On this blog, I have yet to fully show my hand when it comes to the millennium. I have a link below to a paper I wrote on the millennium. Before you read it (I only expect theology nerds to do so), I want to make a few things clear:
- Debating eschatology (“end times”) is an intramural conversation among Christians. There are many Jesus-loving people who disagree and that is okay. Christians can have a wide array of opinions and still be “orthodox” (i.e. not heretics). Christians can disagree on eschatology and this in no way serves as evidence that Christianity is false. We are imperfect people who cannot see truth perfectly.
- The millennial perspective one adopts usually arises from how one reads the Bible (what’s called “hermeneutics,” a fancy word for interpretation). Simply exchanging proof texts with a person who holds a different opinion will not convince anyone. The way to establish a viewpoint in eschatology (and convince others) is to nail down how you view the Bible. I hope my paper makes that clear. In reality, my paper is just as much about hermeneutics as it is about eschatology.
- Studying eschatology for the few weeks surrounding this paper has made the doctrine much more pleasing to me. More than that, my study has given me great pleasure in knowing that God knows it all and I am just a footnote trying to figure out the big story.
- In the end, Christians can agree on, rejoice in, and anticipate the fact that Jesus proclaims, “Behold, I am coming soon…Surely, I am coming soon” (Rev. 22:7, 12, 20).
- My paper is not exhaustive. It also assumes some understanding of the subject matter. This was a seminary research paper and was not intended to be an exegetical study of relevant passages (though it does include some of that). I do not address every argument against my position (page limits!). Furthermore, this is not the same copy I turned in. There have been additions and edits after the fact, so there may be typos. I can’t afford an editor.
Without further adieu (drum roll noise in background): I hold to an Amillennial viewpoint on the millennium. I hold it with a very open hand, acknowledging that it may change in the future and that it is a non-essential point of doctrine. FYI, if I wasn’t Amillennial, I would be an Historic Premillennialist (I explain that view in the paper).
With that, happy reading: “He Must Reign: Understanding the Millennium“