Building Inmillennialism

[Aug. 6, 2018 note: Some language in this post shows the status of the overall blog at the time of writing. A downloadable PDF—A Summary of Inmillennialism—now provides a full overview. Still, this post contains material not found in the Summary.]

 

Warning! This page plays the role of spoiler. It reveals the ultimate design of our prophetic model. Our construction to this point has been a step-by-step, Scripture-by-Scripture process. This post allows us to see the final structure.

So, you have a choice. If you want to look through the fence and follow our construction project without knowing how the finished building will appear, please leave this page now. However, if you are like a certain voracious reader (to change metaphors) whom I know and love, stay right here. She often reads the end of a book before turning all its pages. I think she will appreciate this post and perhaps you will, too.

A simple reason exists for this spoiler: readers have asked questions difficult to answer without it. I do not want to respond to these inquiries with a repeated “please wait until we reach that point” kind of answer. By providing the complete model, I can make a brief response to such questions by referencing elements of the model, even though we have not yet derived them from Scripture. The promise of eventual justification for these elements will continue unabated.

To contribute to the spoiler effect, we now reveal the name of the prophetic model: inmillennialism.

Why another “-ism” in the realm of prophecy? We have listed several reasons in previous posts, including here and here. In addition, we observe that writers sometimes make frank admissions regarding the inadequacies of the existing models. Henry Alford did this in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel:

I thought it proper to state . . . that I did not feel by any means that full confidence which I once did in the exegesis, [with respect to] prophetical interpretation, here given. . . . But I had no other system to substitute, and some of the points here dwelt on seem to me as weighty as ever.¹

Another writer said the church today faces “eschatological confusion running rampant.”² Expressions of frustration like these provide challenge, excitement, and urgency to the task before us. We are excited, therefore, to present inmillennialism as a potential improvement to the existing systems.

This post has two objectives: to explain the name “inmillennialism” and to summarize its teachings.

The Inmillennial Name

Our model needed a name. To this point, we have referred to “the model,” “our framework,” or some other name of this sort. We needed a nice, descriptive word to describe our subject.

What does one do when no suitable name is available? Invent one, of course! In our case, the invention does not require a tremendous amount of creativity.

We wanted a name for our model that identifies it with the other systems, but also one that draws attention to its unique characteristics.

Regarding unity, we note that the name of each of the other systems contains a form of the word “millennium.” This word represents the “thousand years” reign of Christ in Revelation 20. It seems natural to include this term in our name to show our desire to identify with the other alternatives.

Another naming convention allowed us to further connect our model to the other systems. They each use a Latin preposition to convey their uniqueness. “Pre” means “before,” hence in premillennialism, Christ comes before the millennium. “Post” means “after,” so a major tenet of postmillennialism is that the second coming of Christ occurs after the millennium. That “a” stands for “no” reminds us that amillennialism denies a literal millennium.

We used a Latin prefix in our model as well to reflect its uniqueness. This prophetic framework emphasizes that we are in Christ’s parousia (presence) and that his presence will continue with the church throughout the Messianic age. The Latin preposition “in” captures this orientation well. In carries the same basic meaning as the English word “in.” We now live “in” the millennial reign of Christ. We sing in celebration of this; the name of our model should commemorate it, too.

Based on the above reasoning, we chose inmillennialism as the name of our prophetic model. It continues the two traditions above. The word “millennium” stands at the core of the name and the Latin preposition in marks one of its leading features.

Let’s continue our discovery of inmillennialism and how it reflects our present life under Christ’s rule in his millennial kingdom.

The Inmillennial Model

Here is the foundational structure of inmillennialism:

We have seen preludes to this basic structure in previous posts: He Must Reign; Hooray for Big Government; The Parousia of Christ and the Destruction of the Temple; The Abomination of Desolation; The Great Tribulation: a Sign of the Temple’s Destruction; and A Parting of the Ways—Part 1. Each diagram in these posts contributes to the overall model shown above.

Most elements in this framework come from two lengthy New Testament prophetic passages: the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; and Luke 21:5–38) and 1 Corinthians 15. The “kingdom transfer” element comes from words Jesus spoke to the Jewish leaders a few hours before he gave the Olivet Discourse to his disciples (Matthew 21:43).³ We will soon find additional details in other passages. These elements will conform with ease to this basic structure.

