with different Gospels or anything like that. So how do literalist dispensationalists approach certain texts? Well, always literally, of course. However, this, in my opinion, presents some massive problems with numerous Biblical texts. A few examples might suffice.
Daniel 9:24-27 has been called the lynchpin passage of dispensationalism by different dispensationalists. This passage is the famous “seventy weeks” prophecy made by Daniel. But the dispensational interpretation of this crucial passage is non-literal! I repeat, the self-professed literal hermeneutic of dispensationalists is thrown out the door in a passage they view as the key that unlocks the book of Revelation. (once again interpreting the NT in light of the OT, instead of the NT unlocking the OT) How do they interpret it non-literally? Simple: They insert a 2000+ year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel that is never mentioned or implied in the passage. How is that a literal interpretation?
Another example is from the book of Acts. In Acts 15, the apostles were faced with the question of: should Gentile converts be circumcised in order to be saved? Paul and Barnabas reported that God was doing great things among the Gentiles (15:4). Certain Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said that they should be circumcised. (15:5) Peter then refuted the Pharisees arguments, culminating his refutation in 15:11 by saying: “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” Then James stood up and spoke, saying: “God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,…” And then he cited a passage from Amos 9:11-12: “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.” (15:16-18) James saw this prophecy as fulfilled by Christ’s resurrection, and the reconstruction of His disciples as the true Israel. The presence of off Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians in the church was evidence to James that the prophecy of Amos had been fulfilled. The fallen tent of David had been rebuilt by Jesus Christ.
Was James “spiritualizing” an Old Testament prophecy by applying it to the church? Or was James simply reading the OT and this prophecy through a Christocentric lens?
The Scofield Reference Bible (C.I. Scofield - a famous dispensationalist) claims that this speech given by James is the most important in the NT. According to Scofield, James is describing what will happen after the conclusion of the church age - in the millennial kingdom thousands of years future to James and the other disciples, when God re-establishes a Davidic rule over Israel. If this is the truth, when Paul and Barnabas looked for advice on what to do for an issue that they were dealing with then, James replied with an answer thousands of years in the future. As Kim Riddlebarger points out, “Here is one instance in which dispensational presuppositions get in the way of the plain sense of the text. Scofield interprets the text literalistically, not literally.”3 And as he also points out, “The dispensationalists literalistic reading of prophetic passages must not be confused with a literal reading. A literal reading - a reading that gets at the plain sense of the text - will allow the New Testament to interpret the Old. It is amillenarians, not dispensationalists, who interpret prophecy literally in that they follow the literal sense of how the writers of the New Testament interpret Old Testament prophecy”4
So, we see that the dispensational accusation made against covenant theologians is unfounded. And as we see in the church today, specifically the American church, many Christians have rejected amillennialism because they have been fed propaganda that claims amillennarians interpret prophecy “spiritually” or “non-literally,” the most grievous of sins to the ardent dispensationalist. Hal Lindsey has even went as far as to label the amillennial view of eschatology as “demonic and heretical” and the “root of anti-Semitism.”5 And as Riddlebarger notes again, this is quite a lamentable situation, especially considering the majority of mainline Orthodox Christian theologians have been amillennial or something close to it. Namely, great theologians of the past such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, which of course does not prove amillennialism to be the correct view, but it is a powerful point worth noting, and shows that amillennialism has been the historic majority orthodox Christian report regarding the millennium. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were anything but theological liberals. Likewise today, theologians like Anthony Hoekema, Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, and Herman Hoeksema are not theological liberals, yet all hold (or held to) to the amillennial position.
Now that I have laid some groundwork regarding the nature of the debate, and even chucked my hat into the ring in favor of the amillennial viewpoint regarding eschatology, the rest of this blog will focus on why I do not hold to premillennialism. I will then go on and write a brief defense of the amillennial position (as opposed to the postmillennial position, of which there are a few different types) as I will point out the Biblical inconsistencies and problems with the premillennial view (both dispensational and historic). In effect, my argument is going to center on why the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20 is not a future earthly rule by Christ from the Jerusalem (whether the nature of the millennium be Jewish, as in dispensationalist, or Christian, as in Historic premillennialism), but is a present reality as Jesus Christ rules from heaven right now. My goal here is certainly not to be divisive, as this is clearly an “in-house” discussion. Numerous stellar bible teachers now and in the past have been premillennialists. To name a few: James Montgomery Boice was historic premillennial, as was George Eldon Ladd, perhaps the best defender of the historic premillennial view to date. It has been argued that the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon was historic premillennial, although I am uncertain that Spurgeon ever took a definite stance on the issue. Not to mention the many Godly dispensationalist teachers of the day; John MacArthur, for example.
In another note, the term amillennialism is unfortunate. The prefix “a” means “no.” Thus, amillennialism means “no millennium.” This is unfortunate because this is not what amillennialism teaches, and surely not what I or other amillennialists believe. A better term, as Anthony Hoekema has suggested, is “realized millennium,”6 as we believe the millennial reign is a symbolic time period (1000 years) that refers to the entire age between Jesus Christ’s first and second advents. Thus, the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 is a symbolic number for now, as Christ presently reigns from heaven and sits on the throne. However, I will stick to the normal convention and continue to call the viewpoint amillennialism.
Problem #1: The failure of Jesus Christ.
This point can surely be debated from different viewpoints, but I see it as a big problem for all forms of premillennialism. Namely, premillennialism claims that upon the second coming of our Lord, He defeats all his enemies at the battle of Armageddon, the final eschatological battle, spoken of in Revelation 16:16 as well as 19:11-21. Premillennialists hold that although Christ returns at His Parousia (2nd coming) and obliterates His enemies, He must do it again another time, spoken of in Revelation 20:7-10, at the conclusion of the thousand year millennial reign. The problem here -and it is a big one- is why didn’t Christ finish the job correctly and in its entirety the first time at His Parousia? If premillennialism is true, either Christ failed to finish the job completely or He never intended to finish the job completely. But this is in contrast to what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. Paul gives us a timeline of sorts.
1. Christ’s resurrection. “Christ the first fruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ.” (15:23)
2. “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father…” (15:24a)
3. “…after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For He must reign until he has put all His enemies under His feet.” (15:24b-25)
4. “The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under His feet…” (15:26-27a)
Where is the millennial kingdom here? Where is the rapture? On the contrary, the apostle Paul says that Christ is ruling now, since His resurrection, and He will return again, and that is the end, when He delivers the kingdom (which is now) to the Father (at the 2nd coming).
Problem #2: That’s just bizarre!
What do I mean by this? Simply put, according to premillennialists, Christ will physically reign from Earth in an Earthly kingdom from the Davidic throne in Jerusalem, along with resurrected and glorified saints, who are in bodies that are not sinful, cannot sin at all, and cannot die, since Christ has already defeated death by His resurrection and His subsequent second coming. All premillennialists would hold to this idea in some form. Some may say that only the martyrs will reign with Christ and others may say that it is the Jewish believers who will reign, as to fulfill the land promise made to Abraham. But here is the problem: not only are there resurrected and glorified saints ruling with Christ, who sits on an Earthly throne in Jerusalem, but there are also natural people coexisting with them, in natural bodies, who do sin, are depraved as humanity is now, and who die. Can you imagine that? What if you are a glorified saint in the millennial kingdom and your neighbor is a natural human? The idea itself is plain goofy, in my feeble mind at least. Premillennialists answer this charge by claiming that there will be people of God who are saved during the end times that survive the 2nd coming and are ushered into the millennium. They will then have offspring and so on and so forth. But this idea completely disregards the tension in the New Testament between “this age” and the “age to come.” The age to come spoken of in Scripture is not some intermediate partially consummated millennial kingdom that occurs after the 2nd coming of Christ, but rather, the eternal state.
The “two-age model” is helpful in showing this. It was the basic eschatological premise put forth by both our Lord as well as the apostle Paul. This age is defined by the following traits:
Matt 12:32: There is no forgiveness for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Matt 24:3: The end of the age will be preceded by signs.
Matt 28:20: Christ will be with us until the end of the age.
Mark 10:30: The present age is the age of homes, fields, and families.
Luke 18:30: Material rewards are given to us in this life.
Luke 20:34: The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.
Rom 12:2: We are not to be conformed to the pattern of this age.
1 Cor 1:20: Philosophy is the wisdom of this age.
1 Cor 2:6-8: Wisdom and rulers are of this age.
2 Cor 4:4: Satan, the god of this age, blinds peoples minds to the truth.
Gal 1:4: The present age is evil.
Eph 1:20-21: Christ reigns in this present age.
Eph 2:2: The ways of this age are evil.
1 Tim 6:17: Those who are rich in this age are not to hope in their wealth for the next.
Tit 2:12: We are to live Godly lives in this age.
The age to come is defined by the following traits:
Matt 12:32: There is no forgiveness against blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Matt 13:40: The weeds will be thrown into the fire.
Mark 10:30: Eternal life is a reward.
Luke 18:30: Eternal life is a reward.
Luke 20:35: There will be no marriages or giving in marriage.
1 Cor 6:9-10: Evildoers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 15:50: Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:21: Those who live evil lives will not inherit the kingdom.
Eph 1:21: Christ will reign in the age to come.
Eph 5:5: Immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Thess 2:12: We are encouraged to live lives worthy of the kingdom.
2 Thess 1:5: Our faith will make us worthy of the kingdom of God.
1 Tim 6:19: The coming age has life that is truly life.
2 Tim 4:18: The Lord will bring us to the kingdom of God.
And the line between the two ages is clearly set forth:
Matt 13:39: The harvest is the end of the age, and angels are the harvesters.
Matt 13:40: The weeds will be burned in the fire at the end of the age.
Matt 13:49: The angels will separate the wicked from the righteous.
Thus, the event that separates this age from the age to come is the 2nd coming of Christ. This age is full of earthly and temporal qualities, but the age to come is full of eternal qualities. This model used quite clearly by Jesus and Paul eliminates the possibility of a millennial kingdom post-2nd coming.
Problem #3: How anti-climactic!
What I mean by this is quite simple really, and I will keep this one quite short. In short, it has got to be anti-climactic in a sense for the glorified saints. These elect people have died and went to be with the Lord. Now, they are in glory with God Himself. There is no sin, no pain, no death. But then, Jesus brings them back to Earth to rule with Him in the millennial kingdom, in the presence of sinners in natural bodies. Granted, doing anything with our Lord is a blessing, yet this would still seem odd: from a place of perfection to a place of semi-perfection. It seems a step back to me.
Problem #4: Evil in a post-2nd coming millennial kingdom?
This problem is an enormous one. Premillennialists of all varieties must deal with the problem of evil in the millennium. Namely, it is clear from Revelation 20 that there is a huge eschatological battle that takes place at the conclusion of the thousand years.
John writes: “And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” -Rev 20:7-10 (ESV)
And this of course, is followed by the judgment, depicted in Revelation 20:11-15. This problem for premillennialism cannot be understated. Premillennialists must be able to define where all this evil came from. They only have three options.
1. The glorified saints rebel against the sitting Christ in Jerusalem, so much that their number is “like the sand of the sea.” This is of course, unthinkable. This would require a second fall of man that is even more severe than the original fall that happened in the garden, for this one would require saints who are in glorified bodies to fall and rebel against Christ, who brought them back to rule with Him. Premillennialists do not usually hold to this idea. Even for them, this is absurd. Or at least, it should be.
2. The glorified saints have offspring that are born in natural bodies who then never are united to Christ by faith, at least, many generations down the road at the end of the millennium, who then, in the presence of Jesus Christ Himself, as well as the saints ruling with Him, who are their parents, rebel against the Lord. Of course, this scenario makes as little sense as the first one, as Luke 20:35 tells us there will be no marriages or giving in marriage in the age to come. And if the glorified saints are producing offspring outside of marriage, they are living in sin anyways, which is something a glorified saint is unable to do. Thus, this scenario is as implausible as the first, as the glorified saints won’t be producing any natural offspring.
