I really cannot believe it, I have been going back and forth on my millennial view; just when I think I am settled, and I am at peace with the amil perspective, I re-read the amil exegesis, and think to myself . . . “hmm, that’s not really that strong.” And so I find myself entertaining premil, again . . . which of course I have been my whole life.

When I see the jockeying, say for example, G. K. Beale does with the “resurrection” discussion in Revelation 20:1-6, and the Greek therein; I really am less than pleased. And this is really the whole crux of the matter for me, Revelation 20, that is, and the 1000 years; whether it is literal, or “spiritual,” and currently realized by the church “now.”

After awhile, and after reading the best arguments here, it quickly becomes clear that both “sides” have good arguments (of course). And it almost appears as if deciding which side (abductively) has the best explanatory power is “subjective.” But, I do think there is an objective cipher here, and I fall back on Greek grammar, and Ockham’s razor of “simplicity,” as that objective criterion. Looking at Revelation 20, contextually, I have to conclude that the “temporal” premillennial understanding makes the most sense . . . even though, relative to other issues this presents, theologically, it is not the simplest view to take (i.e. the second coming of Christ, resurrected bodies cohabiting with unresurrected in the millennium, etc.).

And after looking into the historic premil view, a bit further, I have come to conclude that it really is not tenable (if they are going to be hermeneutically consistent, they might as well be amil). So I have come full circle, and will continue to identify as PROGRESSIVE dispensational, probably tweaking it a bit, here and there (i.e. emphasizing the christocentric purpose of the millennium versus the Israelocentric, which typically is pressed).

Well there we go πŸ™‚ .

Advertisements