As you can see from my GRACE WITH A VIEW messages I'm a premillennialist. I believe in the future millennium of Christ's reign on earth in Person, seated on the throne of David. I'm also a pretribulationist. I believe in a coming seven-year tribulation period on earth and that the rapture of the church will take place before it.

Maybe you have a bias against the premillennial position, and especially against the pretribulation rapture. I've been there. I used to be a staunch amillennialist. Actually, an obnoxious one. I felt it was my calling in life to straighten out every premillennialist I came in contact with.

I started out as a premill pretrib. As a new Christian I learned this teaching from my first pastor. I just accepted what he taught me because I had learned nothing else. You might say I learned by rote. He was a strong advocate for the Scofield Reference Bible, and now that I think about that I suspect that he might have learned by rote too.

As I discovered and began to develop my God-given gift as a Bible teacher I also discovered and developed my system of eschatology according to my pastor's teaching and my own delving into the Scofield's notes in his reference Bible.

Though there was truth in their teaching, and advantage in my learning it, there was also a disadvantage. I rode on their coattails and gullibly swallowed some dispensational notions that they didn't get out of the Bible but read into it.

I began teaching and preaching as a layman fairly early in my Christian life. During those years while reading the Word of God I came to an appreciation of the Bible's teaching on Divine Election. A couple of years later I was a pastor and having fellowship with another pastor of like-mind who introduced me to historical theological writings that went back to Reformers and Puritans, as well as to 20th Century theological writings that held to the biblical truth of Divine Election against a popular sentiment in evangelical circles of either distortion or denial of this precious doctrine.

Of course, this truth of Divine Election involves a lot of related aspects of God's sovereignty. As these aspects became systematized to show their relationship to one another an umbrella was opened up over them on which was written, "Calvinism," with respect to Reformer John Calvin who had fervently proclaimed the sovereignty of God.

But my pastoral friend not only introduced me to Calvinism but also to amillennialism, an erroneous and inconsistent system of eschatology. As time went on and I got involved with more Calvinistic pastors and laymen I discovered that amillennialism was the prominent position of eschatology among them. So guess what. I gave myself over to riding coattails and gullible swallowing again.

Knowing what I do now and what I've taught for many years as a premill, pretib believer, I still resent my amill captivity and aggressive activity as its proponent. I'm so grateful to the Lord for delivering me from it and so wrapped up in what he's been teaching me throughout those years I just keep on expounding to others the prophetic details of Scripture that flood my heart. No doubt others of similar experience might feel both a compassion and obligation to straighten out the amills as I once had to straighten out the premills. Strangely, I don't.

I'm not going to spend much time going into the errors of amillennialism I once espoused. I will however present the gist of the amill position. Yes, I do want to see amills won over, not only for their sake but for the sake of God's Word which they so inadvertently misunderstand and misuse in teaching others. But my compassion and obligation are to propound the truth and to draw attention to Scriptural contents and contexts as they were written and meant to be taken.

THE GIST OF AMILLENNIALISM

The hub of the issue is the 1000 years mentioned in Rev 20:1-10. Based on the Latin word for mille, that means "a thousand," and the Latin word "annus," that means "year," it is usually called the millennium.

Premillennialists take it as a literal future 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth. Of course, Premillennialists must first of all be a pro-millennialists. To believe in the coming of Christ to earth before the millennium they must believe there will actually be a millennium to come after He does.

The "a" in amillennialism, based on Latin grammar, negates the word millennial. Just as amoral means the opposite of moral, so amillennial means the opposite of millennial. The main characteristic of the amills is negative. They deny the literal reign of Christ on the earth for a l000 years prior to the eternal state. Their interpretation is to explain away.

In short, an amillennialist turns many of the literal Old Testament promises to Israel into spiritual accomplishments that find their fulfillment in the church. The negation in the "a" of their amill view is the denial of and opposition to a literal view.

