Jesus's Priesthood in Hebrews 2:10

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord! Continuing on in our series on the doctrine of Melchizedek, we’ll start looking at the book of Hebrews. Today we’ll be focusing on 2:10 and the concept that Jesus was made “perfect through suffering.” Have you ever considered this idea? I feel like this is a text that would be easy to read over. “Yes, Jesus suffered and is perfect… tell me something I didn’t know!” Well, there is quite a bit to dig up in this text alone, but elsewhere in the Bible there is also a lot to do with suffering, and more specifically, sharing in the sufferings of Christ. We’ll take a look at all of this in today’s post.

Hebrews 2:10:

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

First of all, just make note that we are jumping right into the middle of a greater argument the author is making. Still, I believe we are justified in starting here to lay a foundation for the doctrine of Melchizedek. While there is quite a bit of information given prior to this, it is here that the author seems to really start outlining the concept of Jesus as our great high priest. There are references prior to this of course (1:3, After making purification for sins), but in 2:10 we get a specific mention of Jesus as τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας (the champion of our salvation) and that He was διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι (perfected through suffering).

As stated earlier, I’m sure it’s easy for us to skip over this concept of being perfected, but this is really important in the grand scheme of things. The word for perfected, τελειόω, should find its identity in the LXX usage due to the context. While “perfect” (ESV) or “complete” is a fine translation, the elusion of the Exodus (“bringing many sons to glory”) brings us back to the Aaronic priesthood and consecration. τελειόω is used of consecration in Exodus 29:9, 29, 33, 35; Leviticus 4:5; 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; and Numbers 3:3 which strengthens this view, and BDAG supports it (“Some of the Hb-passages (s. 2a; eα above) may belong here, esp. those in which a consecration of Jesus is mentioned 2:10; 5:9; 7:28”). William L. Lane says “In ceremonial texts of the Pentateuch the verb is used to signify the act of consecrating a priest to his office.” And so, I think there is a strong argument to be made that we ought to understand Jesus’s initiation to the Melchizedekian priesthood to come through (διὰ) his suffering.

In fact, due to the infinitive usage of τελειῶσαι, it would seem the purpose of παθημάτων (suffering) is Jesus’s consecration. Thus, Jesus suffered so that He would be raised up as our perfect high priest. Why is it that Jesus needed to suffer in order for this distinction, and why does suffering secure this position for him? There is a lot to be said about this, but we can look back to the very beginning of 2:10 to see that it was appropriate (πρέπω) for God (in distinction to Jesus, τὸν ἀρχηγὸν), to do this. It was appropriate due to the previous clause, ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου (so that: by the grace of God he might taste death for all). To explain, it was appropriate that God would send His Son to suffer death on our behalf, to bring many sons to glory. In other words, the suffering is what secures our salvation. The work which Christ has completed is the offering of his high priesthood. As the author later says, “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (9:25-26).” The suffering, and ultimately the death of Christ (2:9, suffering of death) is the offering for which His priesthood is founded upon. It is the blood of His covenant, by which we are saved.

Paul says elsewhere in the Scriptures that we actually share in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor 1:5; Phil 3:10; Col 1:24) as well as Peter (1 Pet 4:13). In Paul’s case, it was specific to his calling (Acts 9:16 - “I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name”). We are to rejoice in these sufferings, and consider ourselves blessed if we are insulted for the sake of His name (1 Pet 5:14). We are to have joy in trials (Ja 1:2), as we are made steadfast and strong, learning perseverance in our faith. It is through suffering that we can come to know Christ more in all His affliction. As Pastor John Piper preached:

“Not only is all your affliction momentary, not only is all your affliction light in comparison to eternity and the glory there. But all of it is totally meaningful. Every millisecond of your pain, from the fallen nature or fallen man, every millisecond of your misery in the path of obedience is producing a peculiar glory you will get because of that.

