“I Will Come to You”: An Amillennial Interpretation of John 14:1-3
The amillennial interpretation of this text supplies a truer, richer, and far more comforting meaning than that of our dispensational brothers. The Lord is not speaking here of a pre-tribulation rapture, but of a three-fold coming to his disciples: first at the moment of their new birth, second at the moment of their death, and finally at his Parousia at the end of the age. When the heart of the Bride is troubled, let her meditate on all three, but especially on the eternal union that will be hers at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7).2
This is one of the most comforting eschatological texts in all sacred Scripture. It is also one of the most controversial, since our dispensational brethren claim that here the Lord is speaking of a secret rapture of the Church. Let us therefore look first at the text itself, and then at the dispensational arguments.
An Amillennial View
The disciples are troubled. Jesus has just said that one of them will betray him (John 13:21-30), and that another, their leader, is about to deny him three times (John 13:37-38). Worst of all, he has told them that soon he will go away to his Father, and that they themselves cannot join him (John 13:33, 36). Aware of their fears (and forgetful of his own), he therefore devotes the remainder of the Upper Room Discourse to preparing them for what lies ahead.
He opens with three commands: “Let not your hearts be troubled: Believe in God, believe also in me” (v. 1). The antidote to their fears—and ours—is implicit trust in the character, sovereignty, promises, and salvation of God; and not only of God, but also of his Christ, in whom all of these precious gifts and remedies are found (2 Cor. 1:20).
Next, he makes a very special promise, a promise designed to cheer their hearts and calm their fears:
In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. – John 14:2-3
To benefit from these words we must understand Jewish marriage customs, which were very much in Jesus’ mind when he spoke them. Broadly, an ancient Jewish marriage had three components. First came the betrothal. Here the parents of a young man arranged a suitable marriage for their son. This involved the father paying a “bride-price” to her parents, after which the families usually exchanged gifts and drank a cup of wine to seal the marriage covenant. At this point the couple were legally married. Next there came the waiting period. During this time—which could be quite lengthy—the groom prepared a house (or rooms) for his bride, sometimes on his father’s estate. Meanwhile, the bride prepared herself to live and serve with her husband as a skillful keeper of his home. Finally, there came the wedding ceremony. On the night of the marriage the groom and his friends would make their way in a joyful procession to the bride’s house (Matt. 25:1f). When they arrived, she and her maids would join the groom, after which they would typically return to his father’s house for the marriage ceremony, the marriage feast, the consummation of the marriage, and more festivities when the couple emerged from the chuppa, or bridal chamber, to join the party. Henceforth they would live together as husband and wife.
Time would fail us to discuss all the ways in which the Holy Spirit drew upon these ancient customs in order to depict the romance of redemption in Scripture. For our present purposes, however, only one thing is needful: to see that here, in John 14:2-3, Jesus was doing that very thing. He knew that at Calvary the Father would pay the bride-price. He knew that immediately afterwards he himself would return to his Father’s heavenly house to prepare a dwelling-place for his Beloved. And he knew that at the appointed times he would return to receive her to himself, so that she might be with him where he is (Matt. 25:1-13).
Keeping the Didactic New Testament (DNT) in view, let us carefully probe Jesus’ exact words, for they are eschatologically richer than we may think.1
First he says, “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places” (v. 2). The reference here is two-fold: not only to heaven above, but also to heaven up ahead: the new heavens and the new earth that he will create at his return. In this two-fold house there are (and will be) many dwelling-places. In other words, in both of these realms God has carefully prepared, or will prepare, not physical shelters, but spiritual niches: spheres of life and service specifically designed for each of his dear children. And there are many such niches, for both the world up above and the world up ahead will be filled with a great multitude whom no man can number, drawn from every nation, people, tribe, and tongue (Rev. 7:9f).
Next, Jesus assures the disciples that “I go to prepare a place for you” (v. 2). Again we have a two-fold meaning. First he goes to prepare a place for the saints in heaven above.
-
Ending the Demand for Abortion
In a society where women often need to return to work shortly after birth, where it is far cheaper to procure an abortion than to give birth in a hospital, and where many of the current policies penalize childbirth and childbearing and incentivize abortion, we believe that creative policy-making can bring about relief for many mothers and families.
As the pro-life movement enters a post-Roe era after Dobbs, the anti-abortion movement is revaluating, looking ahead, and strategizing about ways to reduce abortion through a variety of policies—not only on the supply side, but on the demand side as well. Marvin Olasky, a veteran pro-life scholar, recently wrote about ways pro-lifers can reduce the demand for abortion. Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life and Kristen Day of the beleaguered Democrats for Life co-authored an essay calling on legislators to “make birth free.” And last week, a joint statement titled “Building a Post-Roe Future” was released with hundreds of signatories—including Foster and Day.
The statement, which I worked on with pro-life activist Eric Scheidler, ethicist Charlie Camosy, and apologist Josh Brahm, notes that while protecting the human rights of the unborn is essential, there is much more that we can do. “We are pro-life conservatives, moderates, and liberals united in our conviction that every human life has value—including the lives of both the unborn and that child’s mother,” the statement reads. “We believe that our society should prioritize the needs of both, and that ultimately this can only be achieved by significant changes in public policy.”
