About the author

Ken Mafli

Ken Mafli

is passionate about Theological Anthropology and has been studying the Bible, humanity, and how we relate to God for over 20 years.

Related Articles

6 Comments

  1. 1

    darlene grillo

    I believe you have to accept Revelation 20 exactly how it’s written. It’s easy to understand if you accept it the way the Lord gave it. A good portion of revelation scripture, with the exception of chapters 1-4 and 19-22, is not all that clear but, gives us what to expect, what to look out for and, we’ll all have to wait to see how it plays out. Jesus does give us a warning of the loss of eternal salvation regarding the book of Revelation. Because of the way the second advent of Christ is clearly stated as coming after the mark of the beast and, the saints being beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, I can share this scripture of Revelation (other new testament scripture testifies of this when they didn’t have the book of Revelation) with certainty, even though Jesus’ warning still echoes loud and clear. He certaintly put that warning there for a reason. Maybe because He doesn’t want His sheep to be unaware of the cross to carry during this time when men’s heart’s will fail them because they see what’s coming upon the earth. Look how church attendance sky rocketed after 9-11. I was shaken too and, took a closer look at my walk with Abba.

    Reply
  2. 2

    Brandon

    I believe that you have confused historic premillennialism with dispensational premillennialism. Historic premillennialism does not adhere to a pre-tribulation rapture, neither does it Christ’s return as two events. The “pre-tribulation rapture” which see’s Christ’s return as two events is known as dispensational premillennialism. As such, your criticisms concerning the timing of the rapture are inaccurate. The early Christians were not dispensationalists and did not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. They thought that they were living in the tribulation (they saw the Roman persecution against them as the Great Tribulation). How could they believe in a pre-tribulation rapture if they thought they were living in the Great Tribulation? It was dispensationalists (namely John Darby) who came up with the idea of separating the rapture and the first resurrection in order to attempt to explain a pre-tribulation rapture. (Also that the Tribulation is only for Israel, to bring about her salvation, and so the church must be taken out of the way first). Historic premillennialists accept none of this, as they do not agree to dispensational theology (dispensational premillennialism is the eschatology of dispensational theology, which separates time into different dispensations) Historic premillennialists adhere to covenant theology instead of dispensational theology (as the early church did). So historic premillennialism could be seen as the premillennial eschatology of covenant theology in the way that dispensational premillennialism could be seen as the premillennial eschatology of dispensationalism.

    Historic premillennialism (also known as chiliasm during the Reformation) adheres to a literal millennial reign, but there are also radical doctrinal differences between historic premillennialism and dispensationalism.

    Not trying to be rude or anything, but your article is completely inaccurate.

    Reply
    1. 2.1
      Ken Mafli

      Ken Mafli

      Brandon,
      Thanks for taking the time to comment. Umm, I am not sure you read my article. Yes, Historic Premillennialism has the Church raptured with Christ’s physical return after the Tribulation – which is what I said. Also, it has Christ reigning physically for 1,000 years – which is also what I said.

      Again, this is how I describe it in the post and the infographic…

      Reply
  3. 3

    Rick Imlay

    Historic Premillennialism-Yes. Who are the people who are in the millennial kingdom that rebel against Christ after the 1000years.

    Thanks,
    Rick

    Reply
    1. 3.1
      Ken Mafli

      Ken Mafli

      Good Question. Premillennialists believe that a remnant of humanity will be left after the Tribulation. As such, generations will still be born to humanity who have not received their translated bodies. We, the Church, will reign with Christ in our glorified bodies. Since Free Will will still be granted to the mortal generations, their will be a sub-set that will choose not to submit to the reign of the Risen One. Therefore, after Satan is loosed, he will be able to sway a good portion of mortal humanity to rebel.

      Although this is the Pre-Millennialist position, it is a bit unsatisfying to me. I am hard pressed to imagine a scenario where humanity will openly rebel against a visible Savior reigning in Jerusalem. While they give good argumentation, it just rings a bit hollow.

      Hope that helps!

      Reply
  4. 4

    Matthew Abate

    Your posts on this eschatology series have piqued my interest to study and read more. Speaking as a historic premillennialist, there is some irony for me with your second point. This is one of the most consistent arguments against premillennialism, but I think it’s the weakest argument. It seems to me that the following passages present a strong case for the resurrection of the just preceding the unjust: 1 Cor. 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, and Philippians 3:10-11.

    My argument based on those passages goes something like this. In 1 Thess. 4:16-17, Paul teaches that there’s precedence given to the dead in Christ over against those alive in Christ not to mention the dead who aren’t in Christ. Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 15:23 that there is an order to the resurrections. The Greek word translated order actually means military rank or regiment. The point being that the dead are ranked or classified in groups.

    This ties in nicely with 1 Thess. 4:16-17 where precedence is given to the dead in Christ versus those alive in Christ. In Phil 3:10-11, Paul shows how the believer’s resurrection is necessarily linked to Christ’s. Our Lord rose out from among the dead, and his church will rise out from among the dead. The clause rise out from among the dead is a translation of the Greek: exanastasis ek nekron. Exanastasis means out-resurrection and ek nekron means out of or from dead.

    Based on those three passages, it seems to me that Christ will raise his people first. This fits well with Revelation 20:4-6. Here’s another argument in favor of the selective nature of the resurrection over and against the general resurrection. According to Revelation 7:2-3 and 9:3-4, the redeemed are sealed or marked out from the wicked throughout the persecution of the church age. If God makes a distinction between his people and the wicked during the church age, wouldn’t that carry over into their resurrection?

    The general resurrection view seems to teach that Christ raises the wicked together with his church. My question is the following: what happened to the distinction God made during the lives of his people with his seal? That doesn’t seem to fit the hope of Paul in Phil. 3:11 or the author of Hebrews in eleventh chapter and thirty-fifth verse. Anyway, those are my musings. Keep writing…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2014 Powered By Wordpress, Goodnews Theme By Momizat Team