Why do historic premils have a millennium at all?

This is the question that amillennials ask any premils, especially historic premils. Why, if we are so similar on many other fronts, do we disagree on this?

I think I have found something of an answer.

In his chapter in A Case for Historic Premillennialism entitled “Toward the Reformed and Covenantal Theology of Premillennialism”, Sung Wook Chung gives two basic reasons why:
1) Adam’s dominion was over the earth, this physical earth. The restoration of the dominion over earth by a human must also, then be over this physical earth.
2) The covenants of God (as illustrated in the text by the Adamic and also the Abrahamic covenants. I, like others not of a Reformed covenant theology bent, have issue with the notion of a covenant pre-Noah, but let’s not push the point here) are given in the context of this current earth, and so must be fulfilled in this current earth, and not the new, recreated earth.

Both of these reasons rely on one thing: that the fulfilment of the promises of God in Jesus Christ must be fulfilled on this earth. This supposes or suggests a few more things:
1) that Jesus has not fulfilled these things previously or now, or if he has, only in a partial, incomplete manner which will be corrected in the millennium
2) that Jesus does not fulfil these things in the new creation because the promises cannot or do not refer to or look to the new creation

The latter one is the one that seems most brought out in the presentation in the book.

The issues, then, seem to be:
1) the question of the scope of OT covenant, promise, and fulfilment
2) if, how, when (etc.) does Jesus fulfil these
3) the question of the continuity and discontinuity of the earth and the re-created earth

Comments are closed.