3. There will be natural people who go through the tribulation, survive Armageddon, and are ushered into the millennial kingdom in natural bodies, as they never died naturally while on earth. These people will then go on living normal lives, albeit under an earth that has had the curse lifted (at least mostly), and they will have offspring and re-populate the earth. It is the offspring of the natural saints who enter the millennium that are never united to Christ by faith and are the rebels of the millennial kingdom. The actual folks who enter the millennium in natural bodies will not be the rebels, because they are Christians who came out of the tribulation without dying. But their children will be born and not all of them will become God’s elect, and will thus rebel. So much so that their number is like the sand of the sea. This is the scenario that premillennialists generally assert.
Yet the problem of evil in a kingdom ruled by Christ bodily from Jerusalem and with saints who are glorified is too big of a stretch for this Christian to overcome. The problem still persists. The question remains: Who are these people organized by Satan and then consumed by fire from heaven? According to Riddlebarger, “On the one hand, dispensationalists believe that these are individuals who come to faith after the rapture and survive the great tribulation and the wrath of the antichrist. On the other, historic premillenarians believe that these are people living at the time of our Lord’s return who are not raised from the dead or judged and who subsequently repopulate the earth during the millennial age.”7
This is too big of a stretch and too big of a hurdle to jump. Premillennialism creates more theological problems than it answers. Scripture never teaches such a scenario with resurrected saints living alongside natural bodies in the flesh. The NT writers never anticipated such a scenario. Rather, they looked forward to the final consummation occurring at the time of our Lord’s Parousia, not a halfway fulfillment of an earthly theocratic millennium ruled by Jesus Christ as another step before the final consummation of the eternal state.
Problem #5: How do they escape the judgment?
Premillennialists insist that there will be natural bodies in the flesh who enter the millennial kingdom and live right alongside Christ and his resurrected saints. But the rest of the authors of the NT tell us that the judgment occurs when Christ returns, not after a thousand years of Him ruling from Jerusalem. Riddlebarger notes, “The Scriptures are very clear that Christ returns to judge the world, raise the dead, and renew the cosmos. According to Paul, dead believers are raised at Christ’s coming. Living believers are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. This includes all believers, whether living or dead (1 Thess 4:15-17). But those who are not Christ’s, we are told, will face His wrath and will be taken to face final judgment (Matt 24:37-41). This includes all unbelievers living at the time of our Lord’s return.”8
Thus, premillennialism in all forms has no good answer as to the identity of the people living on earth during the millennium after the Parousia of Christ. It becomes an even bigger problem when we quote our Lord Himself in Luke 20:34-38, and the apostle Paul, when he states quite clearly that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1 Cor 15:50) These two statements alone rule out a millennial kingdom after the Parousia. This age has clearly passed away. The temporal age is gone and the eternal has come. Instead, premillennialism must argue for a 1000 year gap between Christ’s coming and the final judgment, which they must claim is simply not stated by Jesus or Paul. But is this so? It seems pretty clear to me that the judgment occurs at the return of Christ.
An exegetical analysis of Revelation 20:1-10
I have thus far framed the debate between dispensationalists and covenant theologians and then went on to show the implausibility of premillennialism in all of its forms. It is therefore only right that I provide an exegetical analysis of the key millennial passage; Revelation 20:1-10. I will attempt to show in this analysis that the text in Revelation 20:1-10 much better describes this age as Christ rules from heaven than it does a future millennial golden age. As I do so, I rely heavily on the stellar work of Kim Riddlebarger, whose book A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times I have read multiple times and poured over, with Scriptures in hand. I am convinced Riddlebarger’s position does great justice to the whole counsel of God regarding the topic of eschatology.
The text states:
Revelation 20:1-10 (ESV): Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and 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. 4then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom 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 who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed 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.
7And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of thee saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
So that is the only text in Scripture where it actually speaks of a millennial age; there is no other. In line with their professed literal hermeneutic, dispensationalists are consistent. John Walvoord is normative when he says that the symbolism and the numbers in Revelation 20 are to be “interpreted according to their natural meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise”9 and that when John states that Satan is bound with a chain he means “a literal chain” and Satan is “literally physically restrained.”
At stake in this debate are all sorts of questions to be answered. First of all, do the events of Revelation 19, which clearly depict the Parousia of our Lord, precede the events of Revelation 20 in a temporal manner? If so, this is a very strong argument in favor of premillennialism, or at least, in favor of either premillennialism or some forms of postmillennialism. Although, it is important to point out that postmillennialists do not think Revelation 19 depicts the 2nd coming, but is symbolic rather of the triumph of the Gospel throughout the church age.
While premillennialism and postmillennialism have the events of Revelation 19 preceding the events of Revelation 20, amillennialists do not. Amillennialism argues for a recapitulation; namely that the events of Revelation 20 take place during the same temporal time period as the events in Revelation 19. Thus, when Christ’s 2nd coming is depicted in Revelation 19, it is depicted again from a different angle in Revelation 20.
The nature of the book of Revelation is apocalyptic. That is, it is hidden and is an unveiling using highly symbolic and figurative language. Kim Riddlebarger comments that, “Revelation is a book much like Ezekiel, Daniel, or Zechariah, combining distinct and unique biblical genres for the purpose of explaining redemptive history from God’s perspective. In a sense, Revelation is a New Testament commentary on those redemptive-historical themes left open-ended by the Old Testament prophets, viewed in the greater light of post messianic revelation.”10
The important thing to note regarding the book of Revelation is that we must realize that the author (the apostle John) used highly symbolic language and that he did not intend for us to take them literally. Much of the language he uses is symbolic of language used in the Old Testament. The key is to determine the symbols he is using, which, in our 21st century American society, is easier said than done in many cases. But to the first and second century Jewish believer, it is quite probable that they would have understood the symbolism quite easily, drawing off of their knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures.
Thus, when we get to Revelation 20, we see all sorts of symbolic language, such as dragon, serpent, and bottomless pit. The passage of Revelation 20 becomes quite problematic and indeed at odds with much else in Scripture if we take it strictly literally. For instance, Satan is a spirit being, how can he be physically bound with a chain? The passage obviously refers to something (which we will get to), but in any case, I don’t think it is biblically honest to say that he is literally and physically bound with a literal chain. Riddlebarger comments again, “When John said two times in this section, ‘I saw’, which he used throughout the book to indicate symbolic visions (Rev 4:1, 10:1-3, 13:1-3, 14:1, 17:1-3), we should realize that what follows cannot be collapsed into linguistic and referential levels. (strict literalism) The image of an angel with a chain and key points to something beyond the referential level, to other biblical-theological themes elsewhere in Scripture.”11
His point is that when John clearly indicates to us he is recording an apocalyptic vision, the language is figurative and symbolic, and is not to be interpreted strictly literally. In other words, the images John records and words he uses stand for something, but do not stand for the exact literal meaning of the word. Dispensationalists have an admirable and noble goal. They’ve (haven’t we all?) seen theological liberals butcher clear non-symbolic texts and make them say what they want, essentially turning Scripture into a big book of relativism and open-ended opinion. And they should be commended for pointing that out. But in the case of symbolic apocalyptic literature, this is an overreaction and ends up getting the text wrong and interpreting the apocalyptic visions to mean something altogether different than they actually do. In other words, we need to literally get it right!
It is the contention of the amillennialist that the visions in Revelation are not organized in a chronological fashion. This is easily shown to be true simply by pointing to the final eschatological battle that occurs in numerous places in the book. Therefore, if they are not arranged chronologically, they are arranged topically. In other words, the book off Revelation recapitulates itself, giving us different viewpoints of the same time period and describing different events in symbolic language. We cannot read the book of Revelation through the lens of chronology. The book becomes a mess if we make the faulty assumption that the events that occur in earlier chapters therefore occur temporally earlier in history than the events that occur in later chapters.
But, can we show this beyond a shadow of a doubt? I think so. As William Hendricksen points out, “A careful study of chapter 20 will reveal that this chapter describes a period which is synchronous with that of chapter 12.”12
Let’s look at the chapters in question.
Revelation 12:7-12 (ESV): Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8but he was defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world - he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, ‘Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. 11And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. 12Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows his time is short!
Look familiar? It should, it’s really close to Revelation 20:1-6. Here it is again:
Revelation 20:1-6 (ESV):
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and 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. 4then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom 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 who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed 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 parallelism is extremely important, if it is true. For one, it clearly places the events of Revelation 20 in this age, not the age to come. If this parallelism can be sustained, it deals a serious blow to premillennialism in all forms. Let us examine the evidence:
Rev 12:7: Heavenly scene. Rev 20:1: Heavenly scene.
Rev 12:7-8: Angelic battle against Satan and his host. Rev 20:2: Presupposed angelic battle with Satan
Rev 12:9: Satan cast to earth. Rev 20:3: Satan cast into the bottomless pit.
Rev 12:9: The angels’ opponent called “the great dragon…that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.” Rev 20:2, 7-8: The angels’ opponent called “the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan…restrained from deceiving the nations any longer…and the released to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth.”
Rev 12:12: Satan is full of wrath, because he knows his time is short. Rev 20:3: Satan to be ‘set free for a short time’ after his imprisonment.
Rev 12:10: Satan’s fall, resulting in the kingdom of Christ and His saints. Rev 20:4: Satan’s fall, resulting in the kingdom of Christ and his saints.
Rev 12:11: The saints kingship, based not only on the fall of Satan and Christ’s victory but also on the saints faithfulness even to death in holding to the ‘word of their testimony.’ Rev 20:4: The saints kingship, based not only on Satan’s fall but also on their faithfulness even to death because of their ‘testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God.’
It seems quite likely to me that these passages recapitulate. The parallels are much too blatant to be accidental or to be talking about two completely different things and/or eras. Premillennialists defend against this argument by simply denying that the passages are parallel. But is this so? Let the reader decide. Of course, the premillennialist must deny this recapitulation, because if it is true, premillennialism is false. If the recapitulation here is true, premillennialism is dead. It cannot stand in the face of this argument.
The next comparison we can make is between Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:7-10, which I firmly believe depict the same final eschatological conflict. There is very good reason to believe this too. Let’s examine the text. For sake of space (this bad boy is getting long on me) I’m not going to list the text of Revelation 19:11-21, but will quote from it and cross reference as needed.
There are two very good reasons within the biblical text to support recapitulation from Revelation 19 to Revelation 20. The first is the judgment of the nations spoken of in Revelation 19:14-15 as well as in Revelation 20:3. Revelation 19:14-15 tells us:
Rev 19:14-15 (ESV): And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following Him on white horses. 15From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of His fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Rev 20:3 (ESV): 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.
Amillennialists must press the question: What nations, that have already been judged, is Satan prevented from deceiving if premilllennialism is true? Didn’t Christ just unleash the wrath of God on them and judge them? In the premillennial interpretation, the nations just have been judged at the second coming and triumph of Christ. Which nations are left for Satan to be prevented from deceiving?
Kim Riddlebarger also comments, “Again, the scope of the problem for those who hold a sequential relationship between Revelation 19 to 20 becomes clear when we examine the role of the nations throughout the book of Revelation. In Revelation 13, we read that the dragon gave the beast authority (v. 2) to rule over every tribe, people, language, and nation (v. 7). The result of this satanic empowering of the beast is that “all the inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast” (v. 8) because they are deceived by the false signs and wonders of his supreme lieutenant, the false prophet. Then in Revelation 16:13-16, we read of how the kings of the whole earth are gathered for battle at Armageddon “on that great day of God Almighty” (v. 14). This is the day, John said, when Jesus returns like a thief in judgment (v. 15).”13
And, “Therefore, when we read in Revelation 19:19, “Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army,” it is clear who these people are. These are those “who had received the mark of the beast and worshipped his image” (Rev 19:20), I.e. the nations. At this time, we are told, the beast and the false prophet are captured, and the two of them are thrown alive into the “fiery lake of burning sulphur” (v. 20). Indeed, ‘the rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh” (v. 21). Clearly, Revelation 13, 16, and 19 depict the same event, yet another strong indication of recapitulation in this epistle. What is depicted in Revelation 16 and 19 is judgment day. This is when Jesus Christ returns in wrath to judge the nations, raise the dead, and make all things new.”
