Historic Premillennialism and Daniel’s 70 Weeks

[John of Japan]

Not in the least.

Your verse follows 20:4, which depicts those in Heaven Reigning with Jesus for one thousand years as being exactly where it says they are: Heaven. No mention or suggestion or allusion to anything out the 'Earth', anywhere, for a reason; Jesus' Reign is taking place in Heaven with those John said "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their .foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years

You have given no contextual evidence that the events of the 1000 years take place in Heaven. You are grasping at straws with your idea that the 1000 years take place in Heaven. However, I have many reasons from the immediate context that it has to take place on earth:

19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. (KJV)—Since there is no killing in Heaven, this takes place on the earth. This event is immediately followed by the 1000 years, but there is no indication in the text of a change in location to Heaven for the 1000 years.

20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (KJV)—The angel comes down from Heaven, clearly indicating that the following actions will take place on the earth where Satan is active.

20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (KJV)—There is no indication here that now the action has moved to Heaven. There is no reason these believers cannot be resurrected on Earth, just like Jesus.

20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (KJV)—Why would the Word have to say that Christ ruled in Heaven? It’s his place! That would be like saying, “John lives in his home.” The meaning is plain. Christ rules for 1000 years on earth, where Satan previously ruled.

20:7-8 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. (KJV)—This takes place at the end of the 1000 years, and it very clearly happens on the earth. It cannot be possible for Satan to have a rebellion in Heaven, since he has been cast out of there (Rev. 12:9).

"I contend that present Christian teaching concerning the last things relies too much on the belief of a future earthly millennial kingdom. Therefore, it may be profitable to see whether the idea that the thousand years mentioned by John refers to a future kingdom is consistent with what the NT , and Revelation in particular, teaches on Satan's binding, the resurrection, and the reign of the saints.

"Additionally, we should explore the clues provided by Revelation's literary framework, style, and structure, as those arising from the biblical use of the expression "one thousand years"...

"For a proper understanding of what this controversial passage says, it may be profitable first to note what it fails to mention. The reason for this unusual approach is that, believe it or not, many interpreters put into this text a lot of things that simply are not there. They assume, usually, based on a preconceived framework, that these things are implicit.

"I will not challenge, for the time being, the validity of this assumption, but simply point out that the following things are not actually mentioned:

"[1] Location. We are not told if the reign John saw took place in a heavenly or earthly realm.​

"[2] A temple. In fact, no building at all is mentioned.

"[3] Sacrifices. No worship is described.

"[4] Jerusalem. Neither heavenly nor earthly Jerusalem are mentioned.

"[5] Israel. Any mention of the land of Israel (Eretz Israel) is lacking

"[6] The Jewish people. Not a single Jewish name, no tribe at all, is mentioned.

"[7] The Gentile nations. They are not in sight in this part of John's vision.

"[8] Earthly life conditions. Peaceful living, the birth of babies, house building, harvesting and the like are conspicuously absent.

"Therefore, those Christians who believe that this text depicts an earthly kingdom are forced to supply some or all of these things to John's succinct description. They usually draw plenty of material from OT prophecies that speak of a glorious future Davidic kingdom. Many of those who embrace this approach adhere to it because they believe it to be required by a literal interpretation of the Bible.

"However, a little reflection will show that this approach falls short of a so-called "consistent literalism." Some early Church Fathers -most notably Irenaeus of Lyon- thought that here an earthly rule of the Church after Christ's second coming is envisaged. No early orthodox millennialist entertained for a minute that the thousand years would be a Jewish kingdom. Therefore, they had to apply all OT prophecies not to Israel as a nation, but to the Christian church.

"On the other hand, some current-day exegetes start from the basic assumption that prophecies addressed to Israel must be fulfilled physically (although they call it a literal fulfillment, actually a physical, as opposed to a spiritual, fulfillment is intended). Since this did not happen in the past, these prophecies must be fulfilled in the future, and they find no other time for this but the thousand years of Revelation 20. Some relevant prophecies in this regard are found in Isaiah (9, 11, 24-27, 35, 65-66), Ezekiel 37-48; Zechariah 12,14,etc.

"However, to apply all these prophecies to the one thousand years period mentioned in Revelation 20, some significant concessions have to be made.

"This is because these prophecies depict the glorious future of Israel with a language clearly resembling OT culture, to wit:​

"[1] The kingdom will be established and kept by sheer power.

"[2] The nations will serve Israel

"[3] Transportation will require ancient means, like asses, horses, and chariots.

"[4] Weapons will be old-fashioned (spears, swords, shields, and the like).

"[5] Sacrifices will be reestablished as under Moses' Law

"[6] New Moons, sabbath day,s and all OT feasts will be celebrated again.

"For belief in a literal earthly kingdom to be sustained, at least some of these things must be understood in figurative, or at least typical ways. But in so doing, the very same principle on which this view is based is undermined. Those who believe in a future Jewish millennium cannot have it both ways." The Thousand Years of Revelation 20

​

All of this from some medical doctor in Argentina who has no formal theological training has no meaning for me. I suggest you should use your own knowledge and wisdom for debate on the BB, not some random dude.

 

[John of Japan]

Hey, it was the 90’s.

Ha! You think the '90's were weird...well they were, but I grew up in the '60's!

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you. I am told that yes, almost everybody before Augustine thought like this
(excluding Clement of Alexandria and Origen).

