Adam Olive,
I noticed in your profile that you're still pondering between the Amil and Historic Premil views, and in the interests of edifying a brother I got permission from Dean Davis, author of the excellent Amil work,
The High King of Heaven, to post two brief sections from his book on Historic Premillennialism. Two of his acronyms are NCH = New Covenant Hermeneutic, and OTKP = Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy. The first section is:
_________
1. Historic Premillennialism
[in the book a timeline is inserted here]
This view is called
premillennial because it teaches that Christ will come again
before a thousand year reign upon the earth. It is called
historic because, according to some, it was the dominant view of the early Church, and also because, in various forms, it has appeared throughout much of Church History.
There are two kinds of Historic Premillennialism (HP). The first may be called New Covenant (or Christian) Historic Premillennialism (NCHP). Its chief characteristic is that it places the Church at the center of the millennial scenario. Here, OTKP is fulfilled under the New Covenant, whether in the Era of Proclamation, the Millennium, or the World to Come. Accordingly, NCHP does not anticipate the exaltation of ethnic Israel in the Millennium, or a return to OT ordinances such as Temple worship, animal sacrifices, and Jewish Feasts. Rather, the Millennium is that stage in Salvation History where Christ’s Kingship is publically vindicated and celebrated in a renewed (but not yet perfected) world, and where His faithful New Covenant people are rewarded by sharing in His earthly reign.
All of the ante-Nicene premillennarians were of this persuasion. They include Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Montanists, and Lactantius. After Augustine, NCHP was eclipsed for over a thousand years by amillennialism. However, in the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] and 18[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries a number of Protestant thinkers embraced it once again. They include Johann Alsted, Cotton Mather, Philipp Spener, Joseph Bengel, John Gill, Joseph Mede, and Charles Wesley. In the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, many premillennarians began to experiment with a more literal interpretation of OTKP, and therefore showed a lively interest in God’s plans for ethnic Israel. In time this trend led to the triumph of Dispensational Premillennialism, with its unprecedented focus upon Israel’s millennial glory. However, since the mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century a large number of evangelicals, following the lead of theologian George Ladd, have rejected Dispensationalism and returned once again to the classic NCHP. Prominent among them are Clarence Bass, Jim Hamilton, Carl Henry, Robert Mounce, Grant Osborne, J. Barton Payne, and John Piper. Arguably, this is now the majority position of American theologians. If, then, it is essential conformity to Ante-Nicene premillennialism that makes one a “true” historic premillennarian, these men are the rightful heirs to that mantle.
There is, however, a second form of HP. Again, it arose primarily in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, when many evangelicals, adopting a more literal interpretation of OTKP, began to assert that God will fulfill certain OT promises by restoring and exalting ethnic Israel, both prior to and during the Millennium. Their company is impressive. It includes David Baron, Andrew and Horatio Bonar, Franz Delitzsche, Frederick Godet, Robert M’ Cheyne, George Peters, Charles Spurgeon, Samuel Tregelles, and Nathaniel West. Because of its interest in the future of ethnic Israel, we may call this view Old Covenant (or Jewish) Historic Premillennialism (OCHP).
While there are significant differences among them, most Old Covenant premillennarians would endorse the following sketch of Salvation History. In OT times God promised, prefigured, and prepared for an eschatological Kingdom that would appear in three stages: The Church Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Millennium, and the World to Come. The mission of the Church will advance in history infallibly, though with great difficulty. Towards the end of the age, the world will plunge into deep spiritual darkness, thereby triggering the rise of the Antichrist, a brief season severe persecution, and the apostasy of many professing believers. Then Christ will come again. When He does (or shortly before it), the great mass of Jews will be converted. Acting in judgment, Christ will destroy the Antichrist and his followers, and then confine Satan to the abyss. Acting in redemption, He will resurrect the saints of all time (or the martyrs alone), glorify living believers, partially lift the curse from the earth, and welcome believing Jews and the spared children of unbelievers into the Millennium. Now begins the theocratic stage of the Kingdom, when God’s eschatological David reigns over Israel and the nations. His kingship emanates from earthly Jerusalem, where (according to some) a glorious new Temple is situated, commemorative animal sacrifices are offered, and the ancient Mosaic feasts are observed. Though it is indeed a season of universal peace, the Millennium ends, mysteriously enough, with war: Released from the abyss, Satan uses his deceptive powers to incite a global rebellion against Christ and the saints. However, God immediately steps in so that fire falls from heaven, the rebels are consumed, and Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire. This brings on the (final) Consummation, wherein God raises the wicked dead (and, according to some, the millennial saints), judges the world in righteousness, destroys the present cosmos with fire, and creates new heavens and a new earth. Thus begins the third stage of the Kingdom, in which Jew and Gentile dwell together with God forever as a single glorified Church in the World to Come.
Shorn of its emphasis on ethnic Israel and the (partial) restoration of Mosaic ordinances, this is how NCHP views Salvation History as well.
Observe from our time-line that by opting for a future Millennium both forms of HP require
two each of the great eschatological events, whether last battles, comings of Christ, resurrections, judgments, or cosmic transformations. In the pages ahead we will inquire as to whether the NT actually confirms this complex version of the Consummation, and, indeed, the entire HP scenario.
[end first section]
__________
The second section is:
Appendix 1
A CRITIQUE OF HISTORIC PREMILLENNIALISM
THIS IS THE first of four appendices in which I offer brief critiques of the main eschatological options before evangelical Christians. My purpose here is not to repeat the arguments and evidences discussed in the body of this book. Rather, I simply want to model what I regard as the most fruitful method for examining different eschatological perspectives, whether old or new.
This method, which reflects the underlying issues of the GETD, involves asking four questions of each eschatological option. They are:
1) What is its view of the nature and structure of the Kingdom of God?
2) What is its view of the nature and structure of the Consummation?
3) How does it interpret OTKP: basically literally, in terms of ethnic Israel and a future Mosaic theocracy; or basically spiritually, in terms of the Church and the spiritual reign of God introduced by the New Covenant?
4) What is its view of the Revelation in general, and of Revelation 20 in particular?
With the help of the time-line shown below, let us use these helpful questions to critique Historic Premillennialism. You may wish to review the material on HP in chapter 3, where I distinguish between New Covenant and Old Covenant HP.
[Time-line should be inserted Here: Historic Premillennialism]
View of the Kingdom
From our time-line we learn that HP envisions the Kingdom as entering history in three stages: the Church Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Millennium, and the World to Come. However, in our journey we found that the NT demurs. Apart from the much-disputed Revelation 20, it says nothing whatsoever about a future millennial stage of the Kingdom. Also, its didactic eschatology completely rules out premillennialism, since it has the Kingdom entering history not in three stages, but two: the Era of Proclamation and the World to Come.
Additionally, NT teaching about the
nature of the Kingdom shows that OCHP cannot possibly be true. This is because the two-staged reign of God is a creation of the New Covenant, with the result that the citizens of the Kingdom worship, not in this or that earthly mountain, but in spirit and (New Covenant) truth. There will be no return to the temporary and typological institutions of the ancient Mosaic theocracy.
View of the Consummation
Historic premillennarians look for two distinct Comings of Christ—one at the end of the present evil age, and the other at the end of the Millennium. This complex scenario raises thorny questions. At the first Parousia, who will be judged and who will be allowed to enter the Millennium? How realistic—or biblical—is it to assert that the children of unbelievers will become the nations over which Christ rules? What happens to the millennial saints when they die? Will they immediately receive their resurrection bodies, or will they wait in heaven as disembodied spirits until the second resurrection at the end of the Millennium? How is it that Christ’s glorious millennial reign ends in near universal rebellion against him and his people? And finally, does Scripture really permit us to look for what HP requires: two resurrections, two judgments, and two cosmic transformations, all separated by a thousand years?