I don’t care if it was cancer or criticism. I don’t care if it was slander or sickness. It wasn’t meaningless. It’s doing something! It’s not meaningless. Of course you can’t see what it’s doing. Don’t look to what is seen.

When your mom dies, when your kid dies, when you’ve got cancer at 40, when a car careens into the sidewalk and takes her out, don’t say, “That’s meaningless!” It’s not. It’s working for you an eternal weight of glory.

Therefore, therefore, do not lose heart. But take these truths and day by day focus on them. Preach them to yourself every morning. Get alone with God and preach his word into your mind until your heart sings with confidence that you are new and cared for.”

Grace and peace,

Joel

Melchizedek in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110

Hello once again in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord!

In my last post, I introduced the doctrine of Melchizedek and talked a bit about Spiritual maturity. While I had originally just intended to post on maturity, this gave me the idea of really delving into the doctrine of Melchizedek as a mini-series for the blog. The next few posts will be focused on identifying Melchizedek, king of Salem, so we can then exegete the rest of the Hebrews text which uses Melchizedek to teach of Jesus’s priesthood as a better priesthood than the earthly Levitical priesthood.

There are two major texts in the Old Testament that have something to say about Melchizedek: Genesis 14:19-24, and Psalm 110:4. Let’s look at each of them separately.

In the Genesis story, Abraham had just finished rescuing his kinsman, Lot, from the hands of Chedorlaomer and the three kings who were with him. Upon his return, the king of Sodom as well as the king of Salem, Melchizedek, came out to meet him. Before we jump into the text, let’s look at the etymology of Melchizedek and the city he rules.

There is quite a bit of significance in the name of Melchizedek as well as in the name Salem. The name Melchizedek is a name comprised of two Hebrew words, מלך meaning, king; and צדיק meaning, righteous. Together they come together to mean “king of righteousness.” This is similar to the name Adonizedek (Lord of righteousness) which we see in Josh 10:1,3. The kingdom of Salem, which Melchizedek rules over, may remind us of the name “Jerusalem,” which means “possession of peace.” Many believe that this mention of Salem is actually the old name for Jerusalem, as used in Ps. 76:2 (Keil & Delitzsch). So Melchizedek ought to be understood as “The righteous king of peace.”

Now getting into the text of Genesis, Melchizedek comes with bread and wine (v18), likely to feed Abraham’s soldiers as well as to bless Abraham for his success in securing peace for the surrounding nations (the surrounding kingdoms served Chedorlaomer, v4). Melchizedek says this to Abraham in v9:

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”

Upon receiving this blessing, Abraham gives him a tenth of everything. This makes it very clear that Abraham not only serves the same God that Melchizedek does, but also that Abraham recognizes Melchizedek’s priesthood as legitimate and truly divine. Further, when Abraham speaks to the king of Sodom, he prefaces it by saying “I have lifted my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth…” which would identify himself as a follower of the God of Melchizedek.

In Psalm 110, we see a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah and King. 110:1 is quoted in Hebrews 1:13, so this particular passage in Psalms is already in the mind of the reader of Hebrews when we get to Hebrews 5 regarding Melchizedek and the quotation of 110:4 in Hebrews 7:17. So we ought to be familiar with it before getting into Hebrews. But looking specifically at Psalm 110:4, we see a revelation given to David, that a divine priesthood of a higher order exists and will one day be restored in the coming King. This coming King is described as “a priest forever,” which should remind the modern reader of Hebrews 9 and the copies and shadows of the heavenly reality. The priesthood prophesied here is the divine priesthood, without beginning or end: a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. This was revealed to David, to be recorded as prophecy.

Hopefully, this post gave a primer to the source texts that are foundational to our understanding of Hebrews 5-7. A lot of what is taught in these passages will be further fleshed out in the coming days. In the next post we will look at some different excerpts in Hebrews and toss around some ideas about the identity of Melchizedek.

