There is a list concerning church trauma I am often asked about. Is it true, how should I respond, etc.? The list is antagonistic towards churches in a way that is both unhelpful and hypocritical. Rather than take on the list as a whole, I … Continue reading Trauma or Drama: Is Christianity just fatalism?
There is a list concerning church trauma I am often asked about. Is it true, how should I respond, etc.? The list is antagonistic towards churches in a way that is both unhelpful and hypocritical. Rather than take on the list as a whole, I … Continue reading Trauma or Drama: Is Christianity just fear mongering?
There is a list concerning church trauma I am often asked about. Is it true, how should I respond, etc.? The list is antagonistic towards churches in a way that is both unhelpful and hypocritical. Rather than take on the list as a whole, I … Continue reading Trauma or Drama: Is Christianity a purity cult?
There is a list concerning church trauma I am often asked about. Is it true, how should I respond, etc.? The list is antagonistic towards churches in a way that is both unhelpful and hypocritical. Rather than take on the list as a whole, I … Continue reading Trauma or Drama: Is Christianity against mental health therapy?
Why write such a controversial article during the week of passion!? Surely there are other more Nobel things to write about as we remember the incredible defeat of sin and death. During this week we cannot forget the words of Jesus and His concern. Jesus’ … Continue reading Why I appreciate being part of the SBC
I loved a conversation a friend of mine had with a fellow saint. He asked the saint how many churches are there in Norfolk. After a response of “I don’t know” the friend stated correctly: “One.” This biblical reality is one we miss. But why … Continue reading Nondenominational or denominational: A need, a failure, and a hope
Remember why self-care is important, to enable you to serve and bless others. I am thankful that in ministry and leadership circles there is much attention to self-care through rest, training, therapy, sabbaticals, etc. In these conversations there I’m noticing a missing or an assumption … Continue reading The purpose of a bucket is to be emptied
One of the criticisms of the rapture minded viewpoint is that it holds to two people of God, Israel & the church. (Some also say two gospels based on a minor point from Darby that arguably was not referring to two gospels. But non-dispensationalists tend … Continue reading One Gospel with many stories to tell
The Covid saga acted like a nuclear bomb. The devastation from a nuclear bomb is the initial blast, followed by the shock wave, and the fallout. With the many conversations about the angst of people these days, we are in the fallout stage. Peter Kreeft’s … Continue reading Why people seem more cranky these days
Revelation is a book that lacks no controversy. When preaching through the book one has to humbly take a position. This is different than teaching the book which entails various views. One’s theological position will dictate how one teaches the book. It is wildly popular to criticize the futurist position of Revelation, even more so for the pre-trib minded viewpoint. So why endeavor to preach Revelation from a futurist position? Because that’s what the Scriptures point to.
Much like Matthew and Mark, Revelation’s use of Kai is akin to the vav consecutive of Hebrew. This grammatical construction links one event to the next whereby one event necessitates the next. This becomes an issue when approaching the clear description of the millennium. The events of the coming of Christ in Revelation 19 are directly linked to the discussion of the 1,000 year rule of Christ in Revelation 20. Grammatically this does not coincide with an amillennial or postmillennial viewpoint. Revelation describes a sequence of events that build on each other rather than numerous visions spanning church history or past events, such as 70AD.
If the Bible is true and God’s covenants are irrevocable, what we should see at the end of time is a restoration of the Kingdom of Israel. This points to an Earthly kingdom, not merely a spiritual one. This also points to a national entity, not a replacement by the church. Described in Revelation, we see the resurgence of national Israel as an entity, as well as the acknowledgement of other nations. Israel has not yet as a nation become redeemed as promised. Revelation describes such an event. A futurist position for Revelation is more likely.