However, imagining they can derive literal meaning from their spiritual interpretation they say they aren't against the literal but rather the materialistic interpretation of the prophesies they spiritualize. But that's just a smokescreen. It's a semantic ruse, though, I'm confident, not deliberately intended by my amill brothers in Christ.

When I was an amill I had to steer clear of many prophetic passages of Scriptures. Of course, I couldn't avoid Rev 20:1-10. But what should I do with it? If I wouldn't accept what it said, what should I make it say? How could I manipulate the text?

I speak sarcastically now, but back then I sincerely sought to do justice to this passage by fitting it into a scheme of interpretation I honestly believed to be true. But what to do with that 1000 years. If it didn't mean a 1000 years literally, what did it mean spiritually?

To answer that I'm going to expound the content of this passage literally in context.

The 1000 years are mentioned six times. This ought to arrest our attention right away. To mention this number so many times, when nothing else associated with it gets such repeated attention in these verses, certainly sounds like preciseness of time duration, doesn't it?

Let me reinforce the obvious.

The original recipient of this vision was the Apostle John. The question is, How did he receive this term? He couldn't envision it. He had to be told it. We know that an angel acted as his guide through the series of visions in the Book of Revelation, who sometimes spoke to him (Rev 1:1; 22:1-6).

Anyway, the point is that what John couldn't see he had to hear. And the greater point is what hearing of these 1000 years meant to him and means to us. The 1000 years aren't something to be interpreted. They are an interpretation!

John sees a vision. How is he to understand them? An interpreting voice tells him, thus enabling him to fit each part of this prophecy into the picture in relation to these1000 years, the binding of Satan before it, the reign of the saints during it and the loosing of Satan and his doom afterward.

Furthermore, the context before Rev 20:1-10 must relate to the 1000 years as well. The binding of Satan falls into the sequence of the second coming of the King of kings, the view of the carnage of the battle of God and the casting of the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire (19:16-21).

And the context after Rev 20:1-10 must also relate to the 1000 years as well. Carrying on the sequence of events there comes the end of the 1000 years, then "after" it comes the release of Satan, his abortive attempt to use rebels from the nations to battle the saints at Jerusalem and his final doom. And then the great white throne judgment, the deliverance to eternal doom of those judged at it, and finally the creation of the new heaven and new earth complete the sequence (20:7-21:3).

Now for some sense and nonsense as we examine the facts connected with the 1000 years. John saw the vision in the present tense and related it in the past tense. However, since we have clearly established that the setting of our text verses is the second coming of the King of Kings we will look at them mainly in the future tense.

Let's start with the term, "the first resurrection." It will take place before the 1000 years and the rest of the dead will not be resurrected until after the 1000 years. When I was an amill, refusing to take the 1000 years literally, I took them to be symbolical of the present time between my conversion to Christ when I had passed from death to life and the day of the general physical resurrection of dead. I based it on Jn 5:24-29. In other words, the first resurrection was spiritual and the second one would be physical.

By this interpretation more than my own conversion had to be accounted for. Going back to the beginning of the Christian era every Christian must have had their own first resurrection. That being the case the first resurrection really began with the first convert to Christ in the Christian era. So, stretching the distance accordingly, it began with the first spiritual resurrection of the first convert of the Christian era and will end with the general physical resurrection of the rest of the dead.

Since Satan was bound during this imagined symbolical time period between the spiritual and physical resurrections, I had to assume that his binding was a curtailment of his activity on earth based on his defeat by Christ on the cross. His loosing would be a lifting of that curtailment just before the second coming on Christ when Satan would be allowed one last effort at deceiving the nations before that advent event.

Of course, the cross did strike a blow to Satan that has implications for our present victory over Satan and his emissaries, as well as for his and their future doom. But during the centuries of personal first resurrections, dating back to that initial one, Satan certainly hasn't been bound in his diabolical activities on earth.