This argument is strong. Premillennialists cannot explain why the nations have already been deceived by Satan (Rev 16) and subsequently destroyed and judged by Christ (Rev 19), but then in Revelation 20, the nations need to be protected from satanic deception. What nations? They’ve already been destroyed and judged by Christ. Premillennialism futilely attempts an argument that the nations being protected from satanic deception in Revelation 20:3 are nations that survived the wrath of God and the judgment in Revelation 16 and 19, but this makes no sense. Surely Christ finishes the job the first time, right?
The second strong argument in favor of the amillennial interpretation is the distinct similarities of the battles spoken of in Revelation 19 and 20. The apostle quotes from the same Old Testament prophecy in both Revelation 19 and 20 when talking about the battle. The prophecy is found in Ezekiel 38 and 39, referred to in that prophetic book as the “Gog and Magog” prophecy. In Revelation 19:17-18, John quotes directly from Ezekiel 39:17-20. And again in Revelation 20:7-10, depicting the final eschatological battle again, the apostle refers to them directly as “Gog and Magog,” quoting again from Ezekiel 38 and 39. If John is talking about two separate battles separated by 1000 years, why does he quote from the same Old Testament prophecy? That would indeed, make little sense.
It is highly unlikely that the apostle is talking about two different eschatological battles separated by 1000 years, but rather, that he is giving us different perspectives on the same battle. In Revelation 19, John writes from the perspective of Christ’s judgment on the beast, the false prophet, and the nations, then in chapter 20 the focus is on the judgment of the nations as well as Satan. R. Fowler White comments, “If John expected us to interpret the revolts in Revelation 19 and 20 as different episodes in history, we could hardly expect him to describe them in language and imagery derived from the same episode in Ezekiel’s prophecy.”14 I concur with White. The battles spoken of in Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10 are two angles of the same eschatological battle, the culmination of this age, the final triumph of Christ at His second coming, and the ushering in of the eternal state.
But what does Revelation 20:1-10 mean? Specifically, since I’ve already covered the clear recapitulation of Revelation 20:7-10 with the battles spoken of in Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 16, I will focus here on the first six verses of chapter 20. I will offer up an exposition of Revelation 20:1-6, since thus far, most of what I have done is examine what it does not mean.
It is first worthwhile to point out that as we have spoken about earlier, only glorified saints can possibly be on the new earth after the return of Christ. Second, due to the highly symbolic language of John’s apocalyptic vision, it would be unfair of us and to the text if we isolated it from the rest of the New Testament teachings on eschatology. We must take into consideration Jesus’ teaching on the subject as well as other teaching, such as the apostle Paul’s. Thus, we must read the symbolic passage in light of the clear ones. Protestants, and in particular, Reformed Theology, calls this idea the analogia fidei (analogy of faith), an idea dispensationalists generally reject.
According to the teachings of both Jesus Christ and of Paul, the resurrection of both believers and unbelievers occurs at the Parousia of Christ, when he returns to usher in the eternal state. Thankfully, this passage makes a whole lot of sense in the amillennial interpretation and we can easily do justice to it; more justice, I argue, than premillennialism does. According to Riddlebarger, “Amillennial interpreters of Revelation 20 see the passage as the weak link in any form of premillennialism. If the premillennial position is correct, the golden age of the millennium where Christ reigns for one thousand years ends with glorified men and women revolting against the visible rule of Christ when Satan is released from the abyss at the end of that time. By viewing this conception of the future millennial age through the analogy of faith, the idea of a “second fall” at the end of the millennium is so highly problematic that most amillennial interpreters rule out any form of premillennialism a priori. A fall of glorified humanity into sin after Christ’s second advent means that eternity is not safe from the apostasy and the spontaneous eruption of sin in the human heart.”15 Riddlebarger is correct of course. The thought of a second fall of man done by glorified saints is ludicrous. If we are correct in our assumption that only glorified saints can enter the kingdom after the second coming, premillennialism is indeed ruled out completely.
The first section of the chapter is verses 1-3. From the outset, we realize that the language of Revelation 20 is highly symbolic and that as well chapter 20 is not the only place in Revelation where these ideas are spoken of in John’s vision. For instance, Revelation 9:1 says: “And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit.” And the same chapter, verse 11 states: “They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.” The first question we have to answer is who are the serpent and the angel? Those are easy enough. Well, at least one is. The serpent is obviously Satan. The angel is tougher to figure, although it most likely refers to the archangel Michael, although it could possibly refer to Christ Himself (although to be clear, Christ is not an angel), since in Revelation 1:18, Christ is said to hold the key to Hades. We can also cross reference this to Paul’s discourse on the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2, and his talk of the restrainer, who is never mentioned by name. This of course is just an opinion, but I do not think the identity of the angel in the first verses of chapter 20 is a reference to Christ but rather to Michael the archangel. Or it could certainly be another angel who is unnamed. That being said, the precise identity of the angel will not effect our interpretation of the passage.
That being said, we could go back and forth on the identity of the angel, but the true issue at hand is the action taken by the angel in verses 2-3 of chapter 20 and the term “thousand years,” which is used repeatedly throughout the section. Dispensationalists, faithful to their literal interpretation, contend that the angel has a literal chain and literally physically restrains Satan for a literal 1000 years. I don’t think, however, it is that simple in light of the rest of the book of Revelation and the rest of New Testament eschatology. Historic premillennialists, postmillennialists, and amillennialists all are open to the idea of the thousand years being a symbolic term for a long period of time, or a time of completion. Obviously, in amillennialism, this has to be the case. Amillennialists see the thousand years as a symbolic number of completion, representative of the entire church era from the resurrection of Christ to His Parousia. There are excellent reasons to believe the number is symbolic too. The immediate context of Revelation 20 is extremely symbolic. It is an apocalyptic vision and everything else in the section is highly symbolic. Look at the terminology John uses: beast, dragon, serpent, bottomless pit, etc.
The thousand years is said to begin with the binding of Satan. But what does this binding refer to? Obviously, if the binding of Satan refers to his complete removal from the earth, it certainly cannot refer to the present age, as I am arguing, and thus amillennialism would fail. But there is a better explanation to this and it is supported by Jesus Himself. We need to understand clearly what is meant by the binding of Satan. It does not refer to his complete removal from the earth, as that will not happen until he is cast into the lake of fire. Amillennialists must be able to show that in some way Satan was bound upon the resurrection of Christ, since that is when the thousand years began according to amillennialism. Is there evidence in Scripture for this? Indeed there is. According to Revelation 20:3, the binding of Satan is something that is very specific. John writes, “…so that he might not deceive the nations any longer…” What this means, according to Riddlebarger, is that, “after the coming of the long-expected Messiah, Satan lost certain authority which he possessed prior to the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Savior. It does not mean that all satanic operations cease during the millennial age as many opponents of amillennialism mistakenly assume. The binding of Satan simply means that Satan cannot deceive the nations until he is released at the end of the millennial age.”16 But, we surely need to find more evidence than this. If this is the only place Scripture talks about Satan being bound, the argument put forth is quite weak. Thankfully, there is more evidence. Revelation 9:1-11 depicts an angel releasing demonic forces to deceive the nations of the earth. Likewise, Riddlebarger argues, “if Christ takes authority over this realm through his own death and resurrection as stated in Revelation 1:18, then the binding of Satan is a direct result of Christ’s resurrection.”17 This argument comes down to this: If Satan is presently bound, it simply means that he is unable to rally the nations together as one against the saints. Indeed, he has never been able to do this since the resurrection of Christ. On the other hand, in the Old Testament, he was allowed by God to do this repeatedly. Look at Israel’s history. We can also find evidence in the gospels that this is the case. We are told in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church. But there is more. Matthew 12:29 states: “Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.” Jesus himself talked about binding Satan through His death and resurrection. Paul agreed in Colossians 2:15: “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” And likewise, the book of Hebrews proclaims that Satan’s power has been weakened in Hebrews 2:14: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death He might destroy the one who has the power over death, that is, the devil.” 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 discusses this as well. To put it simply, Satan being bound does not mean that he is completely inactive. He obviously is. Nevertheless, he is incapable of rallying the nations together on a world-wide scale to make war against the saints of God, until the very end.
As Riddlebarger puts it, “but however we understand the binding of Satan, we need to be faithful to two distinct but complementary lines of biblical data. The first line emphasizes a decisive defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ binding him, in effect, and preventing him from deceiving the nations. This defeat at the cross and empty tomb guarantees his eventual and final end…The second line of biblical data is that Satan still rages against Christ and His kingdom in this age in some limited but nevertheless sinister fashion.”18
The amillennial interpretation is however, able to make the most sense of Satan’s release after the thousand years is ended. In light of Paul’s discourse on the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2. Riddlebarger comments, “Once the divine restraint is lifted, the lawless one suddenly appears, accompanied with lying signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:1-12). The release of Satan at the end of the millennial age is itself a strong argument in favor of the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3. The binding of Satan for a thousand years and his subsequent release surely belongs to the present age and not to that period after Christ returns to judge all men, raise the dead, and make all things new.”19
The final section of Scripture we need to analyze is the next section of Revelation 20, namely, verses 4-6. The scene, as can be seen (no pun intended), shifts from an emphasis on Satan and his being bound to heaven, and the rule of the saints. Not surprisingly, dispensationalists see this scene as happening on earth. (cf. Rev 5:10) However, we need to analyze the passage further. The scene takes place at the location of the thrones, for John writes: “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed…” The answer should be obvious from the rest of the book of Revelation: the thrones are in heaven. Revelation 1:4 reads: “…Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne.” Revelation 3:21 says: “The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne…” Revelation 4:2 reads: “At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven…” Dispensationalists mistakenly associated Revelation 5:10, which reads: “and you made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” with a future millennial kingdom. However, there is better evidence in the book of Revelation that the passage in question refers not to a future millennial kingdom, but rather to the new earth. The throne of God is located in heaven, not on the earth. Riddllebarger notes, “There can be little doubt that the portrayal of beings sitting on thrones is not intended to express the literal idea of people sitting on actual pieces of furniture and ruling from there. This is, rather, a figurative way of saying that they reign over a kingdom.”20
Thus, the questions we must answer are: Riddlebarger says, “Who are these people? And what kind of judgment do they exercise?”21 These people are mentioned numerous times in the book of Revelation. Directly in chapter 20, they are said to not have worshipped the beast or his image. However, it probably includes the ones mentioned in chapter 6 verse 9 as well, who are described as “the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.” And as well, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” (Rev 14:13) What is also of utmost importance here is to take heed of where the reign is taking place. That is, the place where the souls of the martyrs are. This is undoubtedly in heaven, which is clearly contrasted to the bottomless pit in verses 1-3. Likewise, we need to leap forward to the eternal state, when body and soul are reunited. Once this happens, they are said to reign forever and ever (Rev 22:5). This rules out a millennial kingdom. Of course the premillennial argument is that the millennial kingdom merges into the eternal state. But where is the evidence for this in Scripture?
However, the most important part of Revelation 20:4-6 is the nature of the first resurrection. Premillennialists insist this is a bodily resurrection. I don’t think it is. There is evidence internally in Scripture that this first resurrection refers not to a bodily resurrection, but to another resurrection. George Eldon Ladd, noted historic premillennialist, offers up a strong argument in favor of premillennialism, when he notes: “This is the most important word in the entire passage. The exegete must decide whether or not it means resurrection; and upon this decision will be determined how he interprets the entire passage.”22 Ladd is quite right. The first resurrection is the hinge on which the passage turns from either being a support of amillennialism or premillennialism. According to Ladd, his argument goes as follows: There are two resurrections mentioned here, and one of them is obviously bodily, therefore resurrections must always be bodily. Famous premillennialist Henry Alford forces the discussion in this direction: “If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain (psychai ezesan) at the first, and the rest of the (nekroi ezesan) only at the end of a specified period after the first, if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; then there is an end to all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to any thing.”23 Alford here is essentially arguing that since the passage mentions two resurrections, they must mean the exact same thing (bodily, he argues) or else words mean nothing, and we completely wipe out the testimony of Scripture and we might as well make the whole Bible say what we want it to. This is a serious charge, and one that must be looked at and dealt with accordingly. But is this the case? In order to determine this, we must look more at the passage as to how the first resurrection is described.
