Holding to Dispensational Premillennialism: A Response to Schreiner’s Reasons for Amillennialism

Introduction

Christians disagree over what Scripture teaches on the millennium. Those that hold to amillennialism don’t think Scripture teaches a future earthly reign of Christ on earth before the last judgment. Instead, they believe “God’s kingdom is now present in the world as the victorious Christ rules his church through Word and Spirit.” ((Evang. Dict. of Theology, p. 546)) This is a popular view. Justin Taylor recently published a blog post over at The Gospel Coalition, giving seven reasons Tom Schreiner holds to amillennialism. Tom Schreiner is also popular. He’s a well-respected New Testament scholar and brother in Christ. I’ve personally benefited greatly from his commentaries on Galatians and Hebrews. However, I disagree with him on the nature of the millennium. Nevertheless, it’s helpful to look at each of his reasons and offer a response from a dispensational premillennial perspective. This is not to convince Tom Schreiner, who has no doubt pondered these issues more than most Christians, but to remind premillennialists that their view is rational and has the advantage of being biblical.

Below I have quoted the headings for each of the seven reasons, and then summarized Schreiner’s argument as summarized by Justin Taylor, followed by my brief responses.

1. Scripture Nowhere Else Clearly Teaches a Thousand-Year Millennium

Schreiner concerned that a thousand-year millennium only appears in Rev. 20, and then only in a controversial passage within a symbol-laden book.

These facts are true. However, in the scheme of progressive revelation, the solitary mention of the one thousand years (the millennium) in Rev. 20 does not discount that it is a literal event. As far as symbolism goes, Paul Lee Tan notes, “although some prophetic numbers do contain symbolical significances, this does not negate the literality and actuality of the numbers.” ((Interpretation of Prophecy, Paul Lee Tan, p. 166))

2. Revelation 20 Might Be Telling the Story of Revelation 19:11–21 from Another Perspective

At times, Revelation seems to recap the same story from different perspectives. Schreiner suggests that Rev. 20 might be a retelling of Rev. 19:11–21.

Robert L. Thomas evaluates the structural theories of Revelation in his commentary and concludes that Revelation does include some measure of recapitulation in several interludes dispersed throughout the narrative. These interludes serve to support the overall logical chronological structure of the book. ((Revelation 8-22 Exegetical Commentary, Robert L. Thomas, pp. 525–543)) However, a chronological reading of Revelation 19 following sequentially into chapter 20 makes good logical sense. Read this way, the narrative progresses from Christ’s return, to the birds’ invitation, to the beast’s defeat (all in Revelation 19), and then to the binding of Satan and his final defeat in Revelation 20. ((Thomas, p. 381))

3. The Supposed Millennium Texts of the OT Don’t Appear in Revelation 20—But They Do in the New Creation Texts of Revelation 21–22

Rev. 21:1–22:5 alludes to Old Testament passages commonly cited as referencing the millennium (e.g., Isa 60 and Ezek 40–48), not Rev. 20. Instead of referring to the millennium, then, Schreiner argues these passages find their fulfillment in the new creation.

Premillennialists understand that Ezekiel prophesied the existence of a literal temple during the millennial kingdom. It’s problematic to link this prophecy to the eternal state for several reasons. First, Rev. 21:22 clearly states there is no longer a temple in the new creation. Secondly, Ezek. 45:20 makes it clear that there will still be sin during the existence of this new temple. While Revelation 22:3 makes it clear that there will no longer be any sin in the eternal state¹

Premillennialists take Isaiah 60 to describe conditions for Israel during the kingdom. It clearly describes conditions that overlap the millennial kingdom as well as the eternal kingdom described at the end of Revelation.

4. The Early Church Fathers Were Divided on This Question

The evidence from church history indicates that the earliest fathers were divided on this issue and that many were amillennial.

Dispensationalists would agree, yet even Charles Hill, mentioned in the Gospel Coalition post, admits here, “Some form of chiliasm was certainly defended by such notable names as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century and Tertullian of Carthage in the third.” You also find rudimentary features of dispensationalism in the church fathers such as the literal interpretation of Scripture, the distinction between Israel and the church, and historical divisions in how God dealt with humanity.² While we acknowledge that the modern dispensationalist system traces its roots only back to Darby, the importance of the premillennial view rests on proper method of Biblical interpretation, not “counting noses” of ancient theologians who agree or disagree.

5. Who Are the Unglorified People in the Millennium If Jesus Destroys All His Enemies at the End of Revelation 19?

Schreiner claims the New Testament teaches that Christ’s return will mark reward and judgment for everyone. Therefore, there cannot be unglorifed people in the millennium when Jesus destroys all His enemies at His return.

