Chuck Missler and the Millennium
You will find here a few comments regarding the kingdom and the millennium which have a bearing on the subject. Chuck Missler reasons that "denying a literal Millennium' is dangerous because it appears to be an attack on the character of God. We suggest the very opposite. Affirming a literal millennium reflects on the character of God. Chuck Missler correctly argues that the prophets foretold that Christ would sit upon David's throne. Isaiah says Christ would reign upon the throne of David forever. Luke quotes the text in chapter 1:32. Our question is whether the throne of David, i.e. the kingdom is a literal reign of Christ on earth. It seems that some very significant statements are easily forgotten or ignored when it comes to Christ and the throne of David. First, Jesus announced the kingdom as at hand during his ministry, (Mark 1:14). Now this has to be the throne of David for that was the only kingdom promised in the scriptures. Yet, when the Jews attempted to make Jesus a king on earth he refused." Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone. (John 6:15) That does not appear the behavior of someone who expected to reign on earth. Prior to his entry into Jerusalem Jesus said that the kingdom does not come with observation."Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 'nor will they say, 'See here!' or "See there!' For indeed the kingdom of God is within you." (Lk. 17:20, 21). From this text, it does not appear that the kingdom of David is a literal earthly kingdom. It is not that which is visible to the eye. How does God get a literal kingdom and throne of David "within you"? Another point we would raise in view of Chuck Missler's eschatological views on the kingdom is Jesus' words before Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world. Pilate asked Jesus whether he was the King of the Jews? Jesus' response was, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." The words of Christ seem to mount a very strong case against a literal kingdom/throne of Christ on earth.On the day of Pentecost, after Jesus ascended to heaven, Peter and the eleven affirmed that he had been raised to sit on David's throne which he identified as "at the right hand of God, in the heavens, --not on earth. Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne. Identifying the locale of this throne, Peter said that David had not ascended into the heavens, but prophesied of Christ's reign saying,'"The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool,"'(Acts 2:34, 35). Christ had been exalted to the right hand of God and was at that time sitting upon David's throne in the heavens. Chuck Missler argues that the throne of God and the throne are David are two separate kingdoms. This is incorrect.One chief difference in the reign of Christ and the kings of the Old Testament is that he would be a king and priest on his throne. Usurpation of the priesthood was forbidden of the Old Testament kings. Saul was severely rebuked by Samuel for offering a burnt offering, (i.e. usurping the priesthood) in Gilgal. (1 Samuel 13:9-14). Yet Christ would be king and priest on his throne. "Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on His throne; So he shall be a priest on His throne,...(Zechariah 6:13) Perhaps Chuck Missler alludes this priestly reign of Christ when he says Christ's throne would be on the mercy seat. (radio archives, "Thy Kingdom Come, Part One.") The Hebrews writer tells us that if Christ were on earth, he could not be a priest, since there were priests who offered sacrifices according to the Law. (Hebrews 8:4) Note also that the same text affirms that Jesus was then seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens (8:1). Moreover it will not do to argue for a reestablishment of the Levitical priesthood on earth in literal Jerusalem. That would further exasperate and complicate the matter. Why? It is because the Jesus is not of the tribe of Levi and does not belong to the Aaronic priesthood. He is of the tribe of Judah and is a priest after the order of Melchizedek who also was both king and priest, (Hebrews 7:13, 14, 17, 21), unlike the Levitical priests. This would mean that God would have to have two priesthoods on earth at the same time, one of the tribe of Levi and one of the tribe of Judah! To the contrary, the scripture affirms that the priesthood has been changed, requiring also a change of the Torah, thus the Levitical priesthood is obsolete, --forever! For this reason, we must view the words of the prophets regarding the tribe of Levi in the new kingdom as figurative language, --something Chuck Missler strongly opposes. He would rather choose contradictions in an effort to maintain his literal views. Much more could be said but this would draw out this writing much longer. We would simply add this final observation. When Israel desired a king like all the nations round about, God said they had "rejected" him that he should not reign over them, (1 Samuel 8:7, 8). Up to that time, God had done a pretty good job of reigning over Israel from "heaven" not on earth. Commenting on that event in Hosea, the prophet says God was Israel's king. We know that the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands. Heaven is his throne and the earth is his footstool! Why demote Christ to the footstool, and a small one at that, to have him reign on earth on a literal man-made throne in Palestine? Hosea recalls the account in Samuel saying, God gave Israel a king [earthly one] in his anger, and took him away in his wrath, (13:11). The origin of the offer for an earthly kingdom was of Satan who during the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, showed him all the kingdoms of the world (on earth) that he could receive if only he would bow down to worship him. Jesus' response was "Get behind me Satan." That is the proper reply to the proposition that Jesus will someday reign on a literal throne of David on earth. It denies his present reign on the throne of God with the Father in heaven.Chuck Missler does that very thing by affirming the kingdom of David and that of the Father are different. Jesus assured his disciples in the first century, before some who literally stood in his presence would die, he would come in the glory of his Father in his kingdom. That affirms the kingdom was at hand, in the first century. It was not on earth and not of this world. It is the throne of David,where he sits and reigns as king and priest after the order of Melchisedek. In subsequent studies we provide an overview of Chuck Missler's millennium and other end time themes. You can see more information on Chuck Missler eschatology by signing up for our newsletter.
|