Amillennialism looks a bit deeper into the passage. First, we recognize that the scene in Revelation 20:4-6 takes place in heaven during the present age. Thus, the first resurrection mentioned by the apostle must be something that occurs before the general bodily resurrection of everyone at the Parousia of Christ. Thus, the resurrection cannot be bodily. Amillennialists have interpreted this first resurrection in two ways. The first way is that it refers to the believers regeneration from life to death that happens temporally when a child of God becomes born again. The second way it is interpreted is that it refers to the believer’s death, when they subsequently are taken to be with the Lord. There have been some giants of Reformed Theology on both sides of this issue. I believe it refers to the regeneration of the believer. My reasoning is twofold. First, John makes a connection between the first resurrection and the second death, which is clearly a reference to eternal condemnation or hell. John says: “Over such the second death has no power…” Over who does the second death have no power? Christians, of course. Once we are born again, hell has no power over us. The second reason is found embedded in John’s gospel. Jesus states in John 5:24-25: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Thus, Jesus Christ Himself associates regeneration with passing from death to life. What can this be but a type of resurrection?
Another factor to consider is the Greek word used for “first” in the phrase “first resurrection.” Premillennialists insist the word is sequential; that is, it refers to the first of the same type of resurrection. Thus, they end up with two bodily resurrections. However, evidence from Revelation itself shows the word used here (Gk: protos) most likely refers to the first type, as opposed to the second type. (second resurrection) John uses the same word again in Revelation 21:1, when he says: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.” Obviously here, John uses the term protos in reference to two differing types of heavens and earths. The first (the present one) and the new creation at the consummation. Riddlebarger notes, “Further illumination of this point is to be found when we consider John’s use of the term second in Revelation 21, which functions in a sense as an alternate tern for ‘new’ in the same chapter. It is the ‘second death’ of verse 8, which is identified with the fiery lake of burning sulphur and is the opposite of the death that belongs to the order of ‘first things’ depicted in verse 4, namely, that which results in the first resurrection. Therefore, the words second and new serve as antithesis of the first (protos)…Clearly, then, the terms do not indicate sequence but contrast.”24
If this is true, and I think Riddlebarger is on the right track, the difficulties for premillennialism grow even bigger, because it indicates a difference in type of resurrection in Revelation 20, not in sequence.
Likewise, we also must recognize that even the strict literalist premillennarians are forced to “spiritualize” a term in Revelation 20. The term is the “second death.” If they insist that the first and second resurrections are both bodily, and the terms used by the apostle for “first” and ‘second” are sequential terms, then they also must insist that the “first death” and the “second death” refer to two types of the exact same type of death. Granted, the term “first death” does not appear in the passage, but can easily be implied in verse 4, when it says: “Also I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded…” Clearly, physical death is the first death and can be garnered easily from this statement when John says he saw the souls of martyred saints. Therefore, using the sequential logic, the second death must be the same type of death, a physical death. Yet, this is not the case, as the second death in question here is a clear reference to eternal condemnation. Thus, premillennialists are forced to “spiritualize” the second death, much to their chagrin, and contrary to their professed literal reading.
$64,000 Question: Why aren’t more Christians amillennial in their eschatology?
It should be quite clear from Scripture that the case for an amillennial eschatology is very strong indeed. Not only does Scripture itself support it strongly, but there have been many giants of Christian theology past and present who hold to the amillennial viewpoint. Thus, we should be able to conclude that amillennialism is a majority report in Christianity. Indeed, it used to be. Amillennialism has been the majority report in Christianity at least since the time of St. Augustiine, and the view was around far before he systematized it. Even famous premillennialist Justin Martyr (2nd century A.D.) said that many who hold to the pure and pious faith think otherwise (not premillennial). But even though amillennialism has been the majority position of orthodox Christianity for centuries, we find that now days, it is not. I think there are numerous good reasons as to why this is so.
1. Conservative evangelicalism has overreacted to theological liberalism.
I think this one is obvious. Theological liberalism in many cases seeks to interpret pretty much anything in Scripture symbolically, leading to a Bible that can be interpreted however the individual sees fit. It also in many cases leads to a direct denial of Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, essentially reducing the covenant canon of Scripture to a bunch of nice stories, that are uninspired, written by men that record their stories about their personal experience with God. This is a very Gnostic tendency as well, but that’s a whole other topic. Thus, the reaction by conservative evangelicalism has been interpret everything strictly literally, especially in Fundamentalism. Amillennialism (Covenant Theology particularly) therefore, is seen as “spiritualizing the Bible,” the most egregious interpretive sin imaginable to many conservative evangelicals, especially dispensationalists.
The expressed reaction by conservative evangelicals is a noble one; theological liberalism has no place in Christian orthodoxy. Yet, instead of realizing that covenant theology and amillennialism by extension take Scripture just as seriously as they do, and hold firmly to inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture, as soon as they hear anything in the New Testament interpreted in a symbolic or spiritual fashion, the noses go up in the air and the charge of liberalism or spiritualizing Scripture is leveled. In their view, no worse charge can be leveled.
2. Amillenialists and Covenant Theologians do not relate everything in the news to Scripture.
One of the major attractions of dispensational theology now days to the general Christian is its apparent ability to relate just about every event in the middle east and around the world to the Scriptures. In the hands of an able communicator, this is powerful. Thus, when a John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, or Dave Hunt see world events happening and relate them to fulfilled prophecy in Scripture, the church takes notice. There is something inherently exciting about it, after all. We can literally see the world events transpiring and see how these able dispensational teachers relate them to Scripture. This creates an attractive sense of utter urgency, as we move closer to the rapture and unveiling of antichrist. According to Riddlebarger, this “makes a more theologically grounded system like amillennialism seem almost irrelevant to everyday Christian living.”25 Amillennarians need to focus on the fact that we as well look with just as much anticipation for the coming of Christ. It is not only dispensationalists who do so.
3. Amillennialism is not even considered.
Much of Christianity, under the teaching of popular and very visible dispensational teaching, doesn’t even consider amillennialism as a viable option regarding eschatology. The reasons for this are quite simple really. First, we can go back to reason 1. They don’t consider it because they have been indoctrinated that amillennialists spiritualize the Bible, the worst of interpretive liberalism. But this of course is a grievous straw man, as I have hopefully shown in the preceding arguments I have made. They’ve also been taught, thanks to authors such as Hal Lindsey, that amillennialism is “demonic and heretical”26 as well as anti-Semitic. Of course such is not the case on either charge. If it is, the vast majority of Christianity has been demonic and heretical and anti-Semitic, which flies in the face of Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Matt 16:18) against his church.
Riddlebarger concludes, “But this should not surprise us (that amillennialism is dismissed immediately by many) since investigating a new and controversial eschatological position always involves a risk. Often times, people become comfortable with one particular millennial position, usually the one they embraced when they first became Christians, and then they dig in their heels when their view is challenged. This tendency is part of fallen human nature. We do not find it easy to objectively evaluate matters we feel strongly about with open minds and without prejudice.”27
Thus, hopefully you can see that there is good reason for the amillennial interpretation regarding eschatology. There is also very good reason to doubt the premillennial interpretation. As I said from the outset, I do not and will not consider this topic something to be divisive over. I heartily consider premillennial believers brothers and sisters in Christ, and will continue to do so. This is not a question of the gospel, but of end times theology, and therefore, we ought to be gracious to each other in this regard. Personally, I do not think the premillennial position in any form to be tenable biblically, but I will be pleasantly surprised if I am raptured away!
But as for now, I remain a staunch amillenarian, and I hold no apology for this viewpoint.
SELECTED QUOTES
1. Floyd Hamilton, “The Basis for Millennial Faith,” in William E. Cox, ed., Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), 24-25, 53-54
2. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 86-89
3. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 39
4. Ibid, 40
5. Hal Lindsey, The Rapture (New York: Bantam, 1983), 30
6. Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1979), 173
7. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 232
8. Ibid, 232
9. John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago, Moody, 1978), 30
10. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 197
11. Ibid, 200
12. William Hendricksen, More than Conquerors (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1982), 21
13. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 203-204
14. R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:1-10,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (Fall 1989), 327
15. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 207-208
16. Ibid, 210
17. Ibid, 211
18. Ibid, 212
19. Ibid, 213
20. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), 995-996
21. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 207-208
22. George E. Ladd, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987), 265
23. Ibid, 267
24. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 219
25. Ibid, 230
26. Hal Lindsey, The Rapture (New York: Bantam, 1983), 30
27. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 39
I have contemplated blogging on this particular subject for quite some time now. It’s an important subject, to be sure. Yet on the other hand, I don’t see it as a subject worth dividing over. The majority of people I know are premillennial, and dispensational premillennial at that. (as opposed to historic premillennialism) And of course, these many folks that I know are no less Christian than those of us who are not premillennialists. However, I have noticed that premillennialists, especially of the dispensational variety, are very quick to levy derogatory terms at non-premillennialists. In this blog I first intend to show that the labeling done by premillennialists towards non-premillennialists is quite unfair and is not representative of what non-premillennialists hold to, sometimes even crossing over into serious misrepresentation. After covering these straw men arguments that are used against non-premillennialists (specifically covenant theologians), I will then move into the major premise of this blog. That is, why I am not a premillennialist.
It is of importance to note, from the outset, that much of the disagreements I put forth in this essay are directed at dispensationalism. But I also must say in reply to that a few things. First, I do not consider dispensationalist heresy or by any means outside of orthodox Christianity. The system as a whole has taken quite a lot of heat since its inception. It’s origins are generally attributed to J. N. Darby, originator of the Plymouth Brethren movement, which Darby simply called the Brethren. While it is true that Darby may have been the first one, and surely one of the first, to systematize dispensationalism, that does not make it inherently incorrect simply based on its newness as a system. As always, our infallible covenant canon is Holy Writ, and our infallible guide is the Holy Spirit. Thus, my comments, criticisms, and disagreements with dispensationalist thought should not be taken as scathing insults, and hopefully I can be objective enough to avoid straw men and ad hominem attacks in my disagreements with the system. I now will push forth into my arguments against premillennialism and in favor of amillennialism. I seek to show that amillennial eschatology is certainly not just a big spiritualization of Scripture, but rather, arises from a literal and consistent interpretation of the Word, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture and the clear to guide us in our interpretations of the vague (analogia fidei - the analogy of faith). I do of course heartily accept dispensational thinkers as brothers and sisters in Christ, and indeed, as no less “Christian” than the rest of us. That said, my disagreements with the system are many, and fundamental to how orthodox Christianity has, for the entire church age, understood the canon of the covenant, that is, the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God.
Although dispensationalists, especially in recent days, have undertaken quite a bit of straw men arguments and even ad hominem attacks, seeming to insist that they know covenant theology better than the covenanters themselves no matter how loudly the covenanters protest, covenant theologians have done the same thing. Neither side is immune from the fallen human nature we have received from Adam’s sin. Thus, this debate is an “in-house” discussion, as it were. The tone of it, in the interest of Christian charity, should be kept gracious. We have the same gospel, after all, and therefore are both members of the body of Christ. The charge of heresy should for certain be kept completely out of this discussion, and I will not use it here, unless it pops up in a quote that I use. There will always be the normal back-and-forth between the two camps, making each others position look extreme. As much as the dispensationalists insist that covenanters are “replacement” theologians (we’re not, I’ll cover that below), the covenanters love to label the dispensationalists as Sensationalists, or DispenSensationalists. I will do my best to deal faithfully with the Biblical texts I quote as well as the arguments I formulate, knowing full well that as for now all of us see through a glass dimly and none of us has perfect knowledge. Our salvation remains by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and all for the glory of God alone; not by some neo-Gnostic idea of salvation by perfect knowledge, or by some inner experience through a personal revelation, as many seem to assert these days. But, as salvation has always been, it comes to us externally, accomplished by the historical and objective finished work of the God-man Jesus Christ, who alone is worthy of our praise and worship. It is finished, said our Lord. The rest is mere out-workings of how that finished work of redemption is applied. Let us begin by addressing the common arguments dispensationalists use against covenant theologians.
Argument #1: Covenant Theology is “Replacement” Theology
This is by far the biggest charge levied at CT. It has unfortunately nearly gotten to the point in premillennial circles where this terminology is basically an assumption, or a given. What they mean by this is simple: they accuse covenanters of holding to the belief that the Gentile church has “replaced” Israel (the ethnic Jews) as God’s chosen people. And sadly, when I have tried to explain that this is not what covenanters believe, they insist that we do. Evidently they know what we believe better than we do.
The problem is, as any Covenant Theologian will tell you, this is an unfounded accusation, and is certainly not what Covenant Theology teaches. What CT teaches is much better described as “expansion” theology as opposed to “replacement” theology. CT teaches that there has always been one people of God, called the elect, who are comprised of Jew, Gentile, and every other nationality and race imaginable. In Old Testament this was comprised mostly ethnic Jews, but even then, there were Gentiles grafted in (Rahab and Ruth, for example). Upon the coming of the messiah, who is Jesus Christ, the covenants are fulfilled and the New Covenant inaugurated. The key to this stance is to identify who the heirs of the promise given to Abraham are. Per Paul, who was the apostle to the Gentiles, the heirs of the promise are those in Christ. (Gal 3:16, 29)
Paul as well gives us one particular discourse that proves there are more than one Israel. In Romans 9:6 he makes the statement: “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” This verse alone shows that it is not ethnic descent that makes one a member of the Israel of God, or the “Spiritual” Israel. He then argues further: “and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” (Rom 9:7-8 ESV) Paul then argues further that God has been electing whom He will to salvation, even within national Israel, as Paul uses examples from Israel’s history. (Rom 9:9-23) Then the all important statement: “even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Rom 9:24) Thus, God has elected His people from ethnic Israel as well as from the Gentiles, as He has always done.
Thus, the heirs of the promise given to Abraham are those of the same faith as Abraham, whether they be Jewish or Gentile, not the ethnic Jews, who are children according to the flesh. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles is very clear in this regard. (See Rom 9:6-29, Gal 3:15-29, Gal 4:21-31, Eph 2:11-3:6)
Argument #2: Covenanters don’t interpret Scripture literally.
This argument is sloppy at best, especially in light of the New Testament. The dispensational hermeneutic insists that Old Testament prophecy is the determinant of interpreting New Testament prophetic data. On the other hand, Covenant Theology sees the data in the New Testament as the determinative category by which Old Testament prophecy and future eschatology is to be interpreted. This of course leaves dispensationalists and their supposed literal interpretation in some pretty awkward spots by insisting on an Old Testament literal interpretation of a passage that has been reinterpreted by an apostle in light of the messianic age that has dawned in Jesus Christ.
This is how Covenant Theologians interpret prophecy: According to Floyd Hamilton, “In fact a good working rule to follow is that the literal interpretation of the prophecy is to be accepted a) unless the passages contain obviously figurative language, or b) unless the New Testament gives authority for interpreting them in other than a literal sense, or c) unless a literal interpretation would produce a contradiction with truths, principles, or factual statements contained in non-symbolic books of the New Testament. Another obvious rule to be followed is that the clearest New Testament passages in non-symbolic books are to be the norm for the interpretation of prophecy, rather than obscure or partial revelations contained in the Old Testament. In other words we should accept the clear and plain parts of Scripture as a basis for getting the true meaning of the more difficult parts of Scripture.”1
Charles Ryrie expresses the dispensational hermeneutic: “Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation…The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ - His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection - were all fulfilled literally. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament…The dispensationalist claims to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible.”2
The two methods of interpretation are certainly not the same, but they are not so different as to end up with different Gospels or anything like that. So how do literalist dispensationalists approach certain texts? Well, always literally, of course. However, this, in my opinion, presents some massive problems with numerous Biblical texts. A few examples might suffice.
Daniel 9:24-27 has been called the lynchpin passage of dispensationalism by different dispensationalists. This passage is the famous “seventy weeks” prophecy made by Daniel. But the dispensational interpretation of this crucial passage is non-literal! I repeat, the self-professed literal hermeneutic of dispensationalists is thrown out the door in a passage they view as the key that unlocks the book of Revelation. (once again interpreting the NT in light of the OT, instead of the NT unlocking the OT) How do they interpret it non-literally? Simple: They insert a 2000+ year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel that is never mentioned or implied in the passage. How is that a literal interpretation?
Another example is from the book of Acts. In Acts 15, the apostles were faced with the question of: should Gentile converts be circumcised in order to be saved? Paul and Barnabas reported that God was doing great things among the Gentiles (15:4). Certain Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said that they should be circumcised. (15:5) Peter then refuted the Pharisees arguments, culminating his refutation in 15:11 by saying: “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” Then James stood up and spoke, saying: “God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,…” And then he cited a passage from Amos 9:11-12: “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.” (15:16-18) James saw this prophecy as fulfilled by Christ’s resurrection, and the reconstruction of His disciples as the true Israel. The presence of off Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians in the church was evidence to James that the prophecy of Amos had been fulfilled. The fallen tent of David had been rebuilt by Jesus Christ.
Was James “spiritualizing” an Old Testament prophecy by applying it to the church? Or was James simply reading the OT and this prophecy through a Christocentric lens?
The Scofield Reference Bible (C.I. Scofield - a famous dispensationalist) claims that this speech given by James is the most important in the NT. According to Scofield, James is describing what will happen after the conclusion of the church age - in the millennial kingdom thousands of years future to James and the other disciples, when God re-establishes a Davidic rule over Israel. If this is the truth, when Paul and Barnabas looked for advice on what to do for an issue that they were dealing with then, James replied with an answer thousands of years in the future. As Kim Riddlebarger points out, “Here is one instance in which dispensational presuppositions get in the way of the plain sense of the text. Scofield interprets the text literalistically, not literally.”3 And as he also points out, “The dispensationalists literalistic reading of prophetic passages must not be confused with a literal reading. A literal reading - a reading that gets at the plain sense of the text - will allow the New Testament to interpret the Old. It is amillenarians, not dispensationalists, who interpret prophecy literally in that they follow the literal sense of how the writers of the New Testament interpret Old Testament prophecy”4
So, we see that the dispensational accusation made against covenant theologians is unfounded. And as we see in the church today, specifically the American church, many Christians have rejected amillennialism because they have been fed propaganda that claims amillennarians interpret prophecy “spiritually” or “non-literally,” the most grievous of sins to the ardent dispensationalist. Hal Lindsey has even went as far as to label the amillennial view of eschatology as “demonic and heretical” and the “root of anti-Semitism.”5 And as Riddlebarger notes again, this is quite a lamentable situation, especially considering the majority of mainline Orthodox Christian theologians have been amillennial or something close to it. Namely, great theologians of the past such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, which of course does not prove amillennialism to be the correct view, but it is a powerful point worth noting, and shows that amillennialism has been the historic majority orthodox Christian report regarding the millennium. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were anything but theological liberals. Likewise today, theologians like Anthony Hoekema, Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, and Herman Hoeksema are not theological liberals, yet all hold (or held to) to the amillennial position.
Now that I have laid some groundwork regarding the nature of the debate, and even chucked my hat into the ring in favor of the amillennial viewpoint regarding eschatology, the rest of this blog will focus on why I do not hold to premillennialism. I will then go on and write a brief defense of the amillennial position (as opposed to the postmillennial position, of which there are a few different types) as I will point out the Biblical inconsistencies and problems with the premillennial view (both dispensational and historic). In effect, my argument is going to center on why the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20 is not a future earthly rule by Christ from the Jerusalem (whether the nature of the millennium be Jewish, as in dispensationalist, or Christian, as in Historic premillennialism), but is a present reality as Jesus Christ rules from heaven right now. My goal here is certainly not to be divisive, as this is clearly an “in-house” discussion. Numerous stellar bible teachers now and in the past have been premillennialists. To name a few: James Montgomery Boice was historic premillennial, as was George Eldon Ladd, perhaps the best defender of the historic premillennial view to date. It has been argued that the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon was historic premillennial, although I am uncertain that Spurgeon ever took a definite stance on the issue. Not to mention the many Godly dispensationalist teachers of the day; John MacArthur, for example.
In another note, the term amillennialism is unfortunate. The prefix “a” means “no.” Thus, amillennialism means “no millennium.” This is unfortunate because this is not what amillennialism teaches, and surely not what I or other amillennialists believe. A better term, as Anthony Hoekema has suggested, is “realized millennium,”6 as we believe the millennial reign is a symbolic time period (1000 years) that refers to the entire age between Jesus Christ’s first and second advents. Thus, the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 is a symbolic number for now, as Christ presently reigns from heaven and sits on the throne. However, I will stick to the normal convention and continue to call the viewpoint amillennialism.
Problem #1: The failure of Jesus Christ.
This point can surely be debated from different viewpoints, but I see it as a big problem for all forms of premillennialism. Namely, premillennialism claims that upon the second coming of our Lord, He defeats all his enemies at the battle of Armageddon, the final eschatological battle, spoken of in Revelation 16:16 as well as 19:11-21. Premillennialists hold that although Christ returns at His Parousia (2nd coming) and obliterates His enemies, He must do it again another time, spoken of in Revelation 20:7-10, at the conclusion of the thousand year millennial reign. The problem here -and it is a big one- is why didn’t Christ finish the job correctly and in its entirety the first time at His Parousia? If premillennialism is true, either Christ failed to finish the job completely or He never intended to finish the job completely. But this is in contrast to what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. Paul gives us a timeline of sorts.
1. Christ’s resurrection. “Christ the first fruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ.” (15:23)
2. “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father…” (15:24a)
3. “…after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For He must reign until he has put all His enemies under His feet.” (15:24b-25)
4. “The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under His feet…” (15:26-27a)
Where is the millennial kingdom here? Where is the rapture? On the contrary, the apostle Paul says that Christ is ruling now, since His resurrection, and He will return again, and that is the end, when He delivers the kingdom (which is now) to the Father (at the 2nd coming).
Problem #2: That’s just bizarre!
What do I mean by this? Simply put, according to premillennialists, Christ will physically reign from Earth in an Earthly kingdom from the Davidic throne in Jerusalem, along with resurrected and glorified saints, who are in bodies that are not sinful, cannot sin at all, and cannot die, since Christ has already defeated death by His resurrection and His subsequent second coming. All premillennialists would hold to this idea in some form. Some may say that only the martyrs will reign with Christ and others may say that it is the Jewish believers who will reign, as to fulfill the land promise made to Abraham. But here is the problem: not only are there resurrected and glorified saints ruling with Christ, who sits on an Earthly throne in Jerusalem, but there are also natural people coexisting with them, in natural bodies, who do sin, are depraved as humanity is now, and who die. Can you imagine that? What if you are a glorified saint in the millennial kingdom and your neighbor is a natural human? The idea itself is plain goofy, in my feeble mind at least. Premillennialists answer this charge by claiming that there will be people of God who are saved during the end times that survive the 2nd coming and are ushered into the millennium. They will then have offspring and so on and so forth. But this idea completely disregards the tension in the New Testament between “this age” and the “age to come.” The age to come spoken of in Scripture is not some intermediate partially consummated millennial kingdom that occurs after the 2nd coming of Christ, but rather, the eternal state.
The “two-age model” is helpful in showing this. It was the basic eschatological premise put forth by both our Lord as well as the apostle Paul. This age is defined by the following traits:
Matt 12:32: There is no forgiveness for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Matt 24:3: The end of the age will be preceded by signs.
Matt 28:20: Christ will be with us until the end of the age.
Mark 10:30: The present age is the age of homes, fields, and families.
Luke 18:30: Material rewards are given to us in this life.
Luke 20:34: The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.
Rom 12:2: We are not to be conformed to the pattern of this age.
1 Cor 1:20: Philosophy is the wisdom of this age.
1 Cor 2:6-8: Wisdom and rulers are of this age.
2 Cor 4:4: Satan, the god of this age, blinds peoples minds to the truth.
Gal 1:4: The present age is evil.
Eph 1:20-21: Christ reigns in this present age.
Eph 2:2: The ways of this age are evil.