Of course, the pro-life movement has always recognized the importance of supporting women facing unplanned pregnancies, donating untold millions of dollars to thousands of crisis pregnancy centers and other organizations to assist mothers and children. But in a post-Roe landscape, the non-profit network will simply not be enough. Some states have already acknowledged this. When Texas passed new abortion restrictions, it also committed $100 million to the Alternatives to Abortion program, which offers everything from diapers to job training.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Missouri Presbytery Admits PR Mistakes But Nothing Has Changed
My intent here is…simply to remind the PCA generally and the GA commissioners specifically, that the Bible plainly teaches that an officer in the church must be above reproach and have a good reputation with those outside of the church. Men who publicly proclaim their status as homosexuals (even though they practice celibacy) should not hold office in the PCA. That is the issue before the GA, and not the views of Missouri Presbytery with regard to her own failures.
Just a few days before the 49th General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), all Presbyteries and their members (which would include all commissioners to the 49th GA) received in their personal email inbox a communication from Missouri Presbytery (MOP). This was sent from the Stated Clerk of MOP to the PCA Stated Clerk who then forwarded it to each individual Presbytery Clerk. Each Presbytery Clerk then decided whether to send it on to the members of the Presbytery. The email was a response of MOP to the judicial decision of the PCA Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) in SJC 2020-05 (TE Ryan Speck v. Missouri Presbytery), to make amends to their errors in dealing with Revoice 18 in order to protect the peace and purity of the PCA. This was to be done in part by interacting with the Ad-Interim Report on Human Sexuality.
After reading the report I came to one conclusion. It is good Public Relations (PR), but nothing changed with regard to the ordination of men in the PCA who publicly identify as being a homosexual. It does not alter the need for a change in the Book of Church Order. It should not negate the numerous overtures sent to the GA by various presbyteries to deal with this issue.
It does not deal with the main issue of whether Greg Johnson (and now others) in the PCA should continue as ordained officers, even though they have publicly proclaimed that they are homosexuals, and that this orientation is fixed.
My intent here is not to get into the substance of the report of MOP sent to the clerks via the GA Stated Clerk, but simply to remind the PCA generally and the GA commissioners specifically, that the Bible plainly teaches that an officer in the church must be above reproach and have a good reputation with those outside of the church. Men who publicly proclaim their status as homosexuals (even though they practice celibacy) should not hold office in the PCA. That is the issue before the GA, and not the views of Missouri Presbytery with regard to her own failures.
I’m not sure that I have ever received a communication from another Presbytery via the Stated Clerk of my own Presbytery. I can understand this being placed into the minutes of the General Assembly, but I am concerned that a document that could so easily sway the Assembly should be sent out in such a fashion, so close to the meeting of the Assembly itself. It is my opinion that only a Presbytery itself (voting as a court in session) has the right to choose what documents should be received and distributed among its members.
My fear is that as a result of the timing, the means of distribution, and the content of this communication, it may only further divide the PCA.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: -
Of the Danger of Christian Celebrity
The outside celebrity, the bigtime speaker, the passion-stirring author is not your pastor. These teachers can be a gift from God, and I do not want to have you ignore them. But you must realize that these folks do not know you and cannot care for your soul. You are not their responsibility before God.
When were you last star-struck? Perhaps you were in a place where a celebrity showed up. Perhaps you stood on a plot of ground where an important historical figure once stood. Perhaps you met one of your heroes.
I’ve had a few star-struck moments. Once, I had the privilege of meeting the greatest St. Louis Cardinal of all time, Stan Musial. Once, I held in my hands a piece of history, a Tyndale New Testament that was printed around 1526; so, yes, I was star-struck by a book. As a child I was star-struck when I met “Leaping:” Lanny Poffo, brother to the “Macho Man” Randy Savage—If that one does not impress you, I truly do not know what will.
People, places, and even objects can leave us wide-eyed and giddy. And, in general, I do not think that’s all bad. But I wonder if we realize that there is a danger when it happens to us in the church. Have you ever thought of the danger of Christian celebrity?
Just as I was star-struck when Stan “the Man” signed a ball for me, or when Brett “the Hit Man” Heart gave me a high 5—OK, now I’m just name-dropping—I have also found myself feeling the wonder of celebrity in Christian conferences or events. I know what it is like to feel a rush when hearing someone speak who I know wrote one of my favorite books or whose sermons I have only heard on podcasts. And I wonder just how good or bad such a thing is.
On the one hand, God is clear in his holy word that we are to rightly, in the church, honor faithful servants of God.
So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men, for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.Philippians 2:29–30
When Paul wrote to the Philippians about Epaphroditus, the apostle commended the man’s faithfulness and self-sacrifice. Paul wanted the Philippian Christians to honor Epaphroditus and others like him who were willing to give their lives to the service of the Lord. So, there is most certainly a rightness to us honoring faithful ministers, authors, speakers, and missionaries through whose ministries the Lord has blessed our souls and the church at large. There is a rightness to a local church loving a faithful pastor, a long-serving deacon, or a godly woman who has served the church with a true heart and self-sacrificial zeal.
Read More
Related Posts:
