Kingdom Come: Book Review

Within Christianity, there are varying beliefs and thoughts as to how exactly this world will come to an end. Will there be a rapture? Seven-year tribulation? Thousand-year rule of Christ? Some of you reading this may not even know what any of those things are. Others of you, like myself, have spent so much time and energy thinking and wrestling with subjects like this that it would be hard to convince you of a different side.

As such, I must admit that this book has caused me to exercise more energy than I could have ever expected when I first checked it out from the library. While I do not agree with Storms in his approach to the Scriptures, I do believe that I have benefited from reading his book, Kingdom Come, in being further sharpened in my own understanding of God’s Word.

A major strength of Storms is that he is a very clear writer. Although, I believe he could summarize his statements a little more, I do believe that, now having finished the book, I have a much clearer understanding of what Amillennialism is and what it is not. On the flipside, the major weakness of his book is found in his thoughts and even tone towards those of us who disagree with him [Dispensational Premillennialists]. For example:

Sam Storms believes that the Dispensational Premillennial viewpoint is “flatly illogical” [p. 141], “bizarre and unbiblical” [p. 158], “baseless” [p. 162], and “embarrassing” [p. 515].

Now, this is fine. I am perfectly okay with him having an opinion. I think the exact same things about his belief as well. However, he lost me as a reader when he stated, “…Dispensationalists find a gap in Daniel 9 because they are predisposed to find one in order to justify an already existent theological construct.”[1] This statement is not an intellectual statement, but an emotional one. In other words, I could turn this statement around and say this about him already being predisposed to find things in Scripture in order to justify his own already existent theological construct. A statement like this is only made by one who has lost their ability to be civil in order to attack the person whom they disagree with.

Nevertheless, in the same way that Sam Storms [wicked cool last name by the way] thinks that I am “hermeneutically unmethodical”[2] in the way I read Scripture, I see him as being hermeneutically irreverent in the way he reads Scripture. And you know what, though it kills me to say this, there is a level in which that is somewhat okay. Neither of us have all the answers and we will never have all the answers while on this earth. Though we disagree on the events surrounding our Lord’s coming, we both agree and look forward to that glorious day when He will come to rescue His people from this fallen world and receive us as His bride.

What would I challenge Sam Storms to do?

I would encourage him to come out with another edition. However, this time I would like to see him write in a more humble way. Also, I do not intend this to be mean but, I felt that the whole book was rather weak. I had been told by friends who subscribe to the Amillennial interpretation that, if I read anything, then I should read Storms’ book. However, I found there to be a clear answer to almost all of his arguments and the basis for much of his content suffered evidence upon further reflection.

For example, on page 482 he contradicted himself in who he believes to be the people of God. According to Amillennialism, he believes that the ethnic Israel of God morphed into the Church on the day of Pentecost. The Church did not replace Israel, but the true Israel became the Church. However, in view of the book of Revelation and the beast, he believes that the Apostle John was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Thus, he does not see this apocalyptic book as having any future fulfillment.

The problem with this interpretation is that the beast is said to make war with the saints (Rev. 13:5-7) and thus he views this as trampling the holy city [i.e., the people of God]. However, Jerusalem, at this time was not filled with the people of God because, according to Amillennialism, the Jewish people were no longer the people of God and, as such, Sam must come up with a better explanation in my opinion. It may even be safe to say, from a Scriptural standpoint, that the majority of Christians in the world were not in Jerusalem during the Roman conquest.

What would I challenge you to do?

Take God’s Word at face value. Allow it to speak for itself. Storms spoke often of how much easier it is to believe in Amillennialism, but I found the complete opposite to be true. He attempts to explain too much of God’s Word away and make it seem like everything is symbolic but, based on God’s Word, I cannot accept that line of thinking. As I read his book, I became even more convinced that the truth of Scripture’s account of eschatology is greatly supported through the Dispensational Premillennialism interpretation. Though we may not have all the exact dots lined up in the correct order, it really is the only end-times model that makes sense. Thus, I must say that Amillennialism is a theology that is forced on the scriptures.

---

[1] Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Fearn: Mentor, 2013)., pg. 84-85 (cf. 169).

[2] Ibid., p. 141.

Fire Road: Book Review

A special thanks to Tyndale House Publishers for sending me a complimentary copy of Kim Phuc Phan Thi’s book, Fire Road.

            A story of suffering, tragedy and loss yet also one of hope, forgiveness and new beginnings, Kim Phuc Phan Thi’s Fire Road is an unbelievable memoir of the Vietnam War and life inside a communist country. While Kim Phuc Phan Thi experienced such traumas and pressures that no child or individual should ever have to face, woven throughout her tale, the reader can see the invisible hand of God’s sovereignty. Each of her experiences, however awful, drove her to the Father and prepared her for His Kingdom work to bring hope and forgiveness to a hurting world.