In a previous post, we listed four questions that Determine Your Prophetic View. We noted that none of the current prophetic systems satisfies one set of answers to these questions. Inmillennialism provides that option. Here are its answers to the four questions:

Q. 1. What does this model teach about Israel after the flesh (1 Corinthians 10:18)?

A. This model teaches Israel and the church are not distinct covenant entities remaining forever separate. During the “last days” of the Mosaic age, God made explicit what had existed from the beginning. Two Israel’s—Israel after the flesh (1 Corinthians 10:18) and, within it, Israel after the Spirit (Romans 9:6–8)—had existed since the days of Moses. The external rites and ceremonies that defined the former passed away when the Temple collapsed. The faith of Abraham had always defined the latter (Romans 4:16), and that fact did not change with the arrival of the Messianic kingdom. Now, the “Israel of God” possesses true circumcision (Romans 2:29) and has inherited all Abraham’s promises (2 Corinthians 1:20).

Q. 2. What does this model teach about the thousand-year reign of Christ as described in Revelation 20:2–7?

A. The millennial reign of Christ in Revelation 20 does not refer to a literal 1000 year period. The Scriptures use this number to symbolize a large number of items. God says, for example, “Every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills” (Psalm 50:10; emphasis added). This is obviously figurative language: all cattle on all hills—an undetermined number of hills—are his. That Revelation is a book of symbols suggests John is using “thousand” in this manner. He said the angel “laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years” (Revelation 20:2; emphasis added). In this prophetic language, a “thousand years” signifies a large number of years. Satan is bound for all the years—an undetermined number of years—of the Messianic age.

Q. 3. What does this model teach about the Second Coming of Christ in relation to the millennium?

A. Christ returns—to judge Israel after the flesh and destroy the Temple—to complete the initiation of the (non-literal) millennium (Matthew 16:28; 24:1–3, 34). To speak with technical precision, this is a “premillennial” location for the coming (erchomai) of Christ. A major feature of our model is its consistent use of parousia (presence) as a concept distinct from erchomai (coming). Some dispensational writers do this but place the parousia in our future. The three other existing prophetic systems consider the two terms—erchomai and parousia—as almost synonymous.

Q. 4. What does this model teach about the kingdom of God in history?

A. Our model is optimistic. The kingdom of God will overcome all its enemies in history. It will become the dominant force in the culture of all nations. See Psalm 2:8; 22:8; 110:1; Isaiah 2:2; 9:7; 1 Corinthians 15:25; and many others.

How do these answers compare to those of the existing systems? Readers can compare them to those provided by the existing systems at the following pages: amillennialism, postmillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism. A side-by-side arrangement of diagrams of each of the models (here) allows easy comparison.

The chart below summarizes the basic differences between inmillennialism and the existing models of prophetic interpretation. Perhaps we should again emphasize inmillennialism’s answer to question 3. This model accounts for elements of “the 2nd coming”—as understood by the other systems—in two events: Jesus’ “coming” (erchomai) in judgment to destroy the Temple in AD 70 and his “presence” (parousia) with his church during the millennium (or Messianic age). The “coming” occurred at the beginning of the (non-literal) millennium, making inmillennialism premillennial in at least one sense. Christ will overcome all his enemies during his “presence” with his church in the Messianic (or kingdom) age. He will destroy death, the final enemy, in the bodily resurrection at the end of the parousia. Christ will then deliver the triumphant kingdom to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:20–28). The general judgment follows, then the eternal state.

Conclusion

This model meets the objectives we listed in previous posts. It improves our apologetic position by explaining how Jesus returned within the lifetime of some who heard Jesus speak (Matthew 16:27–28; 24:34).

The church finds encouragement for evangelism because this framework shows God means to grant it success in its endeavor. He has already done so in a remarkable manner. Our Lord’s reign has enabled his church to spread the gospel across the world. From a small beginning, the kingdom has reached almost every corner of the globe. And here you are, 1,947 years later, reading about the greatness of our Lord here on this blog. Our model shows kingdom growth (cp. here) continuing until the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14).

The derivation of this model is explicit, coming (for the most part) from an exposition of two important passages of Scripture. We are not left to question how our system of prophetic understanding came into being.

This model puts every element of our lives in a kingdom context. Our marriages, families, daily work, politics, economics, art, and every other area of life find meaning in Christ’s kingdom reign. We can pray as Jesus taught us to pray—“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10)—believing by faith that God will answer our request.

1. Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 1:257; emphasis added.
2. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 986.
3. A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ (New York: Harper, 1922), 160.