Putting the first resurrection back in its biblical context we see it coming after the second coming of the King of kings and including a number of saints that are denoted. But before we get to that I feel that I should say a pungent word to my fellow premills. I cannot buy the notion that the first resurrection takes place in stages, including the resurrection of Christ as the first-fruits, the resurrection at the rapture and the resurrection at the end of the tribulation period.

Very simply, the first resurrection is the first of two, one before the 1000 years and the other one after the 1000 years. The first one is a resurrection of the saints; the other one of the rest of the dead appears to be a general resurrection.

The vision John saw contained symbolism as eye-catching visual aids. No matter how much of the vision is symbolical for effect and how much will actually take place in the future events, there are obvious prophetic points made about the coming affairs themselves.

There will be a millennial age during which the devil, Satan, will be put out of commission. He will not be allowed to carry on his activities on earth as the wily serpent and dangerous dragon during that 1000 years. He will be totally removed from any opportunity to deceive the nations again until the 1000 years are over.

"Blessed and holy" saints of the first resurrection will reign with Christ, specifically for 1000 years. They are called priests of God and Christ. Particular notice is given of the martyred saints who had refused to receive the mark of the beast (antichrist) during the great tribulation.

Moses applied this priesthood to Israel and Peter applied it to the church (Ex 19:4-6; 1 Pet 2:9). It's a kingly priesthood that the Book of Revelation applies to both church saints and to all blood-bought saints. The reference to the church saints is connected to the kingship of Christ and His return to earth (Rev 1:4-7). The reference to all blood-bought saints states that they will reign on the earth (5:9-10).

At the end of the 1000 years Satan will be let loose for a short last ditch attempt to attack the beloved city, Jerusalem, and the saints therein. For that doomed-to-failure effort he will deceive and assemble his Gog and Magog warriors from the nations all over the earth. Numerically they will be like the sand of the sea, a natural possibility even in our time of modern fight, and equally or greater at the end of the millennium when air travel could be far advanced to what it is now.

But once they've surrounded Jerusalem fire will come down from heaven and consume them. And just as the beast and the false prophet had been thrown into the lake of fire before the millennium, Satan will be thrown into it to join them forever.

So there it is, Rev 20:1-10, literal and clear, not a hodgepodge of amill guesswork. In brief:

1. The term 1000 years is not part of the vision to be interpreted. It is an interpretation, probably by audible comment from the angel who guided John through the visions of the Revelation. It is shows the duration of an exact time period. It's mentioned six times, thus stressing its preciseness.

2. In relation to the 1000 years a series of events are set in chronological order, some before and some after, thus bracketing the millennial period as a specific unit of time with a beginning and an end. In this context the 1000 years is tied in with the coming of Christ to earth at the beginning and the creation of the new heaven and new earth at the end.

When I was an amillennialist I was inconsistent in interpreting Scripture. As a stickler for context now I abhor the memory of that practice. Though I was an amill I was evangelical and despised the antics of those who weren't evangelical who explained away the miraculous and supernatural events in the Bible by allegorizing them. Yet, I was doing exactly the same thing with certain prophetic events of the Bible.

For instance, in Lk 1:30-33 we read of the virgin birth of Jesus and His promised occupancy of the throne of David. Of course, as an evangelical I believed in the virgin birth of Jesus. I knew that not to believe in it would be heresy. But while taking that literally, I didn't take throne of David literally.

When I was an amillennialist I failed to realize the awful implication of that blunder. If I spiritualized the enthronement of Jesus on the throne of David I also should have spiritualized the virgin birth. If I made the reign of Christ on the throne a spiritual reign instead of a literal reign, I also should have made the virgin birth just an allegorical way of expressing some spiritual truth.

Either the virgin birth of Jesus and His predicted rule on the throne of David mentioned together in the same passage of Scripture are both literal or both spiritual. Consistency demanded that I hold either an evangelical view of both or a heretical view of both. Of course, being inconsistent was better than being heretical, but being inconsistent I still mishandled God's prophetic Word.