Grace and Peace,
Joel

Spiritual Maturity and the Doctrine of Melchizedek

Good morning in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Did you know that spiritual maturity is not explicitly talked about much in Scripture? We have a few references in the Pauline epistles and a couple of mentions in the letter to the Hebrews; a mere eight references in some way to the word we translate as “mature”, τέλειος. Now “mature” isn’t exactly a direct translation, as τέλειος more literally refers to “completeness” or “perfection.” But the translation “maturity” seems to capture the transition from elementary knowledge. This is easily seen in the text I want to focus on, Hebrews 6. Hebrews 6:1 begins with this text:

Διὸ ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώμεθα

Here we see a command, prefaced by Διὸ, to “flee the elementary teaching of Christ and press on towards maturity.” It is here that we know to look back on what was written previously, in order that we might understand the Διὸ ("Therefore"). In 5:11-5:14 we see a bit of a scolding by the author upon the readers because they are “unskilled in the word of righteousness” and “need milk, not solid food.” They are “dull of hearing” and it is suggested they ought to be teachers by this time.

It is here that I think we all need to take a step back and consider where we are in our understanding of the Scriptures. Would we consider ourselves “skilled in the word of righteousness?” Do we consume “solid food,” in reference to the teaching we receive? I think many of us would be guilty of indulging in worldly pleasures instead of undergoing the training commanded here.

So we then come to 6:1, where it is commanded that the readers “flee the elementary teaching of Christ and press on towards maturity,” we have to wonder what is elementary and what is mature. The phrase τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον is in direct contrast to τὴν τελειότητα:

τῆς ἀρχῆς - the beginning, first, principle
τὴν τελειότητα - the completeness, perfection

Thus, when we compare the two, the idea is that there is a beginning teaching that spiritually immature Christians know, and there is a more complete and perfected teaching that spiritually mature Christians know. Not skipping ahead too fast, let us consider the gravity of what is being said here. We are not to remain idle in our learning of “the word of righteousness” (5:13). We are to continue learning, even unto perfection! Do not ever be fooled into thinking that studying the scriptures and immersing yourself daily in the teachings of Christianity is a worthless endeavor! This produces maturity and completeness!

The author continues on to give a list of what constitutes “the elementary teaching of Christ” and a the θεμέλιον (foundation) of our faith: Repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. These are considered elementary! I think at this point we can use this as a personal check-up so to speak; are we knowledgeable of these things? Are these foundational to our Christianity? Are these really “elementary teachings?” If we personally don’t feel that way, it is time to correct our thinking and align it with the words of Scripture.

Now, the author gives us examples of elementary teaching, but does he give us any examples of mature teaching? Well, it would seem that 5:11 through 6:12 is a bit of an interjection in a much larger argument the author is making. In fact, the author has been talking about the high priesthood of Jesus since 1:17, and even prior to that it seems the author is laying a foundation. We see a quotation of Psalm 110:4 back in 5:6, and then a section from 6:13 to 7:28 which continues the doctrine of Melchizedek: the basis for the following arguments in chapters 8-10 (Now the point in what we are saying is this, 8:1). At this point most people say “Melchize-who?” and lose interest, which is unfortunate. I think if we walked around our church and asked our elders and teachers to explain the doctrine of Melchizedek, we might get some strange looks, or even outright admittance of ignorance. There is a major problem with this, though. As previously stated and linked with 6:1, the doctrine of Melchizedek is given as an example of mature teaching. In fact, besides a brief mention of maturity in Phil 3:15 (press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way…), this is the only specific example in Scripture given as the mark of a mature Christian. At least, I can’t see how to read it any other way; the author scolds the readers for not having matured, suggests they should already know all of this and be teachers by now, and then continues laying out a well-formulated teaching regarding Melchizedek and the high priesthood of Jesus. To me, it sounds like a test of maturity in the faith is whether one is well acquainted with this particular doctrine. And yes, I think that sounds alarming to our ears when we first hear it (unless you are well-versed with the doctrine of Melchizedek, you are an immature Christian!), it is also alarming that no one ever seems to talk about Melchizedek in our churches. At least, not in the churches I have been in. I can recall a few times I’ve discussed it in Sunday School but that is about it. Why is that? Is it because Melchizedek is difficult to pronounce and sounds weird? Is it because Melchizedek doesn’t go well up on our church signs (such as “choose the bread of life, or you are toast”)? Or is it just difficult to teach or understand? Maybe we are all too lazy to learn about this. You have to wonder.