A predominate viewpoint is Revelation describes events that concluded with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. There are a few issues with that: First, Revelation being written in 95AD would be an odd fit given the book is clearly predictive. Some move the date to the mid 60’s to counter this issue, but then one runs into problems such as an earthquake that wiped out Laodicia, making the letter to said church odd. Or that John’s exile to Patmos, where he wrote the book, occurred in 94AD. Second, the events of 70AD do not match the parallel teaching of Jesus in Matthew 24. There are significant historical incongruities between what Jesus and Revelation state compared with the events of 70AD. Third, the cataclysmic descriptions of Jesus and of Revelation do not fit any period of history. For example, WW II is a far greater calamity than what occurred in 70AD, and so is the great flood of Genesis. Jesus said “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.” Fourth, the timing of Christ’s return is immediately after the tribulation, stated to be three and a half years later. These issues point to a futurist position, not a preterist or historicist one.
Matthew and Romans declare salvation for the Jewish people. This is spoken of by the angel to Joseph. Paul also writes that just as mercy was shown to Gentiles that same mercy would in the future also be shown to Israel. While Romans teaches that being born Jewish does not make you a believer, Paul also asserts that those born Jewish will be restored to fellowship with God as a nation. Many have an issue with this declaring the need for “one people of God.” Like us as individuals, how God deals with nations is different. There is one Gospel and many saved and unsaved from all nations. What is clear in Scripture is that Israel being brought back into favor is wholly an act of God to vindicate His name… amongst the nations. This aspect of the New Covenant is not congruent with the church replacing Israel. As the angel said to Joseph “…you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people form their sins.”
I will be preaching on Revelation 20 in June, so I will not be spending much time on this point here. Suffice to say, the language of Revelation 20 does not allow for the viewpoint that postmillennialism would require. And the history, especially of the 20th century, would argue against such a viewpoint. To quote a professor and mentor Dr. Engle, “as people forget WW II, I would not be surprised if postmillennialism came back. Hopefully we are not that naive.” Satan, in the millennium is clearly bound and separated.
The chiliast (pre-millennial) position was predominate in the early church and then fell out of favor as the theologian era began. Two driving forces behind the rejection: it was too Jewish, and it was too earthly. (Not a textual basis.) Augustine threw gas on that fire, and amillennialism took root for most of church history. Given both the Abrahamic covenant and Paul’s teaching in Romans 11, this is enough to outright reject amillennialism. This change is also where the wrong doctrine of sacred vs secular builds upon. Some discussions with those in the premillennial camp speculate as to whether the concept that “a literal kingdom is too earthly” is actually gnostic influence on the church. As the Reformation brought the importance of the Bible back into view, premillennial and futurist thinking concerning Revelation were free to develop once again. As I am dispensational, I would that that the movement is the repentance of the Church to a right understanding of God’s relationship with Israel and His plan for the Gospel to all nations.
The largest reason for taking a futurist position is the clarity of God stating that He is the one who will act. We know from Romans that the covenants belong to Israel and that God will restore national Israel to prominence. The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic covenants describe a falling away, but also restoration because of God’s character. As Psalm 89 directly asserts, God must maintain His promise or He is a liar. The New Covenant is not so much new as it is a fulfillment of those three covenants. We see described in Romans 9-11 that God always intended on bringing gentiles into fellowship with Himself. The Gospel was never exclusively for Israel. The Abrahamic covenant clearly states “in you and your offspring shall all the families of the Earth be blessed.” In the culmination of the New covenant God states “And the nations will know that I am the LORD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.” This is not ushered in by Israel or by the church, but an act of God “that He may have mercy on all.” One Gospel, differing plans for people and nations. In Revelation we see the clarity of God acting amongst the nations. As the question is raised in Heaven, Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” The hero, the one who gets the last word is God, not Israel, not the Church.
Revelation is often hard because we don’t want to just accept it as written. The point of the book isn’t details of the future but rather that Jesus will be known amongst the nations, that vengeance is His, and that He repays. The text of Revelation is clearly premillennial in its plain reading, the events future based on Jesus’ brief description in Matthew 24. These events happen in rapid succession, not decades long history, as Jesus states that the generation who sees the events described will not pass away until all the things take place. As He has not yet returned, those events are a still future.
T.Woznek 