1 Tim 6:17: Those who are rich in this age are not to hope in their wealth for the next.
Tit 2:12: We are to live Godly lives in this age.
The age to come is defined by the following traits:
Matt 12:32: There is no forgiveness against blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Matt 13:40: The weeds will be thrown into the fire.
Mark 10:30: Eternal life is a reward.
Luke 18:30: Eternal life is a reward.
Luke 20:35: There will be no marriages or giving in marriage.
1 Cor 6:9-10: Evildoers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 15:50: Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:21: Those who live evil lives will not inherit the kingdom.
Eph 1:21: Christ will reign in the age to come.
Eph 5:5: Immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Thess 2:12: We are encouraged to live lives worthy of the kingdom.
2 Thess 1:5: Our faith will make us worthy of the kingdom of God.
1 Tim 6:19: The coming age has life that is truly life.
2 Tim 4:18: The Lord will bring us to the kingdom of God.
And the line between the two ages is clearly set forth:
Matt 13:39: The harvest is the end of the age, and angels are the harvesters.
Matt 13:40: The weeds will be burned in the fire at the end of the age.
Matt 13:49: The angels will separate the wicked from the righteous.
Thus, the event that separates this age from the age to come is the 2nd coming of Christ. This age is full of earthly and temporal qualities, but the age to come is full of eternal qualities. This model used quite clearly by Jesus and Paul eliminates the possibility of a millennial kingdom post-2nd coming.
Problem #3: How anti-climactic!
What I mean by this is quite simple really, and I will keep this one quite short. In short, it has got to be anti-climactic in a sense for the glorified saints. These elect people have died and went to be with the Lord. Now, they are in glory with God Himself. There is no sin, no pain, no death. But then, Jesus brings them back to Earth to rule with Him in the millennial kingdom, in the presence of sinners in natural bodies. Granted, doing anything with our Lord is a blessing, yet this would still seem odd: from a place of perfection to a place of semi-perfection. It seems a step back to me.
Problem #4: Evil in a post-2nd coming millennial kingdom?
This problem is an enormous one. Premillennialists of all varieties must deal with the problem of evil in the millennium. Namely, it is clear from Revelation 20 that there is a huge eschatological battle that takes place at the conclusion of the thousand years.
John writes: “And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” -Rev 20:7-10 (ESV)
And this of course, is followed by the judgment, depicted in Revelation 20:11-15. This problem for premillennialism cannot be understated. Premillennialists must be able to define where all this evil came from. They only have three options.
1. The glorified saints rebel against the sitting Christ in Jerusalem, so much that their number is “like the sand of the sea.” This is of course, unthinkable. This would require a second fall of man that is even more severe than the original fall that happened in the garden, for this one would require saints who are in glorified bodies to fall and rebel against Christ, who brought them back to rule with Him. Premillennialists do not usually hold to this idea. Even for them, this is absurd. Or at least, it should be.
2. The glorified saints have offspring that are born in natural bodies who then never are united to Christ by faith, at least, many generations down the road at the end of the millennium, who then, in the presence of Jesus Christ Himself, as well as the saints ruling with Him, who are their parents, rebel against the Lord. Of course, this scenario makes as little sense as the first one, as Luke 20:35 tells us there will be no marriages or giving in marriage in the age to come. And if the glorified saints are producing offspring outside of marriage, they are living in sin anyways, which is something a glorified saint is unable to do. Thus, this scenario is as implausible as the first, as the glorified saints won’t be producing any natural offspring.
3. There will be natural people who go through the tribulation, survive Armageddon, and are ushered into the millennial kingdom in natural bodies, as they never died naturally while on earth. These people will then go on living normal lives, albeit under an earth that has had the curse lifted (at least mostly), and they will have offspring and re-populate the earth. It is the offspring of the natural saints who enter the millennium that are never united to Christ by faith and are the rebels of the millennial kingdom. The actual folks who enter the millennium in natural bodies will not be the rebels, because they are Christians who came out of the tribulation without dying. But their children will be born and not all of them will become God’s elect, and will thus rebel. So much so that their number is like the sand of the sea. This is the scenario that premillennialists generally assert.
Yet the problem of evil in a kingdom ruled by Christ bodily from Jerusalem and with saints who are glorified is too big of a stretch for this Christian to overcome. The problem still persists. The question remains: Who are these people organized by Satan and then consumed by fire from heaven? According to Riddlebarger, “On the one hand, dispensationalists believe that these are individuals who come to faith after the rapture and survive the great tribulation and the wrath of the antichrist. On the other, historic premillenarians believe that these are people living at the time of our Lord’s return who are not raised from the dead or judged and who subsequently repopulate the earth during the millennial age.”7
This is too big of a stretch and too big of a hurdle to jump. Premillennialism creates more theological problems than it answers. Scripture never teaches such a scenario with resurrected saints living alongside natural bodies in the flesh. The NT writers never anticipated such a scenario. Rather, they looked forward to the final consummation occurring at the time of our Lord’s Parousia, not a halfway fulfillment of an earthly theocratic millennium ruled by Jesus Christ as another step before the final consummation of the eternal state.
Problem #5: How do they escape the judgment?
Premillennialists insist that there will be natural bodies in the flesh who enter the millennial kingdom and live right alongside Christ and his resurrected saints. But the rest of the authors of the NT tell us that the judgment occurs when Christ returns, not after a thousand years of Him ruling from Jerusalem. Riddlebarger notes, “The Scriptures are very clear that Christ returns to judge the world, raise the dead, and renew the cosmos. According to Paul, dead believers are raised at Christ’s coming. Living believers are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. This includes all believers, whether living or dead (1 Thess 4:15-17). But those who are not Christ’s, we are told, will face His wrath and will be taken to face final judgment (Matt 24:37-41). This includes all unbelievers living at the time of our Lord’s return.”8
Thus, premillennialism in all forms has no good answer as to the identity of the people living on earth during the millennium after the Parousia of Christ. It becomes an even bigger problem when we quote our Lord Himself in Luke 20:34-38, and the apostle Paul, when he states quite clearly that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1 Cor 15:50) These two statements alone rule out a millennial kingdom after the Parousia. This age has clearly passed away. The temporal age is gone and the eternal has come. Instead, premillennialism must argue for a 1000 year gap between Christ’s coming and the final judgment, which they must claim is simply not stated by Jesus or Paul. But is this so? It seems pretty clear to me that the judgment occurs at the return of Christ.
An exegetical analysis of Revelation 20:1-10
I have thus far framed the debate between dispensationalists and covenant theologians and then went on to show the implausibility of premillennialism in all of its forms. It is therefore only right that I provide an exegetical analysis of the key millennial passage; Revelation 20:1-10. I will attempt to show in this analysis that the text in Revelation 20:1-10 much better describes this age as Christ rules from heaven than it does a future millennial golden age. As I do so, I rely heavily on the stellar work of Kim Riddlebarger, whose book A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times I have read multiple times and poured over, with Scriptures in hand. I am convinced Riddlebarger’s position does great justice to the whole counsel of God regarding the topic of eschatology.
The text states:
Revelation 20:1-10 (ESV): Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and 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. 4then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom 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 who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed 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.
7And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of thee saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
So that is the only text in Scripture where it actually speaks of a millennial age; there is no other. In line with their professed literal hermeneutic, dispensationalists are consistent. John Walvoord is normative when he says that the symbolism and the numbers in Revelation 20 are to be “interpreted according to their natural meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise”9 and that when John states that Satan is bound with a chain he means “a literal chain” and Satan is “literally physically restrained.”
At stake in this debate are all sorts of questions to be answered. First of all, do the events of Revelation 19, which clearly depict the Parousia of our Lord, precede the events of Revelation 20 in a temporal manner? If so, this is a very strong argument in favor of premillennialism, or at least, in favor of either premillennialism or some forms of postmillennialism. Although, it is important to point out that postmillennialists do not think Revelation 19 depicts the 2nd coming, but is symbolic rather of the triumph of the Gospel throughout the church age.
While premillennialism and postmillennialism have the events of Revelation 19 preceding the events of Revelation 20, amillennialists do not. Amillennialism argues for a recapitulation; namely that the events of Revelation 20 take place during the same temporal time period as the events in Revelation 19. Thus, when Christ’s 2nd coming is depicted in Revelation 19, it is depicted again from a different angle in Revelation 20.
The nature of the book of Revelation is apocalyptic. That is, it is hidden and is an unveiling using highly symbolic and figurative language. Kim Riddlebarger comments that, “Revelation is a book much like Ezekiel, Daniel, or Zechariah, combining distinct and unique biblical genres for the purpose of explaining redemptive history from God’s perspective. In a sense, Revelation is a New Testament commentary on those redemptive-historical themes left open-ended by the Old Testament prophets, viewed in the greater light of post messianic revelation.”10
The important thing to note regarding the book of Revelation is that we must realize that the author (the apostle John) used highly symbolic language and that he did not intend for us to take them literally. Much of the language he uses is symbolic of language used in the Old Testament. The key is to determine the symbols he is using, which, in our 21st century American society, is easier said than done in many cases. But to the first and second century Jewish believer, it is quite probable that they would have understood the symbolism quite easily, drawing off of their knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures.
Thus, when we get to Revelation 20, we see all sorts of symbolic language, such as dragon, serpent, and bottomless pit. The passage of Revelation 20 becomes quite problematic and indeed at odds with much else in Scripture if we take it strictly literally. For instance, Satan is a spirit being, how can he be physically bound with a chain? The passage obviously refers to something (which we will get to), but in any case, I don’t think it is biblically honest to say that he is literally and physically bound with a literal chain. Riddlebarger comments again, “When John said two times in this section, ‘I saw’, which he used throughout the book to indicate symbolic visions (Rev 4:1, 10:1-3, 13:1-3, 14:1, 17:1-3), we should realize that what follows cannot be collapsed into linguistic and referential levels. (strict literalism) The image of an angel with a chain and key points to something beyond the referential level, to other biblical-theological themes elsewhere in Scripture.”11
His point is that when John clearly indicates to us he is recording an apocalyptic vision, the language is figurative and symbolic, and is not to be interpreted strictly literally. In other words, the images John records and words he uses stand for something, but do not stand for the exact literal meaning of the word. Dispensationalists have an admirable and noble goal. They’ve (haven’t we all?) seen theological liberals butcher clear non-symbolic texts and make them say what they want, essentially turning Scripture into a big book of relativism and open-ended opinion. And they should be commended for pointing that out. But in the case of symbolic apocalyptic literature, this is an overreaction and ends up getting the text wrong and interpreting the apocalyptic visions to mean something altogether different than they actually do. In other words, we need to literally get it right!
It is the contention of the amillennialist that the visions in Revelation are not organized in a chronological fashion. This is easily shown to be true simply by pointing to the final eschatological battle that occurs in numerous places in the book. Therefore, if they are not arranged chronologically, they are arranged topically. In other words, the book off Revelation recapitulates itself, giving us different viewpoints of the same time period and describing different events in symbolic language. We cannot read the book of Revelation through the lens of chronology. The book becomes a mess if we make the faulty assumption that the events that occur in earlier chapters therefore occur temporally earlier in history than the events that occur in later chapters.
But, can we show this beyond a shadow of a doubt? I think so. As William Hendricksen points out, “A careful study of chapter 20 will reveal that this chapter describes a period which is synchronous with that of chapter 12.”12
Let’s look at the chapters in question.
Revelation 12:7-12 (ESV): Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8but he was defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world - he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, ‘Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. 11And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. 12Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows his time is short!
Look familiar? It should, it’s really close to Revelation 20:1-6. Here it is again:
Revelation 20:1-6 (ESV):
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and 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. 4then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom 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 who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed 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 parallelism is extremely important, if it is true. For one, it clearly places the events of Revelation 20 in this age, not the age to come. If this parallelism can be sustained, it deals a serious blow to premillennialism in all forms. Let us examine the evidence:
Rev 12:7: Heavenly scene. Rev 20:1: Heavenly scene.
Rev 12:7-8: Angelic battle against Satan and his host. Rev 20:2: Presupposed angelic battle with Satan
Rev 12:9: Satan cast to earth. Rev 20:3: Satan cast into the bottomless pit.
