John Piper discusses the Millennium

I like eschatology. It's a subject I've spent years and years studying and I've taught extensively on the subject. Not only have I written a book in defense of the pretribulation rapture (found here) but our website includes 112 hour-long messages on the topic (found here).

So, it wasn't surprising that I received several notices, emails, and Facebook links informing me of a roundtable discussion on the subject of the Millennium, hosted and moderated by John Piper. In Piper's own words:
___________________________

"On September 27, 2009, Desiring God and Bethlehem College & Seminary hosted “An Evening on Eschatology” at the Downtown Campus of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. It was attended by about 800 people who sat in the darkened sanctuary while six cameras were trained on the brightly lit roundtable where the four participants sat in a circle.

For two hours I moderated, more or less, a discussion among Jim Hamilton (professor of New Testament at Southern Seminary in Louisville), Sam Storms (pastor of Bridgeway Church in Oklahoma City), and Doug Wilson (pastor of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho).

The discussion was intended to focus on the relationship between the thousand-year reign of Christ mentioned in Revelation 20 and the return of Christ to this earth visibly and physically to reign. This thousand years is usually called “the millennium.” Revelation 20 is the only place in the Bible where the length of this period is mentioned.
...

Premillennialism (represented by Jim Hamilton): The return of Christ happens before (pre-) the thousand-year reign of Christ, which is a reign of the risen Christ on the earth.

Amillennialism (represented by Sam Storms): The return of Christ happens after the thousand-year reign, a reign that occurs in heaven, in the intermediate state, and not upon the earth. Those who have died in faith and entered into the presence of Christ share his rule and reign during the current church age in which we now live.

Postmillennialism (represented by Doug Wilson): The return of Christ happens after (post-) the thousand-year reign, which corresponds to the Christian age, and the reign of Christ from heaven leads the church to triumph by and through the gospel to such an extent that the Great Commission will be successfully fulfilled, and the Christian faith will pervade all the cultures of all the nations of men. All Christ's enemies will be subdued in this way, with the exception of death, which he will destroy by his coming.

None of the views insists that the “thousand years” is an exact number, but all of them allow that it may be symbolic of a very long time (from a human standpoint).
_________________________

Now that last statement should raise several red flags. None of the views represented in the discussion insists that the 1000 years is an exact number. That's a problem. Why wasn't there anyone at the table who DID believe that?

But, more to the point: I watched the entire two hour program, which is being highly-touted for the civility and cooperative tone that was demonstrated between the participants. And they're to be commended for their efforts and for the charitable way in which the discussion and debate were handled. But, in the entire two hours, these four intelligents men talked about eschatology and never once was the word "Israel" even uttered.

Hmmm ...

Would it have been so difficult to find a consistent futurist / dispensationalist to join in the discussion? Or was the exclusion of that view purposeful? I'm sure John MacArthur's camp could have provided an able defender. Did they assume that in order to keep the talk civil they needed to avoid interaction with someone who took the words on the page "too literally"? I don't know. It just seemed very odd (if not purposeful) that every other view was represented to the exclusion of the one that is arguably the most popular.

I wonder, how can you talk extensively about this subject and fail to mention the primary central issue that lays at the heart of the whole Biblical presentation? What about passages like:

"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also will cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD. (Jer. 31:31-33, 35-37)

Isn't that even worth a mention?

Or how about:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Rom. 11:25-29, caps in original NASB)

Isn't that something that needs some serious consideration in an eschatological discussion? Even if you're only going to offer the standard amillennial interpretion of Romans 11, shouldn't it at least come up?

But no. Not a word. Passages that clearly and obviously referred to Israel were simply assumed to be referring to the church and discussion moved on.

If you'd like to see and hear the discussion for yourself, you can find it here, along with John Piper's comments on the evening:

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2038_audio_and_video_for_eschatology_conversation/

Sadly, as much as I looked forward to watchin git, the video left me feeling frustrated and the whole discussion seemed incomplete.

I told Jeff today that I would love to respond to the various points that were made by the participants in this forum. Perhaps another Theology Talk is in the offing. It would take a real effort to unravel the assumptions and interpretive gymnastics demonstrated by each position. Still, I'd love to try.

On a similar note: In an earlier post I referred to Sam Storms as a post-millennialist. It's clear from this discussion that he is ammillenial with several areas of agreement with the post-mil hermeneutic. On his website he appears to defend the post-mil position, hence my confusion. But, I did want to make sure and clear up that detail.

Okay, go listen, read, watch ... and think about eschatological things!