|
|
Millennial Series
mPart 5 Part 5: Amillennialism as a Method of Interpretation
Part
6: Amillennialism as a System of Theology click 
button
The Issue
There is a growing realization in the
theological world that the crux of the millennial issue is the question of method of
interpreting Scripture. Premillenarians follow the so-called
‘grammatical-historical’ literal interpretation while amillenarians use a
spiritualizing method. As Albertus Pieters, an avowed amillennalist, writes
concerning the problem as a whole, “The question whether the Old Testament
prophecies concerning the people of God must be interpreted in their ordinary
sense, as other Scriptures are interpreted, or can properly be applied to the
Christian Church, is called the question of spiritualization of prophecy. This
is one of the major problems in biblical interpretation, and confronts everyone
who makes a serious study of the Word of God. It is one of the chief keys to
the difference of opinion between Premillenarians and the mass of Christian
scholars. The former reject such spiritualization, the latter employ it; and as
long as there is no agreement on this point the debate is interminable and
fruitless.”1 The
issue, then, between amillennialism and premillennialism is their respective
methods of interpretation, and little progress can be made in the study of the
millennial issue until this aspect is analyzed and understood.
The Popularity of the Amillennial Method
It is quite apparent that the amillennial
method of interpretation of Scripture which involves spiritualization has
achieved a considerable popularity. It is not too difficult to account for the
widespread approval of the spiritualizing method adopted by many conservative
theologians as well as liberal and Roman Catholic expositors. Fundamentally its
charm lies in its flexibility. The interpreter can change the literal and
grammatical sense of Scripture to make it coincide with his own system of
interpretation. The conservative and liberal and Roman Catholic can each claim
that the Bible does not contradict his concept of theology. It is this very
factor, however, which raises grave doubts concerning the legitimacy of a
method which produces such diverse systems of interpretation. One of the major
difficulties of amillennialism both as a system of theology and as a method of
interpretation is that it has never achieved unity on the very essentials of
Biblical truth. In the studies which follow this will have many illustrations.
It is significant that the first
successful opposition to premillennialism came from the adoption of a
spiritualizing principle of interpretation. The Alexandrian school of theology
which came into prominence about 300 A.D. followed a principle of interpretation
which regarded all Scripture as an allegory. They succeeded in arousing a
considerable opposition to premillenarians of their days even if it was at the
price of subverting not only the millennial doctrine but all other Christian
doctrine as well. It remained for Augustine to give a more moderate application
of this principle of interpretation. In general, he held that only prophecy
should be spiritualized and that in the historical and doctrinal sections of
Scripture the ‘historical-grammatical’ literal method should be used. This was
a decided improvement as far as theology as a whole was concerned, even if it
left the millennial issue unsolved and at the mercy of the allegorical school.
Because of the weight of Augustine in other major issues of theology where he
was in the main correct, Augustine became the model for the Protestant
Reformers who accepted his amillennialism along with his other teachings.
It is quite clear from the literature of
the Reformation that the millennial issue was never handled fairly or given any
considered study. The basic issues of the Reformation involved the right of
private interpretation of the Scriptures, the individual priesthood of all
believers, the doctrine of justification by faith, and similar truths. It was
natural for the emphasis to rest in this area, and for eschatology as found in
the Roman Church to be corrected only in denial of purgatory and other teachings
which were regarded as inventions. It was natural to accept Roman teachings
where the error was not patent. Premillennialism at the time of the Reformation
unfortunately was expounded chiefly by small groups of somewhat fanatical
enthusiasts who were often discredited by extreme doctrines.
Because amillennialism was adopted by the
Reformers, it achieved a quality of orthodoxy to which its modern adherents can
point with pride. They could rightly claim many worthy scholars in the
succession from the Reformation to modern times such as Calvin, Luther,
Melanchthon, and in modern times, Warfield, Vos, Kuyper, Machen, and Berkhof.
If one follows traditional Reformed theology in many other respects, it is
natural to accept its amillennialism. The weight of organized Christianity has
largely been on the side of amillennialism.
Many other factors increase the prestige
of amillennialism. As a system of doctrine it enhances the church as an
institution, a continuance of God’s administrative government. This strengthens
the power of ecclesiasticism. The simplicity of the amillennial eschatology has
a strong appeal as a way of unifying the many elements indicated in a literal
interpretation of Scripture. It tends also to concentrate attention upon
present problems and practical truth. Amillenarians do not need to hold
prophetic conferences and preach often on prophetic themes. It is comparatively
easy to grasp a simple formula of final resurrection, final judgment, and
eternal state, and not to attempt to harmonize hundreds of verses in Scripture
which give details of the future.