I have read a bit of George Eldon Ladd as well as a A Case for Historic Premillennialism (which is more of a collection of eclectic essays than it is an actual case for historic premillennialism). I am having a very hard time finding a resource that is helpful to questions that I have like the one this thread starts with.

Okay then, to get back to your OP, in my reading and research, the term Historic Premillennialism is a pretty broad term, including the early church fathers as well as more modern non-dispensational theologians such as Ladd and my grandfather, John R. Rice. Rice opposed dispensationalism for various reasons, but was pre-trib and pre-mil. On the other hand, men like Ladd may be mid- or post-trib. (I disremember what he is--post-trib?)

Another is Millard Erickson, whose systematic theology we teach from in our seminary. I believe he is post-trib. He wrote about historic pre-mil: "The view that we today term premillennialism has a long history having roots in the early church. Probably it was the dominant belief during the apostolic period, wen Christians believed strongly in the approaching end of the world and the parousia of Jesus Christ" (A Basic Guide to Eschatology, p. 94).

Concerning the 70 weeks of Daniel, Rice interprets it much like dispensationalism in his book The Second Coming of Christ in Daniel.

 

[JesusFan]

Perhaps I can post more later, but here is the basic answer. Historic premillennialism was the doctrine of the early church until Augustine, almost without exception, and that is why it is called that. In modern times it is applied to non-dispensational premil folk such as my grandfather was, but he did apply the 70 weeks, etc., like dispensational premil.

My understanding is that we and Dispy Premil theology would pretty agree except on the timing of the Rapture event

 

[John of Japan]

My understanding is that we and Dispy Premil theology would pretty agree except on the timing of the Rapture event

By "we" are you saying that your position is historic premil?

 

[JesusFan]

By "we" are you saying that your position is historic premil?

Yes

 

[Mr. Lunt]

Okay then, to get back to your OP, in my reading and research, the term Historic Premillennialism is a pretty broad term, including the early church fathers as well as more modern non-dispensational theologians such as Ladd and my grandfather, John R. Rice. Rice opposed dispensationalism for various reasons, but was pre-trib and pre-mil. On the other hand, men like Ladd may be mid- or post-trib. (I disremember what he is--post-trib?)

Another is Millard Erickson, whose systematic theology we teach from in our seminary. I believe he is post-trib. He wrote about historic pre-mil: "The view that we today term premillennialism has a long history having roots in the early church. Probably it was the dominant belief during the apostolic period, wen Christians believed strongly in the approaching end of the world and the parousia of Jesus Christ" (A Basic Guide to Eschatology, p. 94).

Concerning the 70 weeks of Daniel, Rice interprets it much like dispensationalism in his book The Second Coming of Christ in Daniel.

I’ll have to look up those resources. Thank you for the recommendations.

 

[Mr. Lunt]

Yes

Do you have any resources that you recommend for people wanting to learn more about your perspective?

 

[Mr. Lunt]

Ha! You think the '90's were weird...well they were, but I grew up in the '60's!

What was the 60’s equivalent of veggietales? Some sort of Bible themed muppets knockoff?

 

[Tea]

What was the 60’s equivalent of veggietales? Some sort of Bible themed muppets knockoff?

Perhaps Davey and Goliath?

 

[John of Japan]

What was the 60’s equivalent of veggietales? Some sort of Bible themed muppets knockoff?

If someone said "muppets knockoff" in the 60's at my high school, someone would have replied, "Yeah, let's go knock off some of them." There was very little in the way of Christian TV and the like.

 

[John of Japan]

All of this from some medical doctor in Argentina who has no formal theological training has no meaning for me. I suggest you should use your own knowledge and wisdom for debate on the BB, not some random dude.

I misspoke. Apparently this man, Fernando D. Saraví, did study theology formally: Fernando Saravi - LOGOI. That doesn't mean I would consider him a goto source for eschatology, though.

 

[JesusFan]

Do you have any resources that you recommend for people wanting to learn more about your perspective?

Some standard accepted works
Core Texts

• A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology (2009) edited by Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung. This is considered a standard contemporary text that provides an alternative to dispensational premillennialism and includes essays on the biblical, theological, and historical support for the position.
• The Blessed Hope (1956, rev. 1980) by George Eldon Ladd. Ladd was a leading 20th-century scholar on this topic, and this book is a classic defense of the historic premillennial position, particularly concerning the post-tribulation return of Christ.
• The Gospel of the Kingdom (1959) by George Eldon Ladd. This work explores the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God, a central theme in historic premillennial eschatology.
• The Presence of the Future (1996) by George Eldon Ladd. This book further develops Ladd's understanding of the "already/not yet" nature of the Kingdom of God, which informs the historic premil view.
• • The Church and the Tribulation (1973) by Robert Gundry. This book is another key resource from a major scholar that addresses the post-tribulational stance common in historic premillennialism.

Other Relevant Resources

• Historical Premillennialism: A Study in New Testament Eschatology (2023) by Stephen Whitsett. A recent non-fiction work focusing specifically on the New Testament basis for the view.
• The Last Things: An Eschatology For Laymen (1978) by George Eldon Ladd. A more accessible overview of eschatology for a general audience.
• Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (part of the Zondervan Counterpoints series) edited by Darrell L. Bock. While not exclusively historic premillennial, this work provides a helpful academic comparison of various millennial views, including the historic premil perspective, allowing readers to weigh different arguments.
• The Book of Revelation commentary by Robert H Mounce