            For those like myself, who do not know very much about daily life in a communist country, Kim Phuc Phan Thi’s firsthand account in Fire Road will be eye-opening. Not only will the reader learn about the culture and politics of Vietnam but also East and West Germany, Russia, and Cuba. You will shake your head at the injustice Kim Phuc Phan Thi endured and hold your breath when daring feats to freedom were attempted. The author will take you back to another world far different from anything the average western reader has experienced.

            For those who enjoy autobiographies and stories of God’s faithfulness, Fire Road is a must-read! The question is often asked of Christians, “How can a loving God allow suffering?” For Kim Phuc Phan Thi, a woman brutally marred in a napalm bombing, this question could not be more applicable. Yet, through the brokenness of one hopeless woman, God worked mightily to not only redeem her painful situation but to make an eternal impact on untold numbers around the world.

Political Effects on Theology

In December of last year, President Donald Trump made a verbal proclamation to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Not only has this caused much turmoil throughout the Islamic nations surrounding Israel, but it has also caused much debate in the Church. The tension is not just with scholars, but with lay people as well because it may or may not have huge eschatological implications. Simply put, depending upon how you view the book of Revelation will determine how you will react to this change in Israel.

The Two Theological Camps

Basically, there are two major camps of eschatology (study of end times) in the Church. There are the Dispensationalists which believe that the Church has not replaced Israel. As such, we believe that there is coming a day when God will remove His Church from this world and continue with His plan in reviving and rescuing the literal nation of Israel and its inhabitants (Romans 11).

Then there are the Covenant Theologians who believe that the Church is God’s next step in the program, not Israel. Therefore, they claim that the Church has replaced Israel and that there is nothing left for them as a nation in God’s redemptive plan. They would cite verses like Galatians 3:29 which claims that the Church is Abraham’s offspring.

There is a lot more information I could give but, for the sake of brevity and the fact that I want you to actually read this blog, I have simply stated that the basic difference is whether or not one differentiates between Israel and the Church. The question is, “What happens when the Church is taken away?”

Political Theology

On a personal level, I am super excited that this is happening with Israel because it supports the Dispensationalist’s viewpoint regarding the last days [not to mention my blogs]. However, this has sparked much controversy among Christians due to the two theological camps.

I have heard it said several times now that it is blasphemous and idolatrous for us, as the people of God, to support this recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because it will likely lead to the Israelites attempting to rebuild the temple in place of the Dome of the Rock. The reason for the pushback is because a temple would imply that God is singularly located. With this, I could not agree more. In fact, Solomon himself agreed with this statement three thousand years ago when he had the first temple constructed (1 Kings 8:27).

God is omnipresent—meaning that He is everywhere present simultaneously. However, there is a sense in which He is singularly located now that He has a body which is Jesus (Acts 7:55). Nevertheless, even before Jesus took on flesh, God did not, nor does He now, manifest His visibility everywhere at all times. If He did, then we would be able to see Him right now. The point is that God, in terms of physical manifestation, chooses to singularly locate Himself.

Also, this should not actually be a reason for any Christian to refuse supporting Israel as a nation because, either way, by the time the temple is rebuilt [assuming it does get rebuilt] the Church will be gone. It is one thing if one chooses to reject this decision to recognize Jerusalem based upon more political reasons. However, since neither New Covenant Theologians nor Dispensationalists believe the Church will be here in the latter days, it does not make as much sense for either camp to be opposed since the Church will not be here to see the close.

Conclusion

Covenant Theologians believe that the Church has replaced Israel. Therefore, this decision of recognizing Jerusalem should not have any impact on them theologically. They believe that when Christ comes back He will take His bride and create the new heavens and the new earth. Again, I am simply generalizing. I understand there are varying spectrums of belief. Nevertheless, in their end times chronology, there is no room for another temple. Thus, there is nothing to worry about because, if they’re correct, it will never happen.

Dispensationalists, likewise, believe that when the Lord comes back He will receive His bride. We just believe that He is going to do a few extra things before He remakes the universe. Thus, both of us believe that we as the Church will not be here to see it come to pass. I do not mean to pull a Hezekiah on you, but both groups believe that it would be wrong for them to establish the temple now because of the way God is working. I just believe that there is coming a day when it will not be wrong for them. And, at that time, the Church will be forever with the Lord. Do you see how similar we are and how much we really do agree? Jesus is coming back. The aftertaste is up for debate but that first gulp should overwhelm us with excitement to see our coming Lord.