Rev 12:9: The angels’ opponent called “the great dragon…that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.” Rev 20:2, 7-8: The angels’ opponent called “the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan…restrained from deceiving the nations any longer…and the released to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth.”
Rev 12:12: Satan is full of wrath, because he knows his time is short. Rev 20:3: Satan to be ‘set free for a short time’ after his imprisonment.
Rev 12:10: Satan’s fall, resulting in the kingdom of Christ and His saints. Rev 20:4: Satan’s fall, resulting in the kingdom of Christ and his saints.
Rev 12:11: The saints kingship, based not only on the fall of Satan and Christ’s victory but also on the saints faithfulness even to death in holding to the ‘word of their testimony.’ Rev 20:4: The saints kingship, based not only on Satan’s fall but also on their faithfulness even to death because of their ‘testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God.’
It seems quite likely to me that these passages recapitulate. The parallels are much too blatant to be accidental or to be talking about two completely different things and/or eras. Premillennialists defend against this argument by simply denying that the passages are parallel. But is this so? Let the reader decide. Of course, the premillennialist must deny this recapitulation, because if it is true, premillennialism is false. If the recapitulation here is true, premillennialism is dead. It cannot stand in the face of this argument.
The next comparison we can make is between Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:7-10, which I firmly believe depict the same final eschatological conflict. There is very good reason to believe this too. Let’s examine the text. For sake of space (this bad boy is getting long on me) I’m not going to list the text of Revelation 19:11-21, but will quote from it and cross reference as needed.
There are two very good reasons within the biblical text to support recapitulation from Revelation 19 to Revelation 20. The first is the judgment of the nations spoken of in Revelation 19:14-15 as well as in Revelation 20:3. Revelation 19:14-15 tells us:
Rev 19:14-15 (ESV): And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following Him on white horses. 15From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of His fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Rev 20:3 (ESV): 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.
Amillennialists must press the question: What nations, that have already been judged, is Satan prevented from deceiving if premilllennialism is true? Didn’t Christ just unleash the wrath of God on them and judge them? In the premillennial interpretation, the nations just have been judged at the second coming and triumph of Christ. Which nations are left for Satan to be prevented from deceiving?
Kim Riddlebarger also comments, “Again, the scope of the problem for those who hold a sequential relationship between Revelation 19 to 20 becomes clear when we examine the role of the nations throughout the book of Revelation. In Revelation 13, we read that the dragon gave the beast authority (v. 2) to rule over every tribe, people, language, and nation (v. 7). The result of this satanic empowering of the beast is that “all the inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast” (v. 8) because they are deceived by the false signs and wonders of his supreme lieutenant, the false prophet. Then in Revelation 16:13-16, we read of how the kings of the whole earth are gathered for battle at Armageddon “on that great day of God Almighty” (v. 14). This is the day, John said, when Jesus returns like a thief in judgment (v. 15).”13
And, “Therefore, when we read in Revelation 19:19, “Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army,” it is clear who these people are. These are those “who had received the mark of the beast and worshipped his image” (Rev 19:20), I.e. the nations. At this time, we are told, the beast and the false prophet are captured, and the two of them are thrown alive into the “fiery lake of burning sulphur” (v. 20). Indeed, ‘the rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh” (v. 21). Clearly, Revelation 13, 16, and 19 depict the same event, yet another strong indication of recapitulation in this epistle. What is depicted in Revelation 16 and 19 is judgment day. This is when Jesus Christ returns in wrath to judge the nations, raise the dead, and make all things new.”
This argument is strong. Premillennialists cannot explain why the nations have already been deceived by Satan (Rev 16) and subsequently destroyed and judged by Christ (Rev 19), but then in Revelation 20, the nations need to be protected from satanic deception. What nations? They’ve already been destroyed and judged by Christ. Premillennialism futilely attempts an argument that the nations being protected from satanic deception in Revelation 20:3 are nations that survived the wrath of God and the judgment in Revelation 16 and 19, but this makes no sense. Surely Christ finishes the job the first time, right?
The second strong argument in favor of the amillennial interpretation is the distinct similarities of the battles spoken of in Revelation 19 and 20. The apostle quotes from the same Old Testament prophecy in both Revelation 19 and 20 when talking about the battle. The prophecy is found in Ezekiel 38 and 39, referred to in that prophetic book as the “Gog and Magog” prophecy. In Revelation 19:17-18, John quotes directly from Ezekiel 39:17-20. And again in Revelation 20:7-10, depicting the final eschatological battle again, the apostle refers to them directly as “Gog and Magog,” quoting again from Ezekiel 38 and 39. If John is talking about two separate battles separated by 1000 years, why does he quote from the same Old Testament prophecy? That would indeed, make little sense.
It is highly unlikely that the apostle is talking about two different eschatological battles separated by 1000 years, but rather, that he is giving us different perspectives on the same battle. In Revelation 19, John writes from the perspective of Christ’s judgment on the beast, the false prophet, and the nations, then in chapter 20 the focus is on the judgment of the nations as well as Satan. R. Fowler White comments, “If John expected us to interpret the revolts in Revelation 19 and 20 as different episodes in history, we could hardly expect him to describe them in language and imagery derived from the same episode in Ezekiel’s prophecy.”14 I concur with White. The battles spoken of in Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10 are two angles of the same eschatological battle, the culmination of this age, the final triumph of Christ at His second coming, and the ushering in of the eternal state.
But what does Revelation 20:1-10 mean? Specifically, since I’ve already covered the clear recapitulation of Revelation 20:7-10 with the battles spoken of in Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 16, I will focus here on the first six verses of chapter 20. I will offer up an exposition of Revelation 20:1-6, since thus far, most of what I have done is examine what it does not mean.
It is first worthwhile to point out that as we have spoken about earlier, only glorified saints can possibly be on the new earth after the return of Christ. Second, due to the highly symbolic language of John’s apocalyptic vision, it would be unfair of us and to the text if we isolated it from the rest of the New Testament teachings on eschatology. We must take into consideration Jesus’ teaching on the subject as well as other teaching, such as the apostle Paul’s. Thus, we must read the symbolic passage in light of the clear ones. Protestants, and in particular, Reformed Theology, calls this idea the analogia fidei (analogy of faith), an idea dispensationalists generally reject.
According to the teachings of both Jesus Christ and of Paul, the resurrection of both believers and unbelievers occurs at the Parousia of Christ, when he returns to usher in the eternal state. Thankfully, this passage makes a whole lot of sense in the amillennial interpretation and we can easily do justice to it; more justice, I argue, than premillennialism does. According to Riddlebarger, “Amillennial interpreters of Revelation 20 see the passage as the weak link in any form of premillennialism. If the premillennial position is correct, the golden age of the millennium where Christ reigns for one thousand years ends with glorified men and women revolting against the visible rule of Christ when Satan is released from the abyss at the end of that time. By viewing this conception of the future millennial age through the analogy of faith, the idea of a “second fall” at the end of the millennium is so highly problematic that most amillennial interpreters rule out any form of premillennialism a priori. A fall of glorified humanity into sin after Christ’s second advent means that eternity is not safe from the apostasy and the spontaneous eruption of sin in the human heart.”15 Riddlebarger is correct of course. The thought of a second fall of man done by glorified saints is ludicrous. If we are correct in our assumption that only glorified saints can enter the kingdom after the second coming, premillennialism is indeed ruled out completely.
The first section of the chapter is verses 1-3. From the outset, we realize that the language of Revelation 20 is highly symbolic and that as well chapter 20 is not the only place in Revelation where these ideas are spoken of in John’s vision. For instance, Revelation 9:1 says: “And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit.” And the same chapter, verse 11 states: “They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.” The first question we have to answer is who are the serpent and the angel? Those are easy enough. Well, at least one is. The serpent is obviously Satan. The angel is tougher to figure, although it most likely refers to the archangel Michael, although it could possibly refer to Christ Himself (although to be clear, Christ is not an angel), since in Revelation 1:18, Christ is said to hold the key to Hades. We can also cross reference this to Paul’s discourse on the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2, and his talk of the restrainer, who is never mentioned by name. This of course is just an opinion, but I do not think the identity of the angel in the first verses of chapter 20 is a reference to Christ but rather to Michael the archangel. Or it could certainly be another angel who is unnamed. That being said, the precise identity of the angel will not effect our interpretation of the passage.
That being said, we could go back and forth on the identity of the angel, but the true issue at hand is the action taken by the angel in verses 2-3 of chapter 20 and the term “thousand years,” which is used repeatedly throughout the section. Dispensationalists, faithful to their literal interpretation, contend that the angel has a literal chain and literally physically restrains Satan for a literal 1000 years. I don’t think, however, it is that simple in light of the rest of the book of Revelation and the rest of New Testament eschatology. Historic premillennialists, postmillennialists, and amillennialists all are open to the idea of the thousand years being a symbolic term for a long period of time, or a time of completion. Obviously, in amillennialism, this has to be the case. Amillennialists see the thousand years as a symbolic number of completion, representative of the entire church era from the resurrection of Christ to His Parousia. There are excellent reasons to believe the number is symbolic too. The immediate context of Revelation 20 is extremely symbolic. It is an apocalyptic vision and everything else in the section is highly symbolic. Look at the terminology John uses: beast, dragon, serpent, bottomless pit, etc.
The thousand years is said to begin with the binding of Satan. But what does this binding refer to? Obviously, if the binding of Satan refers to his complete removal from the earth, it certainly cannot refer to the present age, as I am arguing, and thus amillennialism would fail. But there is a better explanation to this and it is supported by Jesus Himself. We need to understand clearly what is meant by the binding of Satan. It does not refer to his complete removal from the earth, as that will not happen until he is cast into the lake of fire. Amillennialists must be able to show that in some way Satan was bound upon the resurrection of Christ, since that is when the thousand years began according to amillennialism. Is there evidence in Scripture for this? Indeed there is. According to Revelation 20:3, the binding of Satan is something that is very specific. John writes, “…so that he might not deceive the nations any longer…” What this means, according to Riddlebarger, is that, “after the coming of the long-expected Messiah, Satan lost certain authority which he possessed prior to the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Savior. It does not mean that all satanic operations cease during the millennial age as many opponents of amillennialism mistakenly assume. The binding of Satan simply means that Satan cannot deceive the nations until he is released at the end of the millennial age.”16 But, we surely need to find more evidence than this. If this is the only place Scripture talks about Satan being bound, the argument put forth is quite weak. Thankfully, there is more evidence. Revelation 9:1-11 depicts an angel releasing demonic forces to deceive the nations of the earth. Likewise, Riddlebarger argues, “if Christ takes authority over this realm through his own death and resurrection as stated in Revelation 1:18, then the binding of Satan is a direct result of Christ’s resurrection.”17 This argument comes down to this: If Satan is presently bound, it simply means that he is unable to rally the nations together as one against the saints. Indeed, he has never been able to do this since the resurrection of Christ. On the other hand, in the Old Testament, he was allowed by God to do this repeatedly. Look at Israel’s history. We can also find evidence in the gospels that this is the case. We are told in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church. But there is more. Matthew 12:29 states: “Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.” Jesus himself talked about binding Satan through His death and resurrection. Paul agreed in Colossians 2:15: “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” And likewise, the book of Hebrews proclaims that Satan’s power has been weakened in Hebrews 2:14: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death He might destroy the one who has the power over death, that is, the devil.” 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 discusses this as well. To put it simply, Satan being bound does not mean that he is completely inactive. He obviously is. Nevertheless, he is incapable of rallying the nations together on a world-wide scale to make war against the saints of God, until the very end.
