Back to Premil

Just a heads up, I’m still thinking through my millennial view; I am continuing to have problems with accepting the amil reading of Rev. 20. The Greek really supports a sequential reading in this context, not the recapitulating reading that the amil interp. requires. I am reading Robert Mounce’s excellent commentary on Revelation, wherein he offers, I would say, a historic premil reading of Revelation. I’m probably back to being premil, just not ardently dispensational; in other words I see much value in following the historic premil position.

I don’t know why I share this stuff with you guys, I only make myself out to be a laughingstock on this issue 😉 ; but I suppose a blog is a primarily a place to think out loud, and that’s all I’ve ever really purported to do here (in the blogosphere, that is). I’m going to recant my amil status, once again (even though I see some value in their interpretations); and reassert my premil status, albeit estranged from my dispensational heritage — which doesn’t mean I don’t see a distinct place for the nation of Israel (the remnant) in the ‘last days’ (which we live in right now). Sorry amillers, you’re on your own (at least until next Tuesday or so 😉 ).

P.S. If you haven’t dedicated much study to this issue, you may not realize how complicated some of the intracacies are; or maybe I’m just dense. I suppose I could’ve just stayed entrenched, and not opened myself up to the possibility of any other eschatological viewpoint other than dispensationalism; but I didn’t, so you get to wander around with me a bit as I work out my perspective. I think historic premil is most likely the most favored candidate — surely premil (finally because of the Greek and context of Revelation) is where I will live. Amil is a nice idea, but not one I can live with; especially understanding some of the historical forces that gave rise to it in the first place.