Amillenarians can also claim, with some
ambiguity, that they are aiming at a spiritual interpretation of
Scripture—meaning by this, its ultimate practical meaning rather than its
literal sense. On the whole it is not difficult to explain the charm of amillennialism
which has appealed to scholar and layman alike. One can understand the
psychological reasons which dismiss premillennialism as an impractical and
contradictory amassing of details of prophecy and the study of prophecy itself
as fruitless and confusing.
While the popularity of amillennialism is
therefore easily accounted for, the very nature of this popularity raises some
serious questions. It is quite apparent in the literature of amillennialism
that both in its historic origin and its modern discussion amillenarians are
quite unwilling to face squarely the problems of their own system. Only under
the goading of scholarly premillennial works and the tremendous acclaim of
premillennialism in the Bible study movements of recent centuries have
amillenarians been willing to back up and to consider formally, as for instance
M. J. Wyngaarden does,2 the
reasons behind premillennial theology. It is still the fashion to resort to
ridicule rather than to objective study of the conflicting viewpoints.
A proper study of the millennial issue
demands, first, an analysis of the methods of interpretation which has produced
amillennialism and premillennialism. This lays bare the problem and opens the
way to see the issue in its true light.
Analysis of the Amillennial Method of
Interpretation
Amillennial use of the literal method.
The amillennial method of interpreting Scripture is correctly defined as the
spiritualizing method. It is clear, however, that conservative amillennialists
limit the use of this method, and in fact adopt the literal method of
interpreting most of the Scriptures. The methods followed by the allegorizing
school of Alexandria which characterized the early amillennialists are now
repudiated by all modern scholars. As Pieters states, “No one defends or
employs the allegorizing method of exegesis. Calvin and the other great Bible
students of the Reformation saw clearly that the method was wrong and taught
the now generally accepted ‘grammatical-historical’ literal interpretation, so
far as the Scriptures in general are concerned. That they retain the
spiritualizing method in expounding many of the prophecies was because they
found themselves forced to do so in order to be faithful to the New Testament.”3
Not only Pieters but all conservative
amillennialists recognize the need for literal interpretation. In addition to
Pieters, Payne4 cites
Hamilton,5 Allis,6 Calvin,7 Luther,8 and others as
following and supporting the principle of literal interpretation as the only
proper grammatical-historical method. Amillennialists use two methods of
interpretation, the spiritualizing method for prophecy and the literal method
for other Scriptures. They differ from early amillennialists who regarded all
Scripture as an allegory. The extent of application of one method or the other
is determined by their rules for use of the spiritualizing method.
It is obvious at the beginning that, if
the interpreter has a choice of method in interpreting Scripture, a large door
for difference of opinion is opened. The general designation of prophecy as the
field of spiritualization is by no means definite. In fact, amillennialists who
are conservative interpret many prophecies literally and, on the other hand,
use the spiritualizing method in some instances where prophecy as such is only
remotely involved. The modern liberal scholar, who is also an amillennialist,
feels free to use the spiritualizing method rather freely in areas other than
prophecy whenever it suits his fancy, and being bound by no law of infallible
inspiration need not be concerned if the result is not consistent. The
spiritualizing method once admitted is not easy to regulate and tends to
destroy the literal method. While the amillennial use of the literal method is
general among the conservatives, among liberal groups it has less standing and
use.
The amillennial use of the spiritualizing
method. Conservative amillenarians, as we have
seen, are somewhat embarrassed by the early allegorical school of
amillennialists and with one voice deny the allegorical method as proper in
interpreting Scripture. As Pieters stated above, “No one defends or employs the
allegorizing method of exegesis.”9 In regard to the
allegorical method, Farrar writes: “Allegory by no means sprang from
spontaneous piety, but was the child of Rationalism which owed its birth to the
heathen theories of Plato. It deserved its name, for it made Scripture say
something else than it really meant…. Origen borrows from heathen Platonists
and from Jewish philosophers a method which converts the whole Scripture, alike
the New and Old Testament, into a series of clumsy, varying, and incredible
enigmas. Allegory helped him to get rid of Chiliasm and superstitious
literalism and the ‘antitheses’ of the Gnostics, but opened the door for
deadlier evils.”10
Now just what is the spiritualizing method
and how does it differ from the allegorical? An allegory is commonly considered
to be an extended metaphor. As Hospers puts it: “To exemplify: ‘Israel is like
a vine,’—that is a simile. ‘Israel is a vine,’—that is a metaphor. And Psalm 80
gives an extended description of this idea, and that is an allegory.”11 Spiritualization of
the same word Israel would involve in Webster’s definition of
spiritualization: “to take in a spiritual sense,—opposed to literalize.”12 In other words, if
Israel should mean something else than Israel, e.g., the church in the New
Testament composed largely of Gentiles, this would be spiritualization.
Actually the church is not Israel at all, but has certain similarities to
Israel (as well as many contrasts) just as the vine used in Psalm 80 is similar
in its properties to Israel.
It can be seen that spiritualized and
allegorized interpretations are not children of different races, but instead
one family of thought separated only by degree of application. In both, the
ordinary literal meaning is denied. Actually, Israel is no more a vine than
Israel is the church. The difference in allegorizing and spiritualizing is for
practical purposes nominal rather than essential. It is one of degree rather
than one of principle.
It is clear, however, that the amillennial
doctrine of spiritualization is far more restrained and less destructive to
doctrine in general than the old allegorizing method which knew no rules and
respected no boundaries. Conservative amillennialists have made a determined
effort to formulate principles and rules governing the use of spiritualization
in Scripture.
Hamilton summarizes these principles in
his attack on interpreting Old Testament Scriptures literally: “But if we
reject the literal method of interpretation as the universal rule for the
interpretation of all prophecies, how are we to interpret them? Well, of
course, there are many passages in prophecy that were meant to be taken
literally. In fact a good working rule to follow is that the literal
interpretation of the prophecy is to be accepted unless (a) the passages
contain obviously figurative language, or (b) unless the New Testament gives
authority for interpreting them in other than a literal sense, or (c) unless a
literal interpretation would produce a contradiction with truths, principles or
factual statements contained in non-symbolic books of the New Testament.
Another obvious rule to be followed is that the clearest New Testament passages
in non-symbolic books are to be the norm for the interpretation of prophecy,
rather than obscure or partial revelations contained in the Old Testament. In other
words we should accept the clear and plain parts of Scripture as a basis for
getting the true meaning of the more difficult parts of Scripture.”13 problems of
fulfillment of prophecy—it is born of a supposed necessity rather than a
natural product of exegesis. (4) They do not hesitate to use spiritualization
in areas other than prophecy if it is necessary to sustain their system of
doctrine. (5) As illustrated in current modernism which is almost entirely
amillennial, the principle of spiritualization has been proved by history to
spread easily into all basic areas of theological truth. If the earthly reign
of Christ can be spiritualized, so can His resurrection, His miracles, His
second coming. Modern liberals can justify their denial of literal resurrection
by use of the same hermeneutical rules that Hamilton uses for denial of an
earthly millennial kingdom. (6) The amillennial method does not provide a solid
basis for a consistent system of theology. The hermeneutical method of
amillennialism has justified conservative Calvinism, liberal modernism, and
Roman theology alike. Even conservative amillennialists are in almost total
confusion, as will be shown later, in their spiritualized interpretation of
passages taken literally by the premillenarians and in such basic and
elementary problems as the fulfillment of the millennial kingdom idea. (7)
Amillennialism has not arisen historically from a study of prophetic Scripture,
but rather through its neglect. The inherent difficulties of the amillennial
method of interpretation are discovered principally by study of their
interpretation of Scripture. It becomes apparent early in such a study that
amillennialists have no real guiding principle in spiritualization and that
they come to widely different conclusions. In fact, as will be shown, the
principal unifying factor which dominates amillennial interpretation is its
negative note, its denial of an earthly reign of Christ. The expedients that
are used and the interpretations of kingdom passages of Scripture that are
reached to achieve this negative conclusion are often mutually destructive of
each other. Having analyzed the method of amillennial interpretation, it now
follows that an analysis of their interpretation of Scripture itself must be
undertaken.
Dallas, Texas
This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library and posted
with permission of Galaxie Software.
1 Albertus
Pieters, The Leader, September 5, 1934, as cited by Gerrit H.
Hospers, The Principle of Spiritualization in Hermeneutics (East
Williamson, N.Y., published by the author, 1935), p. 5.
2 “The
Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1934).
3 “Pieters,
“Darbyism vs. The Historic Christian Faith,” Calvin Forum, II,
225-28, May 1936, cited by Homer Payne, Amillennialism as a System (Unpublished
Doctor’s Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1949), p. 75.
4 Payne, op.
cit., pp. 82ff. It is regrettable that this work, including the long
chapter on “The Spiritualizing Principle of Interpretation,” has not been
published.
5 F.
E. Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1942), pp. 38,40,58.
6 Oswald
T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 238.
7 F.
W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: MacMillan and
Co., 1886), pp. 193-94.
10 Farrar, loc.
cit., cited by Payne, op. cit., p. 81.
12 Webster’s
New International Dictionary, Second Edition, s.v. spiritualize.
13 Hamilton, op. cit., pp. 53-54.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Part
6: Amillennialism as a System of Theology
John F Walvoord Wed, 07/18/2007 - 06:00
The Growing Importance
of Millennialism
While the millennial controversy is nothing new, it has
come to be recognized only recently that it plays such an important part in
determining the form of theology as a whole. Instead of being simply a way of
interpreting prophecy, millennialism now is seen to be a determining factor in
any system of theology. Premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism
each influence the system of theology of which each is a part. The controversy
between amillennialism and premillennialism for this reason has taken on a new
and sharper antagonism and its outcome is now seen to assume significant
proportions.
It is the purpose of the present discussion to trace some
of the influences of amillennialism upon theological systems. In the nature of
the case, it will be necessary to survey a large field rather than analyze its
parts, and to form general rather than particular conclusions. While it is not
always easy to determine causal factors in doctrine, it can be shown at least
that the amillennial approach is in harmony with certain theological ideas and
is conducive to certain trends. The important fact which stands out in this
field of investigation is that amillennialism is more than a denial of
premillennial eschatology; it is an approach to theological interpretation
which has it own characteristics and trends.
Amillennial Bibliology
While the influence of the amillennial theory upon
bibliology has seldom been recognized by its own adherents, it is, in fact, one
of the important results which accrue from its relation to Biblical
interpretation. In the previous discussion of amillennialism as a method of
interpretation,1 the
use of figurative interpretation of the Bible by the amillenarians was found to
be the basic concept of their system and that which distinguished it from
premillennialism. While amillenarians reject the figurative method of
interpreting the Bible as a general method, it is used extensively not only in
the interpretation of prophecy but in other areas of theology as well. It was
shown that the only possible rule which could be followed by the amillenarian
was hopelessly subjective—the figurative method was used whenever the
amillenarian found it necessary to change the literal meaning of Scripture to
conform to his ideas.
The dangers of this type of figurative interpretation
should be apparent to anyone who respects the inspiration of Scripture. By it,
any passage of the Bible can be construed to mean something other than its
plain, literal meaning. The danger is well recognized by the amillenarians
themselves as is witnessed by their strenuous rejection of the allegorical
method and their earnest attempts to safeguard their method by various rules
and guiding principles. It has already been shown how impossible it is to form
any safe boundaries for the use of the spiritualizing method. The modernist who
spiritualizes the resurrection of Christ does so by almost the same techniques
as are used by the amillenarian B. B. Warfield2 who finds heaven
described in Revelation 20:1-10. Further, the history of modern liberalism has
demonstrated that its adherents are drawn almost entirely from amillennial
ranks.
What then is the amillennial influence on bibliology as a
whole? The answer is already apparent when the diverse theological systems of
Roman Catholic, modern liberal, and modern conservative writers are found to be
all using essentially the same method. To be sure, the modern liberals who no
longer hold to verbal inspiration do not need to spiritualize the Scriptures to
arrive at their interpretation. They can simply declare the Scriptures in error
and go on. But the first inroad of liberalism in the church historically in
Origen, and in modern times as well, has been by subverting the meaning by
spiritualizing the words. While no doubt other errors are found in these three
widely differing theological positions, their respective theologies could not
have the variance that exists if each interpreted the Scriptures literally. The
one factor which would correct everything would be a return to the literal
meaning of the Bible. The introduction of the spiritualizing method in
bibliology has opened the door for every variety of false doctrine according to
the whims of the interpreter.
Amillennialism clearly, then, offers no defense against
modern liberalism. While this conclusion may be disputed by amillenarians, the
widespread defection of amillenarians to liberalism is an obvious fact in
modern theology. It becomes all the more significant when it is realized that
there has been practically no defection to modernism from those who were
consistently premillennial. In fact, it is almost a byword in modern theology
that a premillenarian is identified with Bible-believing conservatives who have
resisted the modern trend of theology. Premillennialism has gone hand in hand
with conservative belief in the inspired Word of God, while amillennialism has
no consistent testimony in this regard.
One of the obvious problems of amillennialism in the field
of bibliology is that their method of interpretation leaves large areas,
particularly of the Old Testament, without any generally accepted meaning. As
the spiritualizing method is by its nature almost entirely subjective, it is
impossible to find any considerable measure of agreement on the spiritualized
interpretation of great Old Testament prophecies which are taken literally by
the premillenarian. When approaching the more difficult task of interpreting a
New Testament book like Revelation, the utter bankruptcy of the common
historical interpretation of this book becomes evident. There are literally
scores of interpretations of the book of Revelation by the amillenarians who
have attempted to interpret this book by the historical setting which was
contemporary to them. The history of interpretation is strewed with the
wreckage of multiplied schemes of interpretation which are every one
contradictory of all the others. The writer has personally examined some fifty
historical interpretations of Revelation all of which would be rejected by any
intelligent person today. The literal method which regards the bulk of
Revelation as future is the only consistent approach possible. The
spiritualizing method of interpretation is a blight upon the understanding of
the Scriptures and constitutes an important hindrance to Bible study.
Amillennial bibliology by its use of the spiritualizing
method has departed from the proper objective interpretation of the Scriptures
according to the ordinary grammatical sense of the terms, to a subjective
method in which the meaning is to some extent at the mercy of the interpreter.
Its subjective character has undermined amillennial theology as a whole. To the
extent the spiritualizing method is used, to that very extent their theology
loses all uniformity and self-consistency. In fact, as far as amillennialism
itself is concerned, there is neither principle nor method to erect a
self-consistent system of theology. The only consistent amillennial theologies
which exist today are those which have most resisted the spiritualized method
of interpretation and have to the greatest extent isolated its use. The ranks
of modern amillenarians are almost completely dominated by the liberals in
theology. While amillennialism can hardly be blamed for destructive higher
criticism which has undermined faith in the Bible, it can also be said that it
had no defense against it as far as its method and attitude are concerned.
After all, if Scripture which teaches something contrary to a preconceived
theory can be altered by spiritualizing it, of what importance is the concept
of inerrancy? If amillennialism did not furnish the material of modern
liberalism, it at least provided the atmosphere. While there have been a number
of outstanding conservative theologians who were amillennial, the institutions
in which they taught and the denominations of which they were a part have for
the most part left the fold of conservatives. The spiritualizing method of
interpretation has proved the Achilles’ heel of amillennial conservatism. The
amillenarian who wants to forsake conservatism for liberalism needs no change
in method and the transition is not difficult. On the other hand, a
premillenarian if enamored of modern liberalism would have to foresake all he
had formerly stood for in order to adopt liberalism.
Amillennial Theology
Proper
Amillennialism as such does not profoundly influence the
area of theology proper except indirectly by giving comfort to modern
liberalism. Conservative amillenarians have differed little from
premillenarians on essential doctrines relating to God. The major differences
in doctrine in regard to the Godhead continue to be controversies between
Calvinists, Arminians, and Socinians and their modern representatives.
A comparison between amillennial and premillennial
theologies will reveal an important difference, however, in their respective
views of the meaning of the incarnation. While the amillennial view confines
itself to the limited perspective of fulfillment of the soteriological purposes
of God, the premillenarian notes the frequent reminders in the Gospels that
Christ came also to fulfill the Davidic covenant, promising a king and a throne
forever and the fulfillment of the strictly Jewish Messianic hope. Likewise the
concepts of the second advent of Christ as well as the significance of the
present advocacy of Christ are somewhat different. The amillenarian tends to
put less stress on the present ministry of Christ in heaven and to simplify the
significance of prophecies regarding the second advent. Among some
amillenarians the spiritualizing method of interpretation has robbed the second
advent of its prophetic significance as a single future event. It has become
only a process or symbol of divine providence in daily Christian experience.
The historic creeds, while essentially amillennial, have resisted this
tendency.
While agreeing on the person of the Holy Spirit,
disagreement exists on the nature of the ministry of the Third Person in the
various dispensations. The tendency of amillennial theology is to treat the
work of the Holy Spirit as essentially the same in all ages. For this reason
amillenarians usually reject the dispensational distinctions in the work of the
Holy Spirit ordinarily held by premillenarians. Amillenarians usually hold that
the Spirit indwelt saints in the Old Testament, regenerated them, and empowered
them in much the same manner as in the New Testament. By contrast
premillenarians normally view the present work of the Holy Spirit in the church
as distinct from all other ages, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as unique.
The influence of amillennialism on theology proper can be
said, then, to be relatively unimportant as compared to other fields. The major
difficulty here, as elsewhere, arises when the spiritualizing method of
interpretation is applied, and to the extent this is resisted the difficulties
subside.
Amillennial Angelology
While conservative amillenarians and premillenarians agree
in general on the doctrine of angels including the area of Satanology and
demonology, only premillenarians present a united front in interpreting the
Scriptures in this division of theology. The fact that amillennialism includes
the diverse elements of conservative and liberal theology results in sharp
differences in their teaching concerning angels. Liberal amillenarians tend to
deny the existence of angels and relegate it all to pagan mythology, thereby
denying also the Scriptural revelation.
An examination of conservative theologies dealing with
angelology will, however, demonstrate that in general they minimize the
importance and significance of angels in theology while premillenarians magnify
the doctrine. The important point of departure is the disagreement regarding
the binding of Satan during the millennium. On this point amillenarians are at
variance with themselves. Augustine held that Satan was bound at the first
coming of Christ. This, of course, is a flagrant spiritualization both of Revelation
20 and of all other passages dealing with the power of Satan in the world. It
is characteristic of modern amillenarians to have a low view of the present
power and activity of Satan. The obvious disagreement of Augustine’s view with
the facts of the history of the world and the church have in recent centuries
helped to spark the new type of amillennialism, which finds the millennium in
heaven and limits the binding of Satan to inactivity in heaven itself rather
than on earth. Amillenarians to this day have no united testimony on the real
meaning of the binding of Satan and usually ignore it, except when attacking
premillennialism.
The attitude of amillenarians to the binding of Satan is
another illustration of how the spiritualizing method in regard to prophecy
affects other areas. The amillenarian concept of the present binding of Satan,
which is a future event to the premillenarian, results in a definite
underestimating of the present power of Satan. Modern amillenarians such as
Allis and Berkhof still embrace fundamentally the view of Augustine that Satan
was bound at the first advent. But how can the Scriptures be harmonized with
such a view? The answer is that they can be harmonized only by spiritualizing
plain and factual statements of the Bible which obviously were not intended to
be spiritualized. A survey of important Scripture references makes this clear.
Acts 5:3 records the words of Peter to Ananias: “Ananias,
why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back
part of the price of the land?” Again in 1 Corinthians 7:5 Satan is spoken of
as “tempting” Christians. In 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Satan is revealed as one
blinding the mind of all unbelievers. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14, Satan
is often fashioned as an angel of light. Paul speaks of a messenger of Satan
which buffeted him (2 Cor 12:7). Satan hindered Paul in coming to the Thessalonians
(1 Thess 2:18). The future lawless one is said to come “according to the
working of Satan with all power and lying wonders” (2 Thess 2:9). Hymenaeus and
Alexander are delivered to Satan (1 Tim 1:20). 1 John 3:8 declares as a present
truth, “He that doeth sin is of the devil.” Children of God are contrasted to
children of the devil (1 John 3:10). In 1 Peter 5:8, the direct statement and
exhortation is made: “Be sober, be watchful: your adversary the devil, as a
roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” How can anyone hold
to the impossible theory that Satan is bound now when the Scriptures expressly
state that Satan tempts, deceives, blinds, buffets, hinders, works lying
wonders, and that he is walking about seeking whom he may devour? Such a theory
is possible only when the spiritualizing method is used in interpreting the
plain and literal statements of Scripture.
Amillenarians have escaped some of the force of the
difficulty by minimizing and limiting the meaning of the binding of Satan
itself. Calvin and Luther, for instance, while amillenarians, gave due
recognition to the power of Satan in the world. They identified the binding of
Satan with the idea that God is sovereign and that Satan has only a restricted
area in which he is free to work. Berkhof, who carefully avoids the issue of
the binding of Satan in his chapter on angelology, seizes upon the explanation
of Calvin that fallen angels “drag their chains with them wherever they go.”3 By this means a
middle position is taken which on the one hand recognizes the binding of Satan
and on the other escapes the difficulty of contradicting the plain meaning of
Scripture on the present power of Satan. In general, the fact remains that the
amillennial view of angelology tends to have a doctrine of sin and Satan which
is less realistic than that of the premillenarians.
Amillennial
Anthropology
Amillennial anthropology, including as it does conservative,
liberal and Roman Catholic viewpoints, has more variance within itself than
with premillennial anthropology. This area of theology is probably less
affected by the millennial controversy than any other. The differences that do
exist do not seem to connect directly with the millennial issue. Certain
tendencies, however caused, can be noted.
Amillennial theology of the conservative Protestant kind
has become identified in the last two centuries with the covenant theory of
theology as contained in the covenant of works, covenant of redemption, and
covenant of grace.4 While
some premillenarians attempt to combine the covenant theory with
premillenarianism, it has been more common for premillenarians to follow a
dispensational emphasis founded upon recognition of the Biblical covenants. The
covenant theory has affected anthropology to the extent that the covenant of
works becomes related to the fall. As usually explained, the covenant of works
postulates a covenant between God and Adam in which for being obedient in the
test of the forbidden fruit Adam is promised eternal life. While recognizing
the reality of the test involved for Adam and Eve, premillenarians have tended
to confine their view to the more explicit statement of Scripture, questioning
the promise of eternal life for obedience, which is nowhere mentioned in the
Bible, and weakening the force of the covenant idea. In place of the covenant
of works as such, premillenarians often offer the Edenic covenant in its place.
This covenant includes all the aspects of man’s responsibility before the fall,
including the prohibition of the forbidden fruit. As understood by the
premillenarians, this covenant ceased to exist when the fall occurred and was
succeeded by the Adamic covenant providing the basic conditions for man’s life
on the earth after the fall, some of which conditions continue until the end of
the present world order. While the issue is not to be minimized, it can be
traced only indirectly to the millennial controversy. Many amillenarians also
question the covenant of works. It introduces, however, the covenant theory as
principally an amillennial influence and as opposed to the dispensational
viewpoint of Scripture which is normal premillenarianism.
In regard to the depravity of man, premillenarianism
normally embraces the concept of total depravity, taking a serious view of the
sinful state of man and finding him totally unable to commend himself to God or
effect his own salvation. In this regard amillennialism again has no certain
voice, the conservatives generally accepting the doctrine of total depravity as
expressed in Calvinism, but the Roman Catholic and modern liberal amillenarians
having different views. While this can be related to the method of
spiritualizing the Scriptures, other factors seem to outweigh the millennial
influences, and for all practical purposes this aspect of anthropology does not
figure in the millennial controversy. Taken as a whole, anthropology is not
directly related to the millennial issue.
Amillennial Soteriology
The question of millennial influence on the doctrine of
soteriology has been raised in recent years by the amillenarians themselves,
and they have attempted to distinguish the soteriology of premillenarians from
that held by amillenarians. In this area of theology, as in previous ones,
amillenarians would do well to unify their own theology. The concepts of Roman
theology and modern liberal theology, both amillennial, are in striking
contrast to the views held by the Protestant Reformers. In both the Roman and
modern liberal view human works play a large part in salvation. In both, the
work of Christ on the cross is not considered a final dealing with sins or
“finished” in the Reformed understanding of the term. In the conservative
amillennial as well as the premillennial view, eternal security, assurance of
salvation, complete justification, and regeneration issue from simple faith in
Jesus Christ. It follows that there is more difference between various schools
of amillennial thought than there is between conservative Reformed
amillennialism and premillennialism.
The present controversy between amillenarians and
premillenarians is not on the factors mentioned, however. Instead, the
difference of opinion has arisen from the conflicting systems of theology
resulting from covenant theology as opposed to dispensational theology. The
respective merits of these opposing schools of interpretation will be given
attention in a later discussion which will take up the controversy in detail.
For the purpose of the present survey the two approaches to
theology may be distinguished in general terms. Covenant theology is the view
that all the dispensations from Adam to the end of human history are aspects of
God’s soteriological program. In other words, the dispensations are different
presentations of the way of salvation in a gradually unfolding progression. The
tendency of this viewpoint is to regard God’s general purpose as essentially
that of saving the elect, to blend the various Biblical revelations regarding
Israel, the Gentiles, and the church into one stream, and to minimize the
differences between the various dispensations. In contrast, the dispensational
theology while not disputing the view of the unity of God’s plan of salvation,
finds in the various dispensations periods of stewardship which are not
directly related to salvation. In a word, the dispensationalist does not
consider the program of God for salvation as the sole purpose of God, and in
fact denies that some of the dispensations are soteriological. The Mosaic law
under the dispensational approach, while a way of life, is not considered a way
of salvation. Heaven was not among its rewards nor was hell among its
punishments.
The amillenarian who follows covenant theology will
accordingly have a decidedly different viewpoint of the meaning of Scripture
than the dispensationalist. There is difference of opinion on the essential
meaning of some of the dispensations. While agreeing on the ground and in
general on the terms of salvation, there is conflict on the relation of God’s
plan of salvation to the revealed character of the Biblical dispensations. The
importance of this issue is obvious, and deserves a more extended treatment which
will follow later.
Amillennial
Ecclesiology
Next to the field of eschatology itself, ecclesiology
offers the greatest contrast between the amillennial and premillennial views.
Here exist some basic conflicts which arise in the nature of the case from the
differing views of the nature of the present age. As this will be given
attention later in a special treatment, it will be sufficient to outline the
problem.
In ecclesiology, several aspects of amillennialism converge
to produce a distinctive doctrine of the church. From the covenant theology
usually embraced by amillenarians comes the concept of the essential unity of
the elect of all dispensations. The fact that all the saints of all
dispensations are saved on the basis of the death of Christ is interpreted as a
just ground for concluding that the term church is properly
used of saints in both the Old and New Testaments. Hence Jews and Gentiles who
were saved in the Old Testament period are considered as included in the Old
Testament church on much the same basis as saints in the New Testament are
included in the New Testament church. In fact, the usual tendency is to deny
any essential difference in the nature of their salvation.
As amillenarians deny any future dispensation after the
present age, they also deny any future to Israel as a nation. The many promises
made to Israel are given one of two treatments. By the traditional Augustinian
amillennialism, these promises are transferred by spiritualized interpretation
to the church. The church today is the true Israel and inherits the promises
which Israel lost in rejecting Christ. The other, more modern type of
amillennialism holds that the promises of righteousness, peace, and security
are poetic pictures of heaven and fulfilled in heaven, not on earth. This view
does not necessarily identify Israel and the church. Some combine both
viewpoints. It is obvious that the Augustinian view, in particular, has a
tremendous influence upon ecclesiology. The Roman Church builds much of its
claim for sovereignty on the inheritance from Israel of the combined political
and religious authority revealed in the Old Testament. The concept of the
church as an institution is enhanced, and ecclesiastical organization and
authority given Scriptural sanction. By so much also, the New Testament
revelation of the church as essentially a spiritual organism rather than an
organization is often slighted and in effect denied. The great contrast between
legalism as found in the Mosaic dispensation and grace as revealed in the
present age is usually ignored. The effect is often a repetition of the
Galatian error.
As contrasted to dispensational premillennialism,
amillennialism tends to slight the doctrine of the body of Christ in
ecclesiology as well as the distinctive basis of grace as the ground for the
believer’s walk before God in this age. Even a casual survey of amillennial
theologies will reveal the tendency to limit discussion to the matters of
church organization, church ordinances, and the means of grace. By contrast,
premillennial treatments of ecclesiology tend to enlarge the concept of the
church as the body of Christ—an organism rather than an organization—and give
extended treatment to the spiritual life of the believer. Ecclesiology in the
nature of the case offers one of the principal areas of disagreement in
relation to the millennial issue. While somewhat slow to realize it,
amillenarians are fully aware of this and like the recent work of Allis, Prophecy
and the Church, are relating the millennial issue to the doctrine of the
church. For this reason it is considered important to analyze the amillennial
doctrine of the church and attention will be given to this special aspect of
the doctrine later.
Amillennial Eschatology
In the field of eschatology, the principal differences
occasioned by the millennial issue are found. Here again amillennialism does
not present a united front and includes almost every variation not specifically
classified as postmillennial or premillennial. The modern liberal rules out any
specific scheme of eschatology according to his own ideas, denying usually the
ordinary doctrines of the second advent, resurrection, and final judgment as
held by the historic church. The Roman Church, of course, has its own
complicated doctrine of future things which is quite foreign to that of
Protestantism. The present analysis will need to be limited to the essential
features of conservative Reformed amillennialism.
The doctrines of Reformed amillennialism in regard to
eschatology are quite clear. They usually include as the essentials the
doctrine of the second advent of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the
final judgment of all, and the eternal state. A period of trouble corresponding
to the predicted time of tribulation is usually assigned to the period just
before the second advent, but in general terms. Under the amillennial viewpoint
the portions of Scripture dealing with the rapture and judgment of the church,
the resurrection of the righteous dead, the resurrection of the wicked dead,
the judgment of the Gentiles, the judgment of Israel, and the judgment of Satan
and angels are all combined in a closely knit sequence of events attending the
second advent itself. The premillennial objection to this form of doctrine
consists fundamentally in rejection of the spiritualizing of the many passages
involved in order to make them conform to the pattern desired by the
amillenarian. For instance, the amillennial view that the judgment of the
Gentiles in Matthew 25:31-46 is the final general judgment is rejected by the
premillenarian on the ground that the passage deals only with the living
Gentiles, not any resurrected peoples, nor the church. Without doubt, the millennial
controversy is largely settled by answering the question of the validity of the
interpretation of these events in Scripture. The amillennial doctrine in this
area demands a careful analysis and special attention will be given later to
the major items cf study.
Conclusion
In this general survey of the influence of the amillennial
view on theology as a whole, it was shown that the principal areas of influence
in order of importance are eschatology, ecclesiology, and soteriology. In these
three areas, particular attention must be paid to the nature of amillennial
influence, and the discussion to follow will take up these areas in turn,
beginning with soteriology.
Dallas, Texas
(Series to be continued in the July-September Number, 1950)
This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library and
posted with permission of Galaxie Software.
1 “Amillennialism
as a Method of Interpretation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March
1950, pp. 42-50.
2 Biblical
Doctrines, pp. 643-664.
3 L.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 149.
4 See L. Berkhof, ibid., pp. 211ff.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
CONCLUSION:
THE PROPER APPROACH TO INTERPRET GOD'S WORD IS SIMPLY TO READ IT
PROPERLY ACCORDING TO THE NORMATIVE RULES OF LANGUAGE, CONTEXT AND
LOGIC
The
proper approach for interpreting God's Word proves itself out to be
simply reading it in accordance with the normative rules of language,
context and logic as we should have been taught to read in school: