Daniel 7:27  "His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom"

   There are actaully several passages which are used to make this argument, but I've selected Daniel 7:27 as the header. The basic idea is this: "If Christ's kingdom will last forever, why do premillennialists teach that it will only last a thousand years?"
    The answer is simple. The first thousand years of Christ's everlasting reign are to occur while the creation is still in a state of corruption. It is a dispensation of God pertaining to the fallen creation. While Christ's reign will indeed last forever, the first thousand years of His reign constitute a dispensation in God's program of reconciling His creation. The purpose is to bring the creation into subjection to God:

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.  But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.  For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.  The last enemy that will be abolished is death.  For He has put all things in subjection under His feet.  But when He says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.  When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all." - 1Corinthians 15:22-28

    This is what is to occur during the first thousand years of Christ's everlasting reign. Now, how do Amillennialists interpret the above passage? And why do Amillennialists teach that the thousand year reign is the inter-advent period, so as to suggest a termination point for the Kingdom?
    Amillennialists hold the same as premillennialists insofar as there being a "close of the kingdom agee" depicted in the Bible--the difference is they think the thousand years is the present era. Why do amillennialists believe they are raising some sort of "problem for premillennialism only"? It would seem they haven't really given the subject much thought, or simply choose not to apply their so-called "problem" evenly across the board. The truth is, its not a "problem," nor is it "for premillennialism only."

Home | Statement of Faith | Feedback | Discussion Forums | Site Map