Well, that's but a sketch of my past amillennialism. If you have any questions, please read the rest of my testimony about my prophetic recovery as well as my GRACE WITH A VIEW messages before you email me. I think you'll agree with me when I say that I've done far more than a sketchy job in producing this material. If after reading it you want to email me you'll find my email icon at the bottom of this page.

I want to be helpful if I can and so I welcome sincere inquiries. If you have a testimony similar to mine I'd be glad to receive it.

HITCHED TO THE "POST"

When I left amillennialism I embraced premillennialism right away. But I didn't accept the Bible's teaching on the pretribulation rapture right away. That first bolt of illumination on that hadn't hit me yet.

I'm very context oriented. I'm a stickler about the contexts of Scripture. True, I had lapsed in the days of my inconsistency as an amillennialist. But now I had just been shocked into learning my lesson. Now my show-me antenna was up.

My attitude was, show me a verse that specifically says the church will not go through the tribulation period. I hit the books. And the things I was reading as evidence for a pretribulation rapture were certainly not convincing me.

I read about Christ coming for and with His saints as proof He would come for them at the rapture and bring them back with Him at His revelation. But in reading 1 Thess 4:14-17 I saw that He will bring His saints with Him (those who had died) and catch up the living saints at the same time. I saw Jesus coming for and with His saints at the same time.

I read about His revelation being separate from the time of the rapture. Yet I saw that the Scriptures used the same word, apocalypsis (revelation), in connection with both the rapture and Christ's second coming to earth. (1 Pet 1:13; 2 Thess 1:17).

I read about His appearance as separate from the time of the rapture. Yet the Scriptures used the same word, epiphaneia (appearance), in connection with both the rapture and Christ's second coming to earth (Tit 2:13; 2 Tim 4:1).

Then I read an interpretation of Rev 4:1 where John was caught up to heaven. Here I was supposed to see the rapture of the church. All I could see was the rapture of John.

And besides, nobody had given me that verse that specifically said the church will not go through the tribulation period. This made me stop at a hitching "post" along the way.

I accepted the view of a post-tribulation rapture. Strange thing, I wasn't concerned that nobody could show me a specific verse that said the church will go through the tribulation period. Anyway, in the absence of the pre-view proof text I was looking for, I turned to the post-view.

Those who hold the post-tribulation view of the rapture find very little Scripture handy to prop it up. Of the few they do find, they seem rather fond of the reference to the sounding of the seventh trumpet in the Book of Revelation (Rev 11:15).

They imagine it to be "the last trumpet" of 1 Cor 15:52, which refers to the rapture. And because they see the seventh trumpet in Revelation issuing in a series of judgments that will take place just before Christ sets up His kingdom on earth, that's where they stick the rapture.

Actually, the seven trumpets of the Book of Revelation aren't going to be sounded in the future at all. They aren't part of the predicted events to come. [Even many pre-tribs miss this fact.]

They we're sounded in the past to get the Apostle John's attention. Like the seals and the bowls were to John's eyes, the trumpets were to his ears. They were devices of that occasion on the Isle of Patmos to add dramatic effect to the presentation of the visions of future events to John. They were sounded to draw his attention to what he would see next, step by step, vision by vision.

There are at least two ways "the last trumpet" at the rapture can be explained.

Paul could have borrowed a military term for departure from the three steps of a camping regiment's command. At the first trumpet the regiment would break camp, gathering up their gear. At the second trumpet they would fall in, preparing to leave. At the third or last trumpet they would depart.

Paul used like military imagery another time in 1 Cor 14:8: "And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?"

Then again, "the last trumpet" might mean the last of two that will be sounded when the Lord Jesus comes for His church. If this be the case, the first trumpet will sound when the Lord descends and the dead in Christ rise first, then the last trumpet will sound at the catching up of those of us who haven't died (1 Thess 4:16-17).

UNHITCHED FROM THE POST