The Case for Premillennialism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE CASE FOR PREMILLENNIALISM

by Steve Cha

 

INTRODUCTION

The book of Revelation outlines the consummation of world history, a vision given to the Apostle John from the Lord Jesus Himself. A most interesting, and often controversial, section of this book is Chapter 20:1-10, which discusses the binding of Satan and the reign of Jesus Christ on earth for 1,000 years. What exactly does this passage mean? The plain reading seems to suggest that, after returning to earth, Christ will have an angel confine Satan to an inescapable pit so that Satan will no longer influence the nations of the earth, and Christ will rule over this world for a 1,000 year period along with the redeemed, resurrected saints. Is this chapter to be taken literally or figuratively? This question has been the debate of the ages. Though there have been and still are scholars who interpret Chapter 20:1-10 in a symbolic and figurative fashion, the intent of this particular essay is to present a sound case for the literal approach to interpreting Revelation 20:1-10. In other words, this essay will present the case for premillennialism. This paper will briefly survey the challenges to premillennialism, but will seek to provide healthy evidence that shows premillennialism to be the most probable interpretation of the millennial issue, and end by briefly explaining what implication this understanding has on the Christian faith.

 

A HISTORY OF PREMILLENNIALISM

Defining the Millennium

Since this essay revolves around a study of premillennialism, it is appropriate to begin by first explaining what the term means. The Beacon Dictionary of Theology defines premillennialism as “before the thousand years,” coming from the Latin words praek mille annus.[1] The term premillennialism has been used interchangeably in early church history with the terms chialism and millenniarism. Christians who identify with premillennialism believe in the personal return of Christ to earth before the millennium, in which the Messiah will literally and visibly rule fromJerusalem for a 1,000 year period. There is nothing symbolic, mythical, or figurative about the portrayed events in Revelation 20:1-10. The interpretation is as literal and faithful to the normal sense of the textual language as can be. Premillennialism has two categorizations: historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism.

A premillennialist believes that Christ will establish His kingdom and set up His throne in the rebuilt city of Jerusalem after His second coming. It is based on not just a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:10, but also on many Old Testament passages that make eschatological references to an earthly kingdom ruled over by the Messiah. The kingdom governed by the ultimate descendant of David has been the hope of the Jews for centuries, which is why premillennialists believe that God’s promises to the descendants of Abraham will be kept and the Jews will find restoration to their homeland.[2]

 

What the Early Church Believed

An understanding of Christ’s return to earth to rule for the 1,000 reign in Jerusalem was characteristic of much of the apostolic church. Although factors like church tradition and majority vote do not necessarily prove the truth of a particular interpretation, it is helpful and noteworthy to consider because of the fact that the early apostolic churches were so close to the days when the apostles were alive. This greatly increases the chances of a closer and more accurate interpretation of doctrine, especially as it regards eschatological issues. As Nathan Busenitz writes, “if…the New Testament upholds a future, earthly millennial kingdom, then we would expect Premillennialism to be the predominant view in the writings of the early church fathers. And this is exactly what we find.”[3]

Though never officially indoctrinated as a universal church creed, the councils and teachings of premillennialism was widespread amongst early Christian communities, and was evident amongst the writings of 2nd century church leaders such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Barnabas.[4] Stanley Grenz makes an excellent observation regarding the traditions of Ephesus, which is one of the original areas where the Apostle John sent the book of Revelation. Grenz notes that in this region, “a millenarian tradition developed that shares certain features with modern premillennialism. This tradition focused on the material blessings that will accompany the future rule of Christ over the renewed physical earth following the resurrection at the end of the age.”[5]

It is also fascinating to mention that even such contemporary theologians as Keith Mathison, who is not a premillennialist, frankly acknowledges the premillennial teachings of one of the early church fathers, Irenaeus (ca. 130-202), affirming that Ireneaus had a developed eschatology that included a three-year reign of the Antichrist, a desecration of the temple in Jerusalem, the return of Christ, Christ’s millennial reign on earth, the final judgment, and the inauguration of the final state.[6] These are some of many examples of early church leaders who believed in premillennialism, showing that is neither a recent development nor an unbiblical doctrine. It is incredibly archaic, sturdy, and possibly the most biblically reliable stance to hold amongst the other viewpoints that would eventually develop in the centuries to come.

 

THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

The Camps

As old and well-cherished of a doctrine that premillennialism is in church history, it has come under attack in the centuries to come and is opposed by a number of evangelicals today. There are some scholars who do not believe in Scripture’s plain teaching of Christ returning to the nation of Israel before the millennium to rule for 1,000 years before establishing the New Heavens and New Earth. It is not within the scope and intent of this paper to explore all the intricate issues relating to the opposing viewpoints. This section will simply present the two major alternative views raised today and what disagreements they have with premillennial teachings.

The first of the two opposing camps to premillennialism is amillennialism, which is the widely held viewpoint today, comprising figures from Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Greek Orthodoxy.[7] The Westminister Theological Dictionary of Terms defines amillennialism as interpreting the “thousand years” of Christ’s reign as symbolic rather than literal.[8] Contrary to its root definition, amillennialism does not mean that there is no millennial period. Rather, it holds to the theory that the millennium, although not necessarily 1,000 years, is not future, but had already begun when Christ defeated the work of Satan on the cross, rose again from the grave, and established the church. In other words, the church age is the millennial period and the events of Revelation 20:1-6 are happening right now.[9]

The second dominant viewpoint is postmillennialism. The people who hold this view believe, like amillennialists, that Revelation 20:1-10 is symbolic in nature and that the millennial period is happening right now. However, postmillennialism is unique in that its believers are convicted that the kingdom of God is currently being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel, that the world eventually will be Christianized, and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace, or the close of the millennium. The second coming will then be followed by the general resurrection, the general judgment, and the introduction of heaven and hell in their fullness.[10] Of all the major millennial viewpoints, postmillennialism tends to be most optimistic regarding God’s ability to use the church to accomplish His purposes in the present age.[11]

 

The Objections

Of all the major objections that amillennialists and postmillennialists pose to premillennialists, a few are common. Some of the major ones I include because they will be points of which I will interact with in defense of premillennialism shortly after this section. The points of objection include: 1). A premillennialist interpretation implies an unbending literalism in the interpretation of prophecy. The skeptics believe that the Apostle John relied on the contemporaneous apocalyptic genre when he wrote the book of Revelation. Therefore, they do not see the book of Revelation as a prophetic book pointing to purely futuristic events, but as a predominantly figurative book that describes general themes of good, evil, and Christ’s ultimate triumph 2). The NT does not connect the Second Coming of Jesus with an earthly kingdom having its center of administration from Jerusalem 3). Premillennialism is based only on Revelation 20, after having read certain Old Testament prophecies into it. This produces a view which is contradicted by the rest of Scripture.[12] 4). Premillennialism implies a distinction between Israel and the church, which amillennialists and postmillennialists, especially those who strongly identify with supercessionism, do not believe.[13] 

 

EVIDENCE FOR PREMILLENNIALISM

There is no doubt that amillennialism and postmillennialism present some thoughtful and intriguing arguments for their cases. Such divergent views can cause a Christian to lose hope in ever finding a resolute solution to an accurate interpretation of this eschatological issue, or any controversial doctrine for that matter. However, there is no reason to lose heart in Scripture’s clear teaching concerning the reality of Christ’s return and His rule on earth for a 1,000 year reign. There is solid evidence to prove the validity of premillennialism, that the normal sense of the language of Revelation 20:1-10 can be accepted for what it says will happen in the future in such chronology: an angel will have Satan bound in an abyss; tribulations saints who were martyred will be physically resurrected and reign alongside Christ for 1,000 years as part of the first resurrection; Satan will be released after the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is complete; Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, which will then lead to the Great White Throne Judgment of  Revelation 20:11-15.

Earlier I shed positive light on premillennialism based on its place within early church history. The remainder of the essay will argue the case for premillennialism by mainly appealing to Scripture itself. This exercise will explore a few important topics: 1). The integrity of the grammatical-historical hermeneutics 2). An examination of the Revelation 20 text 3). Interaction with Old Testament kingdom passages.

 

The Integrity of the Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics has been characteristic of Christianity since the 16th century Reformation. It is what distinguishes Protestantism from Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. It is because of the Protestants’ literal interpretation of Scripture and their understanding of its clarity that they see its plain teachings as comprehensible by all who read it and capable of being followed.[14] However, it is very ironic that the same Christians who practice such hermeneutics with many sections of the Bible (ex. Gospel, history, law) do not do so with the book of Revelation, or even with the OT prophetic sections of books such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. These would be Christians within the amillennialist and postmillennialist camp. John MacArthur expresses this concern fittingly by stating that in spite of the prestigious hermeneutical tradition of the Protestant Reformation, “there are still a few areas in which Reformed theology is in need of further reform. One of the most glaring deficiencies in the history of the Reformed movements is in the realm of eschatology – where, generally speaking, a literal interpretation of the millennial promises to Israel has been rejected. Instead, an allegorical (or spiritual) hermeneutic has been applied to many prophetic passages…”[15]

Premillennialism is distinctive because it is the only viewpoint of the major three that is entirely consistent with the grammatical-historical hermeneutics, no matter what biblical book, genre, or Testament is being considered. It is indisputably committed to the normal sense of the language in the Bible. Those who identify as premillennialsts, especially futurists, believe in a literal, unprejudiced grammatical-historical hermeneutical approach that applies to the entire word of God. It is a consistent hermeneutical system that: 1). Takes the biblical text at face value 2). Interprets the biblical text in context 3). Recognizes symbolic language/speech figures and the reality they express 4). Uses clear texts to interpret more difficult texts 5). Allows for the progress of revelation without dramatically altering the meaning of previous revelation 6). Does not involve allegorical interpretation 7). Uses a minimization of the typical or analogical use of the Old Testament by the New Testament.[16]

Establishing the integrity of the grammatical-historical hermeneutical system is significant because it lends credibility to how we approach the handling of Scripture. If we truly believe in the perspicuity of God’s word, then we can have confidence when tackling even prophetic books like Revelation. We can believe that its language, vocabulary, context, and word ordering speaks to us in a sensible manner. In essence, we can take the passage for what it says and not read into it with any far-fetched allegorical meaning. This will be important to keep in mind for the following section which is a sample analysis of Revelation 20:1-6, examining “symbolic” figures and interpretative issues regarding “Satan’s binding.”

 

An Examination of the Text

Because the book of Revelation is filled with vivid imagery and heavy use of symbolism, some scholars read it through the lens of the secular apocalyptic genre popular in the Apostle John’s age, coming to the conclusion that the “1,000” figure that characterizes Christ’s reign should not be taken literally. As I stated before, amillennialists believe that the 1,000 period is being fulfilled now until Christ’s second coming. This interpretation poses a serious problem other than the fact that it has already been over 2,000 years since Christ’s first coming and ascension into heaven. It is a theory without scriptural warrant and clearly betrays the grammatical-historical method of interpreting God’s word. If one uses the same historical, grammatical principles of interpretation as with the rest of the books in the New Testament, then he sees that Christ will return and reign in a real kingdom on earth for 1,000 years. Nothing in the text gives any real clues to the “thousand years” being symbolic, since never in Scripture when “year” is used with a number is its meaning not literal.[17] Whenever the Apostle John expresses an indefinite quantity, he does so not by repeating a definite number like a 1,000 years, but using a general expression like “a short time” in 20:3 or “the number of them like the sand of the seashore” (20:8). There is no compelling reason in Revelation 20:1-10 or anywhere else in the book to believe that the 1,000 is symbolic or figurative.

The topic of Satan’s binding is an even more baffling yet important issue to deconstruct if we want to get at the heart of the symbolic versus literal interpretation debate of Revelation 20:1-10. According to the observable language of the text, verses 1-3 states that an angel holding a great chain in his hand grabs a hold of Satan and binds him in an abyss, sealing him tight so that he will not escape and influence the nations any longer to do evil. Amillennialists and postmillennialists deny the plain sense of what this text is saying. They believe that this is an allegorical picture of a past event, most specifically depicting how Satan was bound at the cross and is no longer able to deceive the nations and to keep them from learning the truth of God’s word.[18] Once again, there are a few inescapable problems with this theory.

The first is that it is just a speculation with no verifiable biblical reference. It quite frankly contradicts the meaning of the text. Jeff Lasseigne perfectly captures this concern in his analysis of this passage when he states, “…you’ll notice here that it isn’t even Christ on the cross who binds Satan in this text; it is an angel from heaven with a great chain. So how does that symbolically represent Christ on the cross?”[19] The second problem is that even before Christ’s crucifixion on the cross – the moment of “the binding of Satan” – this powerful angel was not able to keep nations and people from learning the truth of God’s word. One most evident example is Jonah preaching God’s message of repentance to the people of Nineveh. The Queen of Sheba also heard about Yahweh from the mouth of Solomon (1 Kings 10:1-9) and the Babylonians from Daniel and his three Jewish companions.[20]

A third problem to consider is that the phrase “not deceive the nations any longer” (v. 2) implies total cessation of Satan’s influence, activities, and presence, which contradicts what amillennialists and postmillennialists imply with their proposal. The opposing views say that the millennium is happening now in the church age, therefore Satan must be currently bound. However, Satan is still influencing the nations and individuals, as fully attested by Scripture and commonplace experiences. Amillennialists and postmillennialists would retort and say that Satan’s activities are not totally eliminated, just limited.[21] However, that redefines the nature of incarceration and binding that is described in 20:1-3. As Michael Vlach states, “the passage functions to show that Satan is absolutely confined to a place that results in a complete cessation of all that he does…Imprisonment of a person means a cessation of that person’s works.”[22] Many passages in the Bible teach the devil is still influencing the nations and ruling over the hearts of men. Satan is described as “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30); “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Pet 5:8), tempts believers to sin (1 Cor 7:5), snatches the gospel from unbelieving hearts (Matt 13:19), takes advantage of believers (2 Cor 2:11); seeks to destroy the faith of believers (Luke 22:31); holds unbelievers under his power (Acts 26:18; Eph 2:2), among other things that contradicts the amillennialist and postmillennialist theory.

 

Interaction with Old Testament Passages

One of the objections that I noted earlier from the anti-premillenialist party is the assumption that premillennialists read certain Old Testament prophecies into Revelation 20:1-10, which results in a view that is in conflict with much of Scripture. Although it is undeniable that premillennialists interact extensively with the Old Testament when working with Revelation 20, it is a misrepresentation to say that they read false meaning into Revelation 20 or manipulate its message. Revelation 20:1-10 does not really give us much detail to begin with. However, that does not mean that the premillennial kingdom does not exist, or that information of it is not found in other places in the Bible. If we see the truth and value of the grammatical-historical hermeneutics applied consistently throughout the Bible, we realize that the OT passages actually inform and complement our understanding of Revelation 20:1-10, essentially giving us a fuller picture of the millennial reign of Jesus Christ following His Second Coming. We see that OT prophetic passages do not falsely read into or contradict Revelation 20:1-10 any more than the “works” theology of James 2:26 does with the grace theology found in Ephesians 2:8-9. The former text gives a more comprehensive understanding of the latter text, and this is entirely appropriate if one believes in the inspiration and consistency of all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).

A thing to keep in mind concerning these OT prophecies is that many of them have not been fulfilled yet, specifically the millennial promises concerning the nation of Israel and Jesus’ earthly rule. There are two possible reasons why this is so: 1). The prophecies never came to pass because they were mystically or spiritually fulfilled in Christ’s first coming or during the church age, or 2). They are still to find fulfillment in an unspecified future era. If one takes the literal and clear view of Scripture interpretation, then the only possible time that these OT prophecies could be fulfilled is during the period that is described in Revelation 20:1-10. Why? It is because the OT prophecies describe a unique condition on earth that is far better than the current age we live in but not as perfect as the final eternal state.[23] The era illustrated in Revelation 20:1-10 is the only one that sensibly accommodates this messianic period spoken of in OT prophecy.

An OT kingdom passage that documents the reality of the future millennium is Isaiah 65:20, which describes the long life span of people who will live during that period. The verse states, “No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his days; for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed.” The prophet Isaiah seems to saying that there is coming a day when people who die at age 100 will be considered infants, which implies an unusually long life span. This cannot be referencing the New Heavens and the New Earth because people do not experience pain or death in the eternal state while in their glorified bodies. This period also cannot be the present church age, since most people do not even live to be a 100 years old! Skeptics somehow spiritualize this text and claim that it is somehow fulfilled in the church, but this, once again, is an unstable theory. The only solution is that it is pointing to a real time of earthly renewal, which points to a future kingdom on the old earth.

Another OT passage that undeniably speaks of this intermediate period between the current church age and the new earth is Zechariah 14:9-21. Verse 16-19 reads, “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them.” Again, this OT prophetic passage speaks of a universal condition that cannot be characteristic of the New Earth since sin and disobedience would have been eradicated by then. It also cannot be the current church age since Jesus is not presently ruling in the sinful world over enemies who submit to His kingship. To apply such a prophecy to find fulfillment in the present age would be to not only read meaning into this verse, but to ignore what this text meant to the original Jewish audience as God originally intended. David Jeremiah appropriately captures the perspicuity of this passage when he describes this period as a time when “Christ will reign over the earth from the greatly enlarged and enhanced Jerusalem, and Israel, vastly expanded, will be considered the center of the earth. The people of the world will happily journey to the Holy City to worship and sacrifice to Christ the King.”[24]

Details concerning the worship site in the eschatological Jerusalem are expanded in greater detail in Ezekiel 40-48, which depicts Temple worship in the millennium. This is the greatest prophetic passage that deals with the coming of a future millennial period because of the existence of an unprecedented temple and corporate worship that has never occurred before in human history. Opponents argue that the temple represents heaven, the new heavens and new earth, the church, believers, or even Jesus Himself.[25] This lack of consensus is an argument against the strength of this position. The many intricate details concerning the Temple construction, appearance, and worship procedure in Ezekiel 40-48 does not adequately justify a spiritualized interpretation. Jewish scholar Jon Douglas Levenson notes that the description of such a Temple “bespeaks of a practical program, not a vision of pure grace. For example, when the text says that eight steps led up to the vestibule of the inner court (Ezekiel 40:31), can this be other than a demand that the new Temple be constructed just so?”[26] The prophet Ezekiel envisioned a real Temple that is coming in the future, which is not the Solomonic temple or the temple constructed during Zerubbabel’s day. He speaks of the Temple of the Millennium, which will be God’s visible sanctuary in the midst of Israel forever (Ezekiel 37:26). Moshe Greenberg comments that “the fivefold repetition of “forever” stresses the irreversibility of the new dispensation. Unlike God’s past experiment with Israel, the future restoration will have a guarantee of success; its capstone will be God’s sanctifying presence dwelling forever in the sanctuary amidst his people.”[27] All of God’s glorious prophetic plans declared in the OT, which guarantees the coming of a utopia, although not sinless world, has only one possible place of fulfillment in the New Testament. And that is Revelation 20:1-10.

 

CONCLUSION

An examination of the grammatical-historical method’s impact on Scripture, various word studies in Revelation 20, and selected passage analysis in the Old Testament give us a strong warrant for premillennialism. Scripture is clear when it teaches that there will be a time coming for this world when Christ will return and reign from Jerusalem for 1,000 years. This gives us hope that Jesus will not only end the injustices and corrupt human kingdoms of this current age, but will vindicate His name and uphold righteousness over the earth. This grand idea should give the church blessed hope to persevere in holiness, prayer, and in the work of the Great Commission. This doctrine also rightly informs us of God’s plans for Israel and how as a church we must be praying for the nation of Israel and evangelizing them, knowing that God is still faithful to the Abrahamic Covenant and has plans to ultimately redeem that nation (Romans 9-11; Jeremiah 31:31-34). He will rule from the Promised Land in the future and exercise His authority over both believers and unbelievers. This is why the millennium is important, because this is where the saints of God will minister with Christ for a significant period of world history before the creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth. It is a blessed hope to look forward to, and a blessed doctrine to proclaim.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Benware, Paul N. Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach. Chicago: Moody, 2006.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 1994.

Boettner, Loraine. “Postmillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, edited by Robert G. Clouse, 117-141. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977.

Busenitz, Nathan. “Did the Early Church Believe in a Literal Millennial Kingdom?” In Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer, edited by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, 177-195. Chicago: Moody, 2012.

Greenberg, Moshe. “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration.” Interpretation 38 (April 1984): 182.

Grenz, Stanley. The Millennial Maze. Downers Grove,IL: IVP, 1992.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Hoekema, Anthony A. “Amillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, edited by Robert G. Clouse, 155-187.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977.

_________. The Bible and the Future.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Kevan, Ernest Frederick. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, edited by Everett F. Harrison, 351-54. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Jeremiah, David. The Coming Economic Armageddon: What Bible Prophecy Warns about the New Global Economy.New York: FaithWorks, 2010.

_________. Escape the Coming Night.Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997.

Langer, Richard C. “Kingdom Integration: Reflections on Premillennialism and Cultural Engagement.” Criswell Theological Review ns 10, no. 1 (Fall 2012): 21-39.

Lasseigne, Jeff. Unlocking the Last Days: A Guide to the Book of Revelation & the End Times. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011.

Levenson, Jon Douglas. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48.Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976.

Lyons, George. Beacon Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Richard S. Taylor.Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press ofKansas City, 1983.

MacArthur, John. “Does Calvinism Lead to Futuristic Premillennialism?” In Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Furistic Premillennial Primer, edited by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, 149-159.Chicago: Moody, 2012.

__________., ed. The MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible Updated Edition. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006.

__________. Revelation 12-22. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary.Chicago: Moody, 2000.

Marshall, I.Howard. “Church and Templein the New Testament.” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989):     209.

Mathison, Keith. Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope.Philipsburg,NJ: P&P, 1999.

Mayhue, Richard. “Why Futuristic Premillennialism?” In Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Furistic Premillennial Primer, edited by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, 59-84.Chicago: Moody, 2012.

McKim, Donald K. Westminister Theological of Theological Terms.Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox, 1996.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church: Ante-Nicene Christianity.Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1884.

Vlach, Michael. “The Kingdomof Godand the Millennium.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 23 no. 2 (Fall 2012): 225-254.

Waymeyer, Matthew. “What about Revelation 20?” In Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Furistic Premillennial Primer, edited by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, 123-139. Chicago: Moody, 2012.




[1] George Lyons, Beacon Dictionary of Theology, ed. Richard S. Taylor (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1983), 414.

[2] David Jeremiah, Escape the Coming Night (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 230.

[3] Nathan Busenitz, “Did the Early Church Believe in a Literal Millennial Kingdom?” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer, ed. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (Chicago: Moody, 2012), 177.

[4] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Ante-Nicene Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1884), 614.

[5] Stanley Grenz, The Millennial Maze (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1992), 38.

[6] Keith Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Philipsburg, NJ: P&P, 1999), 27.

[7] Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach (Chicago: Moody, 2006), 121.

[8] Donald K. McKim, Westminister Theological of Theological Terms (Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox, 1996), 9.

[9] Anthony A. Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 181.

[10] Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 117.

[11] Richard C. Langer, “Kingdom Integration: Reflections on Premillennialism and Cultural Engagement,” Criswell Theological Review ns 10, no. 1 (Fall 2012): 29.

[12] Ernest Frederick Kevan, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed.Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 352.

[13] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 1994), 863.

[14] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 108.

[15] John MacArthur, “Does Calvinism Lead to Futuristic Premillennialism?” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Furistic Premillennial Primer (Chicago: Moody, 2012), 142.

[16] Richard Mayhue, “Why Futuristic Premillennialism?” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Furistic Premillennial Primer (Chicago: Moody, 2012), 62-3.

[17] John MacArthur, ed, The MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible Updated Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 1991.

[18] Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 228.

[19] Jeff Lasseigne, Unlocking the Last Days: A Guide to the Book of Revelation & the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 268.

[20] John MacArthur, Revelation 12-22, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 2000), 236.

[21] Matthew Waymeyer, “What about Revelation 20?” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Furistic Premillennial Primer (Chicago: Moody, 2012), 127.

[22] Michael Vlach, “The Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 23 no. 2 (Fall 2012): 246-47.

[23] Ibid., 237.

[24] David Jeremiah, The Coming Economic Armageddon: What Bible Prophecy Warns about the New Global Economy (New York: FaithWorks, 2010), 234.

[25] I. Howard Marshall, “Church and Temple in the New Testament,” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 209.

[26] Jon Douglas Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 112.

[27] Moshe Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Interpretation 38 (April 1984): 182.