As Sam Storms, a former premillennialist, explains here, these unglorified people “must be the unbelieving progeny born to those believers who entered the millennial age in physical, unglorified bodies. Not only they, but also the believing progeny born to those believers will be subject to physical death (notwithstanding the alleged prolonged life spans experienced by those who live during the millennial reign of Christ).” I don’t think premillennialists struggle to explain the presence of unglorified people in the millennium at all. Isaiah 65 even seems to require it with Isa 65:20 detailing the presence of sin and death during this time.

Amillennialists argue that passages such as the division of the sheep and goats described in Mt 25:31–46 indicate that when Jesus returns, it will mean reward and judgment for everyone. From a premillennial perspective though, this passage describes the judgment of the Gentiles who survived the Tribulation. The Lord will judge the wicked who remain alive at that time, and the righteous will enter the millennium in physical bodies and serve Christ the King. There is no mention of their glorification. They will then reproduce, and some of their descendants will rebel against Christ (see Zech 16:16–19).

6. Scripture Nowhere Separates Out the Timing of the Final Resurrection, Final Judgment, Victory over Death, Arrival of the New Creation, and Second Coming of Christ

No other text indicates that these great events are separated; instead, they seem to be a total package.

This is a big one to tackle because there are numerous descriptions of these events with some of the Bible language overlapping in their descriptions. As premillenialists, we depend heavily on Revelation for our chronological scheme of eschatology. Nevertheless, there are some hints outside of the book of Revelation. Premillennialists see an indication in 1 Cor. 15:23-24 of a sequence that allows time for the millennial kingdom to occur before the eternal kingdom. In this passage Paul writes, “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” In 15.23 there is a gap of time between Christ’s resurrection and that of believers (“they that are Christ’s”), premillennialists see a similar gap in the word “then” in 15:24. This gap certainly allows time for the millennium to take place. The language is admittedly interpretive,³ but following the principles of progressive revelation, the consistently literal interpretation of the premillennialist makes good sense.

Another question concerns the notion of separation between the resurrections. For example, premillennialists see a resurrection of the righteous who come to salvation during the tribulation (their resurrection is at the end of the tribulation) and a separate resurrection of the unrighteous (which comes at the end of the millennium, see Rev 20:4–6). Amillennialists point to Dan. 12:2 and John 5:28–29, both of which seem to spell out a general resurrection. However, Dan. 12:2 seems to make a distinction between the two resurrections with the word “many.” The passage reads, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Why many? Why not all? The wording allows for the separation of resurrections seen in Rev. 20. According to this text in Daniel, the initial resurrection doesn’t necessarily include all the dead at that time. Besides, a simple statement with both resurrections in view doesn’t preclude a later, more detailed statement.

While this objection seems strong to amillennialists, there are no Scriptures that demand a purely amillennial understanding of the resurrections and judgments.

7. Amillennialism Fits Best with the Rest of the Scriptures

This final point admits that the premillennial position has its strengths, but in the end amillennialism wins out because it fits best with the rest of the Bible.

Of course, premillennialists would say the same for their position. It’s consistent and literal from Genesis to Revelation. As the amillennialist, Floyd Hamilton, admitted, “Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures.”⁴ That picture was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal kingdom interpretation of the Old Testament promises.

Conclusion

Amillennialism contends that the church fulfills the kingdom right now. Since we don’t literally see the details described in the kingdom prophecies of Scripture today, amillennialists spiritualize them. Amillennial interpreters, such as Schreiner, choose to understand some portions of God’s Word literally while interpreting other portions spiritually. The problem with amillennialism is one of inconsistent hermeneutics. Perhaps the biggest problem with amillennialism for all of us should be, knowing how the Scriptures describe the kingdom, if we’re in it right now, shouldn’t we be a little disappointed? We look for a much better kingdom than the current scene! It isn’t much of a kingdom right now.

---

Brent Niedergall is youth pastor at Catawba Springs Christian Church in Apex, North Carolina. He holds an MDiv from Shepherds Theological Seminary and is pursuing a DMin from Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

---

Photo by Anthony DeRosa from Pexels

1. Dispensationalism Tomorrow and Beyond, Christopher Cone, p. 384 [↩]
2. An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, Mal Couch, ed., pp. 87–94 [↩]
3. The First Letter to the Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa, p. 765 [↩]
4. The Basis of Millennial Faith, Floyd Hamilton, p. 38 [↩]