In the coming days (or weeks, depending on how much time I have) I will attempt to tackle the doctrine of Melchizedek with a mini-series of posts. But I first wanted to lay out the introductory point: spiritual maturity is important, and completeness in the faith, according to the Scriptures, is directly related to our knowledge of the word of righteousness, and in some sense, our knowledge of the doctrine of Melchizedek.

Grace and Peace,
Joel

Is Luke 23:34a Authentic Scripture?

Good morning in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! Another day, another blogpost.

Luke 23:34a - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
No doubt, this text was used in churches everywhere over the Easter weekend to teach about the humility of Jesus, even as he was nailed to a cross. But as well as it preaches, is the text original? There is some dispute as to whether this actually took place, being that this is a textual variant. There is a lot to consider here, so I will try to cover it quickly.

What is a textual variant? A textual variant is where a particular manuscript of the scriptures deviates from another manuscript. This could be that a word or sentence is added, spelled differently, etc. As an example, most modern bible translations do not contain the latter part of 1 John 5:7, known as the Comma Johanneum: “For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” This variant is only found in very late manuscripts and is not in any of our earliest manuscripts, and therefore, it can safely be concluded that it is an addition to the text and is not original. Well, in the case of Luke 23:34a, we have the same thing: the verse does not exist in some of our earlier manuscripts, although it is not nearly as blatant as the Comma Johanneum.

Our earliest codices of the scriptures are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. A codex simply refers to it being a book rather than a single scroll, meaning it was collated and assembled to contain multiple works. Both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are traced back to about the fourth century. A fifth century codex, Codex Alexandrinus, contains it, but another fifth century codex, Codex Bezae, omits it. In addition, P75, our very early 3rd century papyrus which contains Luke and John (our earliest record of Luke 23:34a) also omits it. It would seem the manuscript evidence for this text is lacking.

Although our earliest texts omit this saying of Jesus, most modern translations have kept it in the text and have merely placed a footnote at the bottom of the page stating that the earliest manuscripts omit it. Why do they do this? A few reasons. First, most suggest that even if the verse is not original, it is probably historically accurate and fits well with the Lukan theme of forgiving one’s enemies (6:27). Further, Stephen appears to echo these words in Acts 7:60 during his stoning when he cries out “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” It is assumed by many that this was hearkening back to the words of Jesus. Consider I. Howard Marshall's words: "This verse is omitted by a significant number of early MSS, but it should be retained either as a genuine part of what Luke wrote (cf. Acts 7:60) or as a reliable piece of tradition that found its way into some MSS. It would have been omitted by scribes who felt that the prayer was unseemly or was not answered." On the other hand, the other gospels are silent on Jesus’s statement. Mark 15:24 simply refers to the casting of lots and dividing up of his garments, with no mention of Jesus asking for God to forgive them. One would think a statement like this which seems to be very memorable and teachable would find its way into another gospel as a way to verify its historicity.

Where does this leave us? Well, I am of the persuasion that it is a bit hazy and hard to be dogmatic about. It is very helpful to know that it is a variant, and if it is used in a sermon or class, it should be mentioned as such. I also don’t think it is wise to use it as the main teaching point. It would be safer to either refer to Stephen’s statement as the primary text for forgiving one’s enemies, even during death, or at least to use it in conjunction with Luke 23:34a. For me, the manuscript evidence is pretty convincing that this text is not original, but I am by no means an expert on the subject. I simply wanted to outline the evidence and present it to you for consideration.

Grace and Peace,
Joel

Sons and Daughters... or Just Sons?

Good day to you all in the name of Jesus Christ our Savior! 

I'll be picking up the slack here on the blog with some new posts. I've got a few already written up that I'll publish over the next few days, and it is my aim to continue writing a couple every week.

Over the past few years I have heard pastors and preachers use the phrase "sons and daughters" to refer to men and women in the church, specifically to us being adopted as God's children. There is even a Christian worship duo called "All Sons and Daughters." It got me thinking about the biblical doctrine of adoption and how it is used to describe us as the children of God. Is there a disconnect here? Does the Bible refer to us all as being adopted as sons and daughters, or is there a deeper, more rich understanding in the scripture that we are ignoring?

Apart from the OT reference to sons and daughters in 2 Corinthians 6:18, it would seem Paul is more interested in ascribing to Christians the υἱοθεσία (adoption as sons), regardless of gender. For example, while Galatians 3:28 seems to be a favorite feminist text for proclaiming the equality of men and women in the church, just a few verses later we see Paul exclaiming the blessing of υἱοθεσία for all the church (4:5). The concept of υἱοθεσία is no doubt heavily influenced by culture, so a modern import of thought and desire for “equality” would do damage to the term. In fact, by referring to both men and women equally as sons, however odd that might sound to call a woman a son, Paul has actually managed to further the equal standing that men and women both share in Christ. In ancient times, especially in Jewish culture, the firstborn son (or at times a younger son, if special election was made) was given special inheritance and privilege. To add, being adopted was no less than being a legitimate son; as Louw and Nida explains, υἱοθεσία is “to formally and legally declare that someone who is not one’s own child is henceforth to be treated and cared for as one’s own child, including complete rights of inheritance.” So when Paul says “In love, he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” he is not doing a disservice to women by disrespecting gender. In fact, he is displaying the equal standing that men and women have in Christ. It is Christ who justifies, and nothing that we perform to earn our way into the presence of our Father, whether male or female. We stand on the work that Christ accomplished in our place, and on that work alone. 

So I want to make a suggestion to Christian women: do not attempt to cheapen the inheritance you have in Christ in the name of equality; you have been adopted as a son, and therefore partake in all of the benefits that come with υἱοθεσία. Understand the historical importance of the term and the biblical truth which proclaims you as a joint heir. While this does not destroy gender entirely or the roles we have in every day life as well as in the assembled church, it does emphasize that within Christianity and the eschaton, women are not second-rate citizens. Men and women equally share in the righteousness of Christ, which produces our justification.

The next time someone suggests to you that Christianity is male-dominated and lessens the value of women, be sure to tell them whether male or female, as long as we are in Jesus, we are all sons, and therefore, all joint-heirs together with Him.

Grace and Peace,
Joel

The Hope of Romans 8

Good morning! Hopefully the Lord blessed you this weekend and you experienced the love of our precious Lord God yesterday, the Lord's Day. I would like to start our week off with a message of hope found in the greatest of chapters, Romans 8.



8:2- For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus set you [all] free from the law of sin and death.


The Lord's servant, Paul, writes to the church at Rome reminding them of the grace found in the current dispensation of grace, our Sacrifice having been made in Christ Jesus on the cross at Calvary. The righteous wrath of God was fulfilled in the perfect submission of his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, requiring nothing to be added on our part to that which was already perfect; no more sacrifices, no more appeasement.

Has sin worn on you? Have you ever felt that perhaps you haven't done enough, or done too much of the wrong thing- that somehow you simply aren't worthy? Take heart in Paul's words, in what the Lord has done for us, and the grace that accompanies it.

He begins this verse with that ever-important word "for." The hope in the present verse relies on hope of the previous verse-

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

No condemnation. None. Not in any word or deed. And who is this grace extended to? Those who are in Christ Jesus. Notice here in verse 2, that this law that we are now under comes from the Spirit of Life who also is in Christ Jesus. It is this very law, that is in Christ Jesus, that has free those who are also in Christ Jesus.

What was this law of sin and death that we were set free from? A law that brought condemnation rather than relieved of condemnation. Look at the next verse:

For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did; sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. 

The law was weak. All it could do was condemn. When we sinned while we were under this law, this law of works, it simply rested on us. We brought judgment on ourselves and it never went away. In this new law, we see something different- there is no condemnation, for we have been set free from it by the new law, a law of grace and peace brought about by Christ's work on the cross- he condemned sin in his own flesh.

Take heart! Sin can no longer condemn! Your shortcomings have been made right in Christ! No longer must you judge yourself by your own imperfections, for Christ has made all things aright in him.

Grace and Peace,

Mike Senders

Answering the Amillennialist Challenge

Hey all, been a while. Had a question by someone on a Facebook group about how I would respond to this particular document, from the blog "Pilgrim and Shire," this particular article being written by J. Brandon Burks. The response got a bit long for a Facebook post, so I decided to put it here. The following is my response to the most common accusations against Premillennialism by Amillennialists (and Postmils by extension).

1) His discussion of 'make known' (σημαίνω) is entirely non-sequitur. Even the firmest dispensationalists pushing the "literal" interpretation have to concede that Revelation is symbolic. No dispensationalist would understand Rev 5:6 as meaning that Christ is a shape-shifter that can take the form of a sheep at will. On the contrary, John was seeing a vision, and the Lamb was representative (i.e., symbolic) of Christ. So, not only is the issue of σημαίνω non-sequirtir, its also presumptuous in the way it is being implemented. What Beale et al. are stating is that if σημαίνω refers to symbols, then the book must be understood in a sort of allegorical way, with no hard and fast interpretation, rather than just that John was shown visions which were symbolic in the sense that what he saw required an interpretation.

2) He skips over, as many (read: all) amillennialists do, John's use of γενέσθαι in the same verse (1:1), "what must happen." John uses the aorist of γίνομαι (to become) here. When γίνομαι is used in the aorist, it acts ingressively (the ingressive aorist). An ingressive verb functions by describing the entering into from one state into a different state. Something was once one way, now it is a different way. A good example of this is in John 1:3a, "πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο," "all things became through him." The verse is talking about non-existence and existence. Those things that are were once not, and became through him; so, entering into the state of "being" from the state of "non-being." So when John says, "...to show his servants what must happen very soon (δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει)," what he is saying is that when these things happen, i.e., when the "end" begins, they will happen quickly. Usually the amil approach is to define τάχει as meaning "quickly," skipping over γενέσθαι, and say that these things must take place shortly after they were shown to John. Instead, if the aorist is taken ingressively (it must be), it is saying that when these things begin, i.e., the estate has changed, then they will proceed in rapid succession. The verse says nothing of *when* the estate will be entered into.

3) The biggest argument he poses is Augustine's recapitulation argument. He argues that ch20 is recapitulating ch19, that is, ch20 is a separate vision that is restating the events of ch 19. There is a very large hurdle he has to jump though, the position of Dr. Michael Svigel of DTS. In order for recapitulation to work, ch20 must be entirely divorced from ch19 grammatically. There can be no necessary grammatical subsequents of ch19 found in ch20, and there can be no necessary grammatical antecedents of ch20 in ch19. The problem is in 20:4, where John says, "I saw thrones and ἐκάθισαν..." There are two possible interpretations of ἐκάθισαν. The first is, "and seated on them were." This translation would mean that John saw the vision, and these ones to whom authority had been given were already sitting on the thrones when the vision occurred (so NET, NIV, ESV). The other interpretation is, "and they sat on them." This interpretation implies that when John saw the vision, no one was seated on the thrones, but as he was watching, then these people sat down (so NASB, KJV, ESV 1901, ASV). First off, the latter is to be preferred due to John's use of the aorist versus the participle, particularly with "to sit," (κάθημαι/καθίζω). When John wants to show someone already seated on something, he uses the participle as with the Four Riders in Rev 6 (see 6:2- καθήμενος). When he wants to show someone in the act of sitting (see 3:21, "cause him to sit," and "I sat"), he uses the aorist. The problem for amillennialists is that John's use of the aorist here requires an antecedent subject. We need to know who "they" is in the statement, "and they sat on them." The key is in the following statement, "καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς," "and judgment was given to them." This phrase fits with Rev 2:26-27: "He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father..." The identity of the "they" should then be understood as those of 19:14-15, the armies of heaven, who are the Saints (note that the "rod of iron" is mentioned again also). So, the "they" is found in ch19, which means that 19 and 20 are concurrent and build on each other, not recapitulating. No amillennialist has ever answered this position, that I am aware of.

As for his three final points:

1) He cites Poythress' argument, which has some presuppositional problems. He is presupposing that those in the millennial kingdom are all saved, and cannot be deceived. While those who were alive prior to the defeat of Christ's enemies and enter into the millennial kingdom without dying are certainly saved, nothing is said of the offspring of those people, those who populate the earth. It seems though, that there will be nations during the millennium, over which Christ in Israel rules (Isa 14:1-2; 49:22-23; 61:5-9; and here in Rev 20:8). So while the blessings of Israel and the binding of Satan (not a long leash) will be cause for a time of complete peace via a previously unseen level of common grace, there is no reason to believe that as nations begin to repopulate the Earth all these individuals are elect. 

Of course though, I answer as a dispensationalist. This argument, however, is significant against the post-tribulationists, and this blog after all, is directed at historic premillennialists. If all people at the end of the Great Tribulation are translated to the heavenly estate, then, (1) they cannot have children (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25) and (2) they cannot die (Luke 20:36). With this, I agree with the author, that post-tribulationalism has unresolvable problems in regard to the population of the millennium, and this contention has been oft repeated.

2) This idea of "eschatological progression" is presumed. It is a presumption, and dare I say one in particular of Covenant Theology, that soteriology is the end-game. If the sole purpose of the eschaton was the salvation of an elect people, and nothing more, then this point stands. If however, there are other purposes, then this point fails. Here is where the dispensational premillennialist parts ways with other premillennialists in that we do not put as much emphasis on prophetic fulfillment at the Cross. This is explained in the "already/not yet" hermeneutic. The Covenant Theologian views the majority of kingdom prophecy as having been fulfilled at Christ's death and resurrection, the dispensationalist sees some fulfilled, and some remaining yet future. One of these things is fulfillment of Christ's position as the second Adam. The purpose of the release of Satan back onto the Earth, which is regression in the eyes of amillennialists, is for the purpose of Christ to defeat the Serpent in the Garden, as Adam should have (note the serpent imagery found in the NT only in Rev 12:9 and 20:2- ). Where Adam failed, Christ will conquer. So, this is not regression at all, but rather, fulfillment.

3) He cites Meredith Kline for his final point, where Kline argues that the millennium will not be an era of peace. In order to hold this position, Kline must divide contexts in 20:4. Kline mentions the "souls of those who had been beheaded," but does not state what will happen to them during this age: "and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." First, Kline presupposes the recapitulation argument, refuted above. Second, as an amillennialist, he must presume that these ones are reigning with Christ now. Kline refers to the millennium of the premillennialists as a "millennial semi-glory kingdom." On the contrary- if this life, with all its woes and sin-wrought toil is what it looks like when Satan is bound and Christ and his saints are reigning- I have little hope for the future. This millennium, the one of the amillennialists that I am apparently currently living in, is the epitome of "semi-glory."

Grace and Peace,

Mike Senders