Amillennialism
Walter Copes (wcopes@communique.net)
Wed, 10 Apr 1996 07:17:39 -0500
To: mbasset@iconn.net (Mark Bassett)
Subject: Reply to Bro.Foster concerning Israel
From: wcopes@communique.net (Walter Copes)
>> How long are we going to preach these days are the end times?
MB> It is apauling to see the extent of the attack upon the
MB> impending rapture doctrine as it approaches. This is something
MB> that I personall predicted as I believe I was led to do by the
MB> Holy Ghost, within a year of having been saved. Now seeing it
MB> come true is an assurance that we do indeed have a focus upon
MB> our present time and opportunity!
It is frankly and freely admitted by amillennialists that the
basic issue in the controversy between premillennialists and them-
selves is the issue of the method of interpretation to be employed in
the interpretation of prophecy. Allis says, "The question of literal
versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be
faced at the very outset." He admits that if the literal method of
interpretation of the Scriptures be the right method premillennialism
is the correct interpretation. Thus one can see that the doctrine of
the premillennial return of Christ to institute a literal kingdom is
the outcome of the literal method of interpretation of the Old Testa-
ment promises and prophecies. It is only natural, therefore, that the
same basic method of interpretation must be employed in our interpre-
tation of the rapture question. It would be most illogical to build a
premillennial system on a literal method and then depart from that
method in consideration of the related questions. It can easily be
seen that the literal method of interpretation demands a pretribula-
tion rapture of the church. The posttribulationist must either inter-
pret the book of Revelation historically, which is basically a spirit-
ualizing method, or else treat it as yet future, but spiritualize away
the literalness of the events in an attempt to harmonize these events
with other Scriptures in the light of his interpretation. Either
explanations violates the principle of literal interpretation. The
midtribulation rapturists will apply the literal method of interpreta-
tion to the last half of the seventieth week, but spiritualize the
events of the first half of the week to permit the church to encounter
those. This, again, is a basic inconsistency. There can not be one
method employed to establish premillennialism and another method
employed in the interpretation of the rapture promises. The literal
method of interpretation, consistently employed, can lead to no other
conclusion than that the church will be raptured before the seventieth
week.
The postmillennial view, popular among covenant theologians of
the post-Reformation period, holds, according to Walvoord:
...that through preaching the Gospel the whole world will be
Christianized and brought to submission to the Gospel BEFORE
the return of Christ. The name is derived from the fact that
in this theory Christ returns after the millennium (hence,
POST millennium) [John F. Walvoord, "The Millennial Issue in
Modern Theology," BIBILOTHECA SACRA, 106:45, January, 1948].
The followers of this view hold to a literal second advent and
believe in a literal millennium, generally following the Old Testament
teaching on the nature of that kingdom. Their controversy is over such
questions as who institutes the millennium, the relation of Christ to
the millennium, and the time of Christ's coming in relation to that
millennium.
The amillennial view holds that there will be no literal millen-
nium on the earth following the second advent. All prophecies concern-
ing the kingdom are being fulfilled in the inter-advent period spirit-
ually by the church. Concerning this view it has been stated:
Its most general character is that of denial of a literal
reign of Christ upon the earth. Satan is conceived as bound
at the first coming of Christ. The present age between the
first and second comings is the fulfillment of the millenni-
um. Its adherents differ as to whether the millennium is
being fulfilled on the earth (Augustine) or whether it is
being fulfilled y the saints in heaven (Warfield). It may be
summed up in the idea that there will be no more millennium
than there is now, and that the eternal state immediately
follows the second coming of Christ. It is similar to post-
millennialism in that Christ comes after what they regard as
the millennium [John F. Walvoord, "The Millennial Issue in
Modern Theology," BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, 106:45-46, January.
1948].
Their controversy is over the question as to whether there will
be a literal millennium for Israel or whether the promises concerning
the millennium are now being fulfilled in the church, either on earth
or in heaven.
It is generally agreed that the view of the church for the cen-
turies immediately following the Apostolic era was the premillennial
view of the return of Christ. Allis, an amillenarian, says:
[Premillennialism] was extensively held in the Early Church,
how extensively is not definitely known. But the stress
which many of its advocates placed on earthly rewards and
carnal delights aroused widespread opposition to it; and it
was largely replaced by the "spiritual" view of Augustine.
It reappeared in extravagant forms at the time of the Refor-
mation, notably among the Anabaptists. Bengel and Mede were
among the first modern scholars of distinction to advocate
it. But it was not until early in the last century that it
became at all widely influential in modern times. Since then
it has become increasingly popular; and the claim is fre-
quently made that most of the leaders in the Church today,
who are evangelical, are Premillennialists [Oswald T. Allis,
PROPHECY AND THE CHURCH, p. 7].
Whitby, generally held to be the founder of postmillennialism,
writes:
The doctrine of the Millennium, or the reign of saints on
earth for a thousand years, is now rejected by all Roman
Catholics, and by the greatest part of Protestants; and yet
it passed among the best Christians, for two hundred and
fifty years, for a tradition apostolical; and, as such, is
delivered by many Fathers of the second and third century,
who speak of it as the tradition of our Lord and His apos-
tles, and of all the ancients who lived before them; who
tell us the very words in which it was delivered, the Scrip-
tures which were then so interpreted; and say that it was
held by all Christians that were exactly orthodox. It was
received not only in the Eastern parts of the Church, by
Papias (in Phrygia), Justin (in Palestine), but by Irenaeus
(in Gaul), Nepos (in Egypt), Apollinaris, Methodius (in the
West and South), Cyprian, Victrinus (in Germany), by Tertul-
lian (in Africa), Lactantius (in Italy), and Severus, and by
the Council of Nice (about A.D. 323) [G. N. H. Peters,
THEOCRATIC KINGDOM, I, pp. 482-83].
That such concessions should be made by anti-premillenarians is
only because history records the fact that such a premillennial belief
was the UNIVERSAL belief of the church for two hundred and fifty years
after the death of Christ. Schaff writes:
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-
Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism,
that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on
earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the
general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the
doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of
devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished
teachers [Philip Schaff, HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH,
II. 614].
Harnack says:
The doctrine of Christ's second advent, and the kingdom,
appears so early that it might be questioned whether it
ought not to be regarded as an essential part of the Chris-
tian religion [Cited by Lewis Sperry Chafer, SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY, iv, P. 277].
Perhaps the most extensive compilation of premillennial advocates
of the first centuries in that made by Peters, He lists as follows:
1. PRE-MIL. ADVOCATES OF THE 1ST CENTURY
a. (1) ANDREW, (2) PETER, (3) PHILIP, (4) THOMAS, (5) JAMES, (6) JOHN,
(7) MATTHEW, (8) ARISTIO, (9) JOHN THE PRESBYTER-- all these are cited
by Papias, who according to Irenaeus, was one of John's hearers, and
intimate with Polycarp....Now this reference to the apostles AGREES
with the facts that we HAVE PROVEN: (a) that the disciples of Jesus
did hold the Jewish views of the Messianic reign in the first part of
this century, and (b) that, instead of discarding them, they linked
them with the Sec. Advent. Next (100 CLEMENT OF ROME (Phil. 4:3), who
existed about A.D. 40-100....(11) BARNABAS, about A.D. 40-100....(12)
HERMAS, from A.D. 40 to 140.... (13) IGNATIUS, Bh. of Smyrna, a disci-
ple of the Apostle John, who lived about A.D. 70-167....(15) PAPIAS,
Bh. of Hierapolis, lived between A.D. 80-163...
b Now on the other side, not a single name can be presented, which (1)
can be quoted as positively against us, or (2) which can be cited as
teaching, in any shape or sense, the doctrine of our opponents.
2. PRE-MILL. ADVOCATES OF THE 2ND CENT.
a. POTHINUS, a martyr....A.D. 87-177....(2) JUSTYN MARTYR, about A.D.
100-168....(3) MELITO, Bh. of Sardis, about A.D. 100-170....(4) HEGI-
SIPPUS, between A.D. 130-190....(5) TATIAN, between A.D. 130-
190....(6) IRENAEUS, a martyr... about A.D. 140-202. (7) THE CHURCHES
OF VIENNE AND LYONS.... (8) TERTULLIAN, about A.D. 150-220....(9)
HIPPOLYTUS, between A.D. 160-240.
b. Now on the other side, NOT A SINGLE WRITER can be presented, not
even a single name can be mentioned of any one cited, who opposed
chiliasm in this century....Now let the student reflect: here are TWO
CENTURIES...in which positively no direct opposition whatever arises
against our doctrine, but it is held by THE VERY MEN, leading and most
eminent, THROUGH WHOM WE TRACE THE CHURCH. What must we conclude? (1)
that he common faith of the Church was Chiliastic, and (2) that such a
generality and unity of belief could only have been introduced...by
the founders of the Ch. Church and the Elders appointed by them.
3. PRE-MIL. ADVOCATES OF THE 3RD CENT.
a. (1) CYPRIAN, about A.D. 200-258....(2) COMMODIAN, between A.D. 200-
270....(3) NEPOS, Bh. of Arsinoe, about A.D. 230-280....(4) CORACION,
about A.D. 230-280....(5) VICTORINUS, about A.D. 240-303...(6 METHODI-
US, Bh. of Olympus, about A.D. 250-311....(7) LACTANTIUS...between
A.d. 240-330.... [G. N. H. Peters, THEOCRATIC KINGDOM, I, pp. 494-96.]
While the testimony of all the above men is not always equally
clear, certain of them spoke unequivocally for the pre-millennial
position. Clement of Rome wrote:
Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished as the
Scripture also bear witness, saying, "Speedily will He come, and will
not tarry:" and "The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the
Holy One, for whom ye look" [Cited by Charles C. Ryrie, THE BASIS OF
THE PREMILLENNIAL FAITH, p. 20].
Justin Martyr, in His Dialogue with Trypho, wrote:
But I and whoever are on all points right-minded Christians know that
there will be resurrection of the dead and a thousand years in Jerusa-
lem, which will then be build, adorned, and enlarged as the prophets
Ezekiel and Isaiah and the other declare....
And, further, a certain man with us, named John, one of the Apostles
of Christ, predicted by a revelation that was made to him that those
who believed in Christ would spend a thousand years in Jerusalem, and
thereafter the general, or to speak briefly, the eternal resurrection
and judgment of all men would likewise take place [Cited by Charles C.
Ryrie, THE BASIS OF THE PREMILLENNIAL FAITH, P. 22].
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, gives a well developed Eschatology when he
writes:
But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this
world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the
temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the
clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who
follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous of
the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day;
and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom
the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west
should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...."
The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the
times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their
rising
from the dead [Cited by Charles C. Ryrie, THE BASIS OF THE PREMILLEN-
NIAL FAITH, pp. 22-23].
Tertullian adds his testimony when he says:
But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth,
although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch
as it will be after their resurrection for a thousand years in the
divinely-build city of Jerusalem [Cited by Charles C. Ryrie, THE
BASIS OF THE PREMILLENNIAL FAITH, p. 23].
According to Justin and Irenaeus there were:
...three classes of men: (1) The Heretics, denying the resurrection of
the flesh and the Millennium. (2) The exactly orthodox, asserting both
the resurrection and the Kingdom of Christ on the earth. (3) The
believers, who consented with the just, and yet endeavored to allego-
rize and turn into a metaphor all those Scriptures produced for a
proper reign of Christ, and who had sentiments rather agreeing with
those heretics who denied, than those exactly orthodox who maintained,
this reign of Christ on earth [Daniel Whitby, TREATISE ON THE MILLEN-
NIUM, Cited by G. N. H. Peters, THEOCRATIC KINGDOM, I, p. 483].
Justin evidently recognized premillennialism as "the criterion of a perfect
orthodoxy." In his Dialogue with Trypho, where he writs: "some who are called
Christians but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every
way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish," [Cited by D. H. Dromminga, THE
MILLENNIUM IN THE CHURCH