As Riddlebarger puts it, “but however we understand the binding of Satan, we need to be faithful to two distinct but complementary lines of biblical data. The first line emphasizes a decisive defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ binding him, in effect, and preventing him from deceiving the nations. This defeat at the cross and empty tomb guarantees his eventual and final end…The second line of biblical data is that Satan still rages against Christ and His kingdom in this age in some limited but nevertheless sinister fashion.”18
The amillennial interpretation is however, able to make the most sense of Satan’s release after the thousand years is ended. In light of Paul’s discourse on the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2. Riddlebarger comments, “Once the divine restraint is lifted, the lawless one suddenly appears, accompanied with lying signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:1-12). The release of Satan at the end of the millennial age is itself a strong argument in favor of the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3. The binding of Satan for a thousand years and his subsequent release surely belongs to the present age and not to that period after Christ returns to judge all men, raise the dead, and make all things new.”19
The final section of Scripture we need to analyze is the next section of Revelation 20, namely, verses 4-6. The scene, as can be seen (no pun intended), shifts from an emphasis on Satan and his being bound to heaven, and the rule of the saints. Not surprisingly, dispensationalists see this scene as happening on earth. (cf. Rev 5:10) However, we need to analyze the passage further. The scene takes place at the location of the thrones, for John writes: “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed…” The answer should be obvious from the rest of the book of Revelation: the thrones are in heaven. Revelation 1:4 reads: “…Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne.” Revelation 3:21 says: “The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne…” Revelation 4:2 reads: “At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven…” Dispensationalists mistakenly associated Revelation 5:10, which reads: “and you made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” with a future millennial kingdom. However, there is better evidence in the book of Revelation that the passage in question refers not to a future millennial kingdom, but rather to the new earth. The throne of God is located in heaven, not on the earth. Riddllebarger notes, “There can be little doubt that the portrayal of beings sitting on thrones is not intended to express the literal idea of people sitting on actual pieces of furniture and ruling from there. This is, rather, a figurative way of saying that they reign over a kingdom.”20
Thus, the questions we must answer are: Riddlebarger says, “Who are these people? And what kind of judgment do they exercise?”21 These people are mentioned numerous times in the book of Revelation. Directly in chapter 20, they are said to not have worshipped the beast or his image. However, it probably includes the ones mentioned in chapter 6 verse 9 as well, who are described as “the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.” And as well, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” (Rev 14:13) What is also of utmost importance here is to take heed of where the reign is taking place. That is, the place where the souls of the martyrs are. This is undoubtedly in heaven, which is clearly contrasted to the bottomless pit in verses 1-3. Likewise, we need to leap forward to the eternal state, when body and soul are reunited. Once this happens, they are said to reign forever and ever (Rev 22:5). This rules out a millennial kingdom. Of course the premillennial argument is that the millennial kingdom merges into the eternal state. But where is the evidence for this in Scripture?
However, the most important part of Revelation 20:4-6 is the nature of the first resurrection. Premillennialists insist this is a bodily resurrection. I don’t think it is. There is evidence internally in Scripture that this first resurrection refers not to a bodily resurrection, but to another resurrection. George Eldon Ladd, noted historic premillennialist, offers up a strong argument in favor of premillennialism, when he notes: “This is the most important word in the entire passage. The exegete must decide whether or not it means resurrection; and upon this decision will be determined how he interprets the entire passage.”22 Ladd is quite right. The first resurrection is the hinge on which the passage turns from either being a support of amillennialism or premillennialism. According to Ladd, his argument goes as follows: There are two resurrections mentioned here, and one of them is obviously bodily, therefore resurrections must always be bodily. Famous premillennialist Henry Alford forces the discussion in this direction: “If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain (psychai ezesan) at the first, and the rest of the (nekroi ezesan) only at the end of a specified period after the first, if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; then there is an end to all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to any thing.”23 Alford here is essentially arguing that since the passage mentions two resurrections, they must mean the exact same thing (bodily, he argues) or else words mean nothing, and we completely wipe out the testimony of Scripture and we might as well make the whole Bible say what we want it to. This is a serious charge, and one that must be looked at and dealt with accordingly. But is this the case? In order to determine this, we must look more at the passage as to how the first resurrection is described.
Amillennialism looks a bit deeper into the passage. First, we recognize that the scene in Revelation 20:4-6 takes place in heaven during the present age. Thus, the first resurrection mentioned by the apostle must be something that occurs before the general bodily resurrection of everyone at the Parousia of Christ. Thus, the resurrection cannot be bodily. Amillennialists have interpreted this first resurrection in two ways. The first way is that it refers to the believers regeneration from life to death that happens temporally when a child of God becomes born again. The second way it is interpreted is that it refers to the believer’s death, when they subsequently are taken to be with the Lord. There have been some giants of Reformed Theology on both sides of this issue. I believe it refers to the regeneration of the believer. My reasoning is twofold. First, John makes a connection between the first resurrection and the second death, which is clearly a reference to eternal condemnation or hell. John says: “Over such the second death has no power…” Over who does the second death have no power? Christians, of course. Once we are born again, hell has no power over us. The second reason is found embedded in John’s gospel. Jesus states in John 5:24-25: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Thus, Jesus Christ Himself associates regeneration with passing from death to life. What can this be but a type of resurrection?
Another factor to consider is the Greek word used for “first” in the phrase “first resurrection.” Premillennialists insist the word is sequential; that is, it refers to the first of the same type of resurrection. Thus, they end up with two bodily resurrections. However, evidence from Revelation itself shows the word used here (Gk: protos) most likely refers to the first type, as opposed to the second type. (second resurrection) John uses the same word again in Revelation 21:1, when he says: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.” Obviously here, John uses the term protos in reference to two differing types of heavens and earths. The first (the present one) and the new creation at the consummation. Riddlebarger notes, “Further illumination of this point is to be found when we consider John’s use of the term second in Revelation 21, which functions in a sense as an alternate tern for ‘new’ in the same chapter. It is the ‘second death’ of verse 8, which is identified with the fiery lake of burning sulphur and is the opposite of the death that belongs to the order of ‘first things’ depicted in verse 4, namely, that which results in the first resurrection. Therefore, the words second and new serve as antithesis of the first (protos)…Clearly, then, the terms do not indicate sequence but contrast.”24
If this is true, and I think Riddlebarger is on the right track, the difficulties for premillennialism grow even bigger, because it indicates a difference in type of resurrection in Revelation 20, not in sequence.
Likewise, we also must recognize that even the strict literalist premillennarians are forced to “spiritualize” a term in Revelation 20. The term is the “second death.” If they insist that the first and second resurrections are both bodily, and the terms used by the apostle for “first” and ‘second” are sequential terms, then they also must insist that the “first death” and the “second death” refer to two types of the exact same type of death. Granted, the term “first death” does not appear in the passage, but can easily be implied in verse 4, when it says: “Also I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded…” Clearly, physical death is the first death and can be garnered easily from this statement when John says he saw the souls of martyred saints. Therefore, using the sequential logic, the second death must be the same type of death, a physical death. Yet, this is not the case, as the second death in question here is a clear reference to eternal condemnation. Thus, premillennialists are forced to “spiritualize” the second death, much to their chagrin, and contrary to their professed literal reading.
$64,000 Question: Why aren’t more Christians amillennial in their eschatology?
It should be quite clear from Scripture that the case for an amillennial eschatology is very strong indeed. Not only does Scripture itself support it strongly, but there have been many giants of Christian theology past and present who hold to the amillennial viewpoint. Thus, we should be able to conclude that amillennialism is a majority report in Christianity. Indeed, it used to be. Amillennialism has been the majority report in Christianity at least since the time of St. Augustiine, and the view was around far before he systematized it. Even famous premillennialist Justin Martyr (2nd century A.D.) said that many who hold to the pure and pious faith think otherwise (not premillennial). But even though amillennialism has been the majority position of orthodox Christianity for centuries, we find that now days, it is not. I think there are numerous good reasons as to why this is so.
1. Conservative evangelicalism has overreacted to theological liberalism.
I think this one is obvious. Theological liberalism in many cases seeks to interpret pretty much anything in Scripture symbolically, leading to a Bible that can be interpreted however the individual sees fit. It also in many cases leads to a direct denial of Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, essentially reducing the covenant canon of Scripture to a bunch of nice stories, that are uninspired, written by men that record their stories about their personal experience with God. This is a very Gnostic tendency as well, but that’s a whole other topic. Thus, the reaction by conservative evangelicalism has been interpret everything strictly literally, especially in Fundamentalism. Amillennialism (Covenant Theology particularly) therefore, is seen as “spiritualizing the Bible,” the most egregious interpretive sin imaginable to many conservative evangelicals, especially dispensationalists.
The expressed reaction by conservative evangelicals is a noble one; theological liberalism has no place in Christian orthodoxy. Yet, instead of realizing that covenant theology and amillennialism by extension take Scripture just as seriously as they do, and hold firmly to inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture, as soon as they hear anything in the New Testament interpreted in a symbolic or spiritual fashion, the noses go up in the air and the charge of liberalism or spiritualizing Scripture is leveled. In their view, no worse charge can be leveled.
2. Amillenialists and Covenant Theologians do not relate everything in the news to Scripture.
One of the major attractions of dispensational theology now days to the general Christian is its apparent ability to relate just about every event in the middle east and around the world to the Scriptures. In the hands of an able communicator, this is powerful. Thus, when a John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, or Dave Hunt see world events happening and relate them to fulfilled prophecy in Scripture, the church takes notice. There is something inherently exciting about it, after all. We can literally see the world events transpiring and see how these able dispensational teachers relate them to Scripture. This creates an attractive sense of utter urgency, as we move closer to the rapture and unveiling of antichrist. According to Riddlebarger, this “makes a more theologically grounded system like amillennialism seem almost irrelevant to everyday Christian living.”25 Amillennarians need to focus on the fact that we as well look with just as much anticipation for the coming of Christ. It is not only dispensationalists who do so.
3. Amillennialism is not even considered.
Much of Christianity, under the teaching of popular and very visible dispensational teaching, doesn’t even consider amillennialism as a viable option regarding eschatology. The reasons for this are quite simple really. First, we can go back to reason 1. They don’t consider it because they have been indoctrinated that amillennialists spiritualize the Bible, the worst of interpretive liberalism. But this of course is a grievous straw man, as I have hopefully shown in the preceding arguments I have made. They’ve also been taught, thanks to authors such as Hal Lindsey, that amillennialism is “demonic and heretical”26 as well as anti-Semitic. Of course such is not the case on either charge. If it is, the vast majority of Christianity has been demonic and heretical and anti-Semitic, which flies in the face of Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Matt 16:18) against his church.
Riddlebarger concludes, “But this should not surprise us (that amillennialism is dismissed immediately by many) since investigating a new and controversial eschatological position always involves a risk. Often times, people become comfortable with one particular millennial position, usually the one they embraced when they first became Christians, and then they dig in their heels when their view is challenged. This tendency is part of fallen human nature. We do not find it easy to objectively evaluate matters we feel strongly about with open minds and without prejudice.”27
Thus, hopefully you can see that there is good reason for the amillennial interpretation regarding eschatology. There is also very good reason to doubt the premillennial interpretation. As I said from the outset, I do not and will not consider this topic something to be divisive over. I heartily consider premillennial believers brothers and sisters in Christ, and will continue to do so. This is not a question of the gospel, but of end times theology, and therefore, we ought to be gracious to each other in this regard. Personally, I do not think the premillennial position in any form to be tenable biblically, but I will be pleasantly surprised if I am raptured away!
But as for now, I remain a staunch amillenarian, and I hold no apology for this viewpoint.
SELECTED QUOTES
1. Floyd Hamilton, “The Basis for Millennial Faith,” in William E. Cox, ed., Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), 24-25, 53-54
2. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 86-89
3. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 39
4. Ibid, 40
5. Hal Lindsey, The Rapture (New York: Bantam, 1983), 30
6. Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1979), 173
7. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 232
8. Ibid, 232
9. John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago, Moody, 1978), 30
10. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 197
11. Ibid, 200
12. William Hendricksen, More than Conquerors (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1982), 21
13. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 203-204
14. R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:1-10,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (Fall 1989), 327
15. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 207-208
16. Ibid, 210
17. Ibid, 211
18. Ibid, 212
19. Ibid, 213
20. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), 995-996
21. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 207-208
22. George E. Ladd, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987), 265
23. Ibid, 267
24. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 219
25. Ibid, 230
26. Hal Lindsey, The Rapture (New York: Bantam, 1983), 30
27. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2003), 39
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)