Such questions tell us that something is fundamentally wrong with HP. In the course of our study, we learned what it is: The NT consistently looks for a
single consummation centered on a
single parousia, resurrection, judgment, and cosmic transformation. Therefore, it is the doctrine of a future Millennium that shatters the simplicity of the biblical picture, and opens the door to confusion. Perhaps, then, premillennarians would be wise to re-visit their interpretation of Revelation 20, for by moving it into the present, as amillennialism does, all confusion disappears!
View of OTKP
I rejoice that advocates of NCHP are inclined to interpret OTKP much as amillennarians do: as
veiled revelations in which God used OT language and imagery to speak “mysteriously” about spiritual and physical blessings
unveiled by Christ and the New Covenant. To paraphrase their Master, they are not far from the truth of the Kingdom!
I wonder, however, how they can preach and teach from OTKP. In particular, how can they discern which predictions are actually fulfilled in the Millennium? Is Isaiah 11:6-9 fulfilled in the Millennium? Since it says nothing of a thousand years, how can they be sure it does not speak “mysteriously” of the World to Come? And what of these premillennial favorites: Isaiah 65:17-25 and 66:22-24? Here the situation is even worse, since the prophet positively affirms that latter-day “Jerusalem”, and the world it will inhabit, will endure forever (65:18, 66:22)!
It appears, then, that NCHP is shut up to Revelation 20 alone for its knowledge of the Millennium. This should make its proponents very uneasy. Do they really want to hang so great an eschatological bundle on so tiny a peg? Again, doesn’t this kind of problem invite a thorough re-examination of the meaning of Revelation 20 beneath the light of NT eschatology?
As for the followers of OCHP, we remember that they interpret OTKP basically literally; that they view these prophecies as photographs of the future of ethnic Israel and the nations living together in the Millennium.
We have seen, however, that this approach plunges the biblical interpreter into a great thicket of difficulties: apparent contradictions, historical anachronisms, a future return to the Mosaic Law, and a losing battle with the NT doctrine of the Kingdom. Happily, we also saw that the apostles do
not interpret OTKP in this manner. Yes, they understood that God meant “simple” Messianic prophe*cies—prophecies fulfilled
prior to Pentecost—to be interpreted basically literally, and then to be used in the global proclamation of the Gospel. But they also understood that true OTKP’s—prophecies fulfilled
after Pentecost—must be interpreted by a skillful use of the NCH, and therefore as being fulfilled in Christ, under the New Covenant, and among the New Covenant people of God: the Church of all times, comprised of Jew and Gentile. Let us be glad of it, for here alone do we find the way of escape from the maddening historical and theological contradictions into which OCHP would plunge us all.
View of the Revelation
Whatever their approach to the Revelation as a whole, all historic premillennarians agree that chapter 20 speaks of events that occur
after the Parousia. We have seen, however, that this futuristic reading of Revelation 20 immediately brings them into conflict with the rest of the NT, which pervasively sees the Kingdom as coming in two simple stages, separated by a single Consummation at the return of Christ.
There is, however, a way of escape. We came upon it in Part 4 of our study, where we learned that Revelation 20 is actually one of six visionary cycles,
all of which describe the period of time between Christ’s first and second advents. This was particularly evident from the striking similarities between chapters 12 and 20. Moreover, once we recognize that “the first resurrection” of 20:4-6 is spiritual rather than physical, it is easy to see how Revelation 20 symbolizes the course of the Era of Proclamation, and how the whole book now harmonizes perfectly with the rest of the NT.
Summing up, we find that HP entangles the biblical interpreter in inescapable conflict and confusion. When, however, we receive from Christ the Master Keys to the GETD, all difficulties are resolved, and the one true eschatology of Scripture rises like the sun in its strength. I pray my premillennial brethren will receive those keys, and so enter into the joy of the amillennial dawn.
[end of section 2]
________
Adam, I hope this survey of the Hist. Premil view has been helpful to you in your quest to sort this matter out. Sorry it was a bit lengthy, although to the scholarly really a piece of cake!
