Monday, August 15, 2022

Where Premillennialism and Postmillennialism Agree Against Amillennialism

 by Michael J. Vlach

A brief theology nugget about millennial views: 

Premillennialism and Postmillennialism agree on one thing against Amillennialism. While Amillennialism says Jesus' millennial kingdom is only a spiritual kingdom, both Premill and Postmill see Jesus' millennial kingdom as much more. Both believe Jesus' millennial kingdom transforms society and creation too.
In other words, Premill and Postmill believe Jesus' kingdom includes but involves more than just human salvation and spiritual realities. Earth and its political/societal structures are transformed and function for God's purposes. This is related to the rule and subdue mandate in Genesis 1:26-28.
Premill and Postmill disagree when this transformation occurs. Postmill says it happens before Jesus returns while He is in Heaven. And Premill says the transformation of all things occurs after Jesus comes again when He reigns from and over the earth. But the impact of Jesus' millennial kingdom is extensive and widespread with both the Premill and Postmill views.
I personally believe Premill has a much stronger case that the restoration of all things can only happen when Jesus reigns on the earth. But to restate, both Premill and Postmill agree against Amillennialism that Jesus' kingdom is much more than just spiritual and more than just salvation from sin. Of the three millennial views Amillennialism offers the weakest millennial kingdom of Jesus since it limits Jesus' kingdom to spiritual salvation and spiritual matters.
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. Alan E. KurschnerAugust 15, 2022 at 7:34 AM

    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for your article.

    I would add another key agreement that premill has with postmill against amill. Premill and postmill agree there should not be a semantic break at the Revelation 20 chapter break. That is, they both agree that the victory of Jesus in Rev 19:11–21 is the occasion for the binding of Satan in Rev 20:1–3—against amill that breaks up the textual cohesion between these two events, retrojecting the binding of Satan back to the first coming of Christ.

    To be sure, while postmill agrees with premill that the victory of Jesus in Rev 19 brings about the binding of Satan, they wrongly identify the event of the victory of Jesus in Rev 19 as not referring to the second coming.

    For more on my discussion on the agreements and disagreements among the three views, see my A Linguistic Approach to Revelation 19:11—20:6 and the Millennium Binding of Satan. Linguistic Biblical Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 11–16.

    Regards,
    Alan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 2, 2023 at 4:44 AM

      Could not find your book. Where can it be purchased?

      Delete
  2. sibelMay 26, 2023 at 4:56 AM

    steroid satın al
    heets
    8PL

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)