The Present Reign of Christ

One of the primary focuses of eschatological debates centers upon Christ’s office as King. For Dispensationalists, those who distinguish sharply between Israel and the Church, the realization of this office will occur during a future millennial age where the nation of Israel will be restored to its former glory. It is often argued from this perspective that Christ offered the Kingdom to Israel, but since they rejected their Messiah the Kingdom would have to be postponed. However, the Biblical depiction of Christ’s Kingdom is quite different from the expectations that Dispensationalists have.

To start, Christ did not offer a Kingdom, but proclaimed it. Through his earthly ministry the presence of the Kingdom was clearly manifested. After casting out a demon Christ taught, “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt 12:28). Jesus often told parables about the nature of his Kingdom that shifted the Warrior-King paradigm that the Jews had. He even explicitly spoke against such militant expectations and professed to Pilate that his Kingdom “was not of this world” (Jn 18:36).

The Gospels do not depict an offer of a Kingdom. In fact, we see the opposite. After Jesus fed five thousand men (not to mention women and children), the people recognized that he was the one who was to come, as Moses promised (Jn 6:14 cf. Deut 18:18). In line with the Jewish expectations of their day, John tells us that they attempted to take him by force and make him King (Jn 6:15). However, Jesus responded by retreating to the mountain by himself. If Jesus came offering a Kingdom then he would have had a large enough gathering to instantiate a strong movement. This however was not a characteristic of the true nature of the Kingdom. For as we will see, a Kingdom without the cross would be no Kingdom at all. (Of course, Jesus' temptation in the wilderness by Satan to give him all the kingdoms of the world was a true temptation because it would avoid the sufferings of the cross).

In his very first sermon on the Day of Pentecost, the Apostle Peter spoke emphatically on the nature of the Kingdom in relation to Christ’s death on the cross. Peter declared that this event occurred “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). We are not meant to think that the Kingdom failed in light of Christ’s death. On the contrary, Peter argues that the Kingdom continues because of the Resurrection. Quoting from Psalm 16, Peter makes special note of David’s words, which read, “You will not let your Holy One see corruption.” The fact of David’s death was certain and it was common knowledge as to where he was buried. Because of this, Peter reasoned that the “Holy One” who did not see corruption was Christ, not David. This was because of the Resurrection. Peter continues that David spoke in this way because he knew God promised him that one of his descendents would sit on his throne. The connection between the Davidic promise of a Kingdom and the Resurrection is tied to Christ’s heavenly session at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:31-33 cf. Eph 1:18-23, Heb 1:8-13). Christ is seated upon the true throne and reigns supreme as the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. Peter’s apologetic for the Kingdom is rooted in the Resurrection precisely because Christ was seated upon a throne much more supreme than the earthly throne of David.

The Apostle Paul also draws a connection between the Resurrection of Christ and his Kingdom. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul gives a great defense of Christ’s Resurrection and by extension our Resurrection. We have hope of our Resurrection because Christ was raised as the “first fruits” (1 Cor 15:23). When he returns those who belong to Christ will be raised and as he says, “then comes the end” (1 Cor 15:24). Interestingly, he did not say, “then starts the millennium.” Paul’s chronological timeline of eschatology clearly goes from Second Advent to Eternal State. It is a simple “this age,” “age to come” model. The former characterized by the temporal, and the later characterized by the eternal. When the end comes, as Paul says, Christ will give the Kingdom to the Father. Therefore, at the present time he must be in control of this Kingdom in order to submit it to the Father. In fact, Paul goes on to say that before he gives the Kingdom to the Father he must reign until he has “destroyed every rule, authority and power” (1 Cor 15:24 cf. 1 Pet 3:22). Simply put, Paul is teaching that this process of putting things under the submission of Christ is a current process. The last of these enemies to be submitted will be death (1 Cor 15:25). Indeed, when the perishable puts on the imperishable in the “twinkling of an eye,” Paul says that “Death will be swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor 15:54-55). The end of death is the end of the temporal age. Paul is not depicting a future millennial reign, but the current process of consigning all enemies to be Christ’s footstool (Ps 110:1 cf. Heb 10:12-13). After all enemies are destroyed, Christ will submit the Kingdom to the Father so that God may be all in all (1 Cor 15:28).

The imagery of the Kingdom is all over the New Testament. To deny Christ his rightful throne is to gut the Gospel of its current authority in the world. As dead hearts are transformed by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, they are transferred from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13). The Kingdom’s power secures the believer because it is an unshakable Kingdom (Heb 12:28). The true believer will never falter from faith as long as the Sovereign King cries out on his behalf, “Mine!”

Undoubtedly this area of Eschatology is a heated issue. Certainly, most Dispensationalists would disagree with this entry because of a commitment to “literal” fulfillment of Biblical prophecies. However, the best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture. Therefore, let us turn and embrace this King who reigns supreme as the preeminent head of the Church. Let us wait with eager longing for the Blessed Hope of the Church; the eschatological joy that awaits those who place their trust in this King!

Sex & Eschatology

This summer I want to look at several aspects related to Eschatology. I hope to look at categories normally discussed in Eschatological debates like the Millennium, the Parousia, the Resurrection, and other issues. However, I'd like to start this summer off with a common question that undoubtedly most of us have asked, "Will there be sex in heaven?"

I remember when I was younger being told that Jesus could come back at any moment. Instead of erupting in joy at such a statement I would often think that Jesus should wait, perhaps until I have at least been married. I also remember having the thought that I hope I don't die until I have had sex first. But I think there is something completely backwards about this type of thinking. Do we seriously desire to postpone the grand reunion of our souls with our Maker for a mere earthly pleasure? Hopefully the absurdities of my previous thoughts are evident.

If we really believe the Scriptures when they tell us that in the presence of God there is fullness of joy (Ps 16:11), then why do we often hear young Christians say similar things as I once did? Even more, some suggest (wrongly, as I hope to show) that perhaps there will be marriage in Heaven. But will the joy of Heaven be too bleak for us that we must have a need for sex? I want to probe this issue because I believe there is something worshipful that can take place through this reflection.

In Mark 12:18-27 a group of Sadducees come to Jesus. In a common riposte fashion they publically challenge Jesus' view of the Resurrection. Attempting to stump Jesus they depict a scenario in which a woman marries a man with seven brothers. Eventually the husband dies with no offspring so one of the brothers marries the woman, and this cycle continues until all the brothers had married her and died. The Sadducees then ask Jesus which of the brothers will be married to the woman in the Resurrection. The question was meant, from the perspective of the Sadducees, to point out a logical absurdity with the concept of the Resurrection. However, they were wrong in assuming that marriage carried over into eternity. Note what Jesus says, "When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given into marriage." It is clear that Jesus' response removed all doubt as to whether there is marriage in Heaven. Not only does marriage not continue into Heaven, but there is no subsequent act of marriage that takes place in Heaven.

For some people this is troublesome. They assume that if Heaven is a place of eternal pleasure, and sex is pleasurable, then why can't the two coexist? I believe there is a fundamental problem with this question. For one, the assumption seems to make earthly pleasure the supreme form of pleasure. It also fails to realize that Heaven is itself superior for not containing it. For if sex is the greatest of earthly pleasures (as veterans might say) and it is not even present in Heaven, then how much more pleasurable is that place? What must Heaven be like if even the greatest of earthly pleasures is missing? The absence of sex ought to be a cause for joy rather than sadness or bitterness because Heaven is not less joyous in light of this fact, but more so. I believe C.S. Lewis had this concept in mind in his book, "Miracles." There he says that if you tell a very young boy that sex is the highest pleasure, he will ask if it is something that involves eating chocolate (p.260). In this same way, sex is merely "chocolate candy" in relation to our understanding of the pleasure that awaits us in being in the presence of God.

We see this reminder even in the book of Ecclesiastes. All is vanity "under the sun," the author writes nearly thirty times. The "under the sun" perspective, that is, what is merely concerned with earthly and temporal pleasures, will ultimately lead to unsatisfaction. The true object of our joy is indeed "Beyond the sun!" The author writes, "Who can eat or find pleasure without Him?" (Ecc. 2:25). This is precisely because "He has set eternity in the hearts of men" (Ecc. 3:11). That longing we have has an object absent from the temporal realm. This longing leads us directly into the throne room of God, where our Bridegroom is seated at the Father's right hand waiting for us.

This is precisely why we will have no impulses for sex in Heaven. Those affections that we possess, in that sense, here on earth will be focused on our Bridegroom, which is Christ. No earthly relationship can compare to relating to our Savior as a Bride relates to her Bridegroom. This idea provokes so much worship within me that the thought of maintaining an earthly marriage would literally be archaic. Note the words of God to his people through the prophet Hosea, "And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness" (Ho. 2:19). Can earthly marriage compete with those supernal images? In Paul we see a similar marriage motif, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-26). As the Bride of Christ we have the glorious opportunity to relate to our Maker in a relationship that marriage imagery can only faintly describe. The substance will be far more grand, and the romantic longing that all of us have will be satisfied throughout all eternity.

Therefore, sex is a type. It is a type of the eschatological joy that we will experience in relationship with God. Human relationships can never do what the archetypal relationship can do. All longing that we have within us to be in relationship with another relational being, and all longing that we have to flee loneliness cannot be subsided in even the closest of our human relationships. Thus, Sex and all other forms of longing, point us to that "country whose builder is God." All unfulfilled desires and unsatisfaction in this world has been pointing us to that heavenly country. In agreement with this I conclude with the first question from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "Q. What is the chief end of man? A. Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever."

How I Became An Amillennialist

The current state of eschatological studies within evangelicalism is quite polarized. Describing yourself as either a Premillennialist, Postmillennialist, or Amillennialist can carry an incredible amount of theological baggage. Our hermeneutical methods are automatically exposed, and somehow we get labeled as either "spiritualizing" the text, or taking it too literally. Recently, I've been spending some time studying this issue and although I don't think that I understand everything that pertains to each view, I've come to a personal conclusion after weighing the evidence.

Like most American evangelicals, I grew up attending a dispensational church. I also attended a Christian high school that taught basic Dispensationalism. This is usually enough to create any evangelical into a dispensationalist, but throw in reading the increasingly popular end-times series, Left Behind, and you have all the necessary pre-requisites to be a full blown pretribulational premillennial dispensationalist. Obviously, when you're a dispensationalist nothing is more abhorred then Amillennialism. I too was there. I hated Amillennialism. I viewed it as liberal theology like most do (never mind the historical precedence), and I thought that it essentially threw away the book of revelation and simply turned it into a giant symbolic analogy of the present age in an arbitrary fashion. Amillennialism, I thought, was a horrible position to hold.

My own wanderings in eschatology over the past year have lead me towards an Amilleninal conclusion, despite my prior assessments. The first problem came with pretribulationalism. After studying the "rapture" I realized that it is always in relation to Christ's physical return. Despite the arguments about imminence, I realized that 1 Thess 4, and Mt 24 give us no understanding of a "secret" return. Without going into detail here, I quickly rejected the notion of a pretribulational rapture. I realized that the view of a pretribulational rapture is actually more tied to ecclesiology then it is to eschatology. This seemed highly problematic to me. The only reason the pretrib rapture exists in theological studies is because of a staunch dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Something that I have now rejected for a covenantal approach to their relationship (cf. Ro 2:29; Ro 9:6-8; Gal 3:15-29; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:11-22; Phil 3:3; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Heb 8:6-13).

In accepting Covenant Theology, I became afraid about how this would affect my eschatology. I knew that Dispensational Premillenialism was out as an option, but Historic Premillenialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism were still left to study. Initially Historic Premillenialism seemed good because it embraces a posttribulational rapture, and covenant theology. However, my problems further extended into areas of the resurrection, judgment and the end of the age. Historic Premillenialism gave insufficient answers to these questions. How can there be two resurrections? Two judgments? Or a thousand year transitional period before the age to come? Outside of Revelation, I found the NT writers teaching that the resurrection, judgment, and end of the age all happening at Christ's return. This posed as an incredible problem for any form of Premillenialism. Because of these thoughts, I started to seriously doubt Historic Premillenialism.

So I decided to study Amillennialism. I knew that Amillennialism would have a lot of explaining to do for me to accept it... and to my surprise it exceeded all of my expectations. At the outset I determined that unless Amillennialism gave a sufficient answer to my problems then I would turn to Postmillennialism, or embrace a form of eschatological agnosticism. My initial problems with Amillennialism were threefold. How could this present age be the millennial reign of Christ? How could Satan possibly be bound in this age? And How Does the Amillennialist explain the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:5?

Although there are other important texts to this study (Mt 24; Ro 11; Dan 9; 1 Thess 4; 2 Thess 2; 1 Cor 15, etc…), everything ultimately hinges upon Revelation 20. Therefore, I will only deal with this particular text. I obviously won’t be able to do this issue justice at any length, so I will give a simple explanation based upon my recent studies. I’ve come to conclude that the answer to the daunting system of eschatology within Revelation can be answered in one word: Recapitulation.

Dispensationalist's view Revelation 19-20 in a chronological fashion. However, there is good reason to believe that the two chapters describe the same event from different perspectives. The battle described in Rev 19 after the second coming of Christ is one in which Christ destroys the nations in his judgment. Following this incident is the millennial reign of Christ, according to dispensationalists, which is followed by yet another major battle. However, it makes more sense to view these battles as the same event. A few reasons suggest this. One: the battles of Rev 16, 19 and 20 use imagery from the same event described in Ezekiel 38-39. Demonstrating that these major battles are not sequential but recapitulated. Two: If Christ has already judged the nations and destroyed them in Rev 19, where do the nations come from to fight Christ once again in Rev 20 and why would Satan be bound so as to not decieve them? Especially since 19:18-21 describes the completeness of the battle in all-inclusive terms. Three: In revelation there are references to battles in general terms in chapters 9, 11, 12, and 13. Yet, in the last three times a battle is described (16, 19, and 20), a definite article is used in the Greek text. These chapters are the last three times a battle is described and the only time the word battle is used with a definite article in Revelation. Four: Since Rev 15 tells us that 7 bowls will be poured out for the completion of God’s wrath, and because Rev 19:11-21 marks the end of God’s wrath against the world, then Rev 20:7-10 must be recapitulated with the battle of Rev 19. All these reasons were very convincing to me.

Therefore, if the battles of Rev 19 & 20 are recapitulated then the thousand-year reign of Christ is the present age. This would make sense because we are told multiple times that Christ is currently seated at the right hand of the throne of God, indicating that he is reigning, and because Rev 19 describes the judgment that Christ brings at his second coming. The implications of this would mean that Satan is currently bound. This idea isn't as problematic as it initially sounds. Not only do the NT writers demonstrate this idea generally all throughout their writings with the great spiritual victory that Christ won against the forces of Satan, but also Christ himself had some interesting things to say.

In Mark 3:27, after casting out a demon, Christ said, “But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man.” Likewise, In Luke 10:17-18, after the seventy-two returned to Christ and announced that the demons are subject to the name of Christ, Jesus told them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven.” Clearly, the symbolic idea of being bound by a chain in Rev 20 demonstrates that the Gospel of Christ will advance and so will his Kingdom. Another thing to consider is that Rev 20:3 tells us that Satan is bound from deceiving the nations. Therefore, Satan is bound in relation to the expansion of the Gospel. There is no doubt that he is still the prince and power of the air, and the god of this world, but his relation to the expansion of Christ’s kingdom is that he is bound from deceiving those nations that Christ commissioned his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to. Because of the binding of Satan during this age, the four living creatures that encircle the throne of God in Rev 5:9 are able to sing, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe, and language, and people and nation.” Truly, the binding of Satan is in effect, and the Gospel is expanding to the nations. (Paul also speaks of the restraining aspect of evil in 2 Thess 2:3-8, which ends in Christ’s coming and the ultimate destruction of evil. This passage would then further tie the battles of Rev 19 & 20 together!)

The last question that I needed answered was the idea of the first resurrection in Rev 20:5. According to Dispensationalists, the first resurrection occurs at the commencement of the millennial reign of Christ, in which believers are resurrected, and the second resurrection occurs at the end of the millennium, in which those who come to Christ during the millennium are resurrected along with the rest of the reprobates. Not only is the idea of two resurrections nowhere to be found in the bible outside of this passage, which ought to indicate something on its own, but there is contextual evidence which should not lead us to believe that the two resurrections are sequential, but of different kinds. Rev 20 contrasts the first resurrection with second death. The second death is not the second sequential death of man, but a different kind of death: a spiritual death. This would seem to make sense for the first resurrection as well, since those who participate in the first resurrection will not face the second death, as Rev 20:6 tells us. Therefore, the first resurrection is not the first set of bodily resurrections followed by another set of bodily resurrections, but is instead a different kind of resurrection. The first being spiritual, the second being bodily. This makes sense when you consider that the thrones mentioned in 20:4 are for those beheaded for their testimony of Christ. These thrones are not earthly, but heavenly. They are for the saints. With this in mind, and the multiple passages in the NT that tell us that the bodily resurrection occurs after Christ’s physical return, it further adds support to such a conclusion.

There is obviously so much more to discuss in relation to this view of eschatology. Our opinion of the nature of Israel, and our view of dispensations also determine what we believe about eschatology. There simply is too much that pertains to our eschatological views. Although I haven’t addressed those issues in this study, the arguments in favor of recapitulation in Revelation are staggering. Since Rev 20 is the only passage that teaches the millennial reign of Christ, then how we understand this passage is obviously the linchpin of our personal eschatology. In conclusion of this study, Satan is most certainly bound to the Kingdom of God, which Christ oversees from the right hand of the throne of God. Most importantly, Christ is sovereignly reigning over the history of this world during this “thousand year” period. It seems appropriate therefore, to understand that the thousand years began at Christ’s resurrection. Consider the words of Peter for further support to this wonderful truth about Christ’s exaltation!

1 Peter 3:22 "[Christ] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, powers, and authorities having been subjected to him."

Also consider the words of the author of Hebrews,

Hebrews 1:8-13 "But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions. And, You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end. And to which of the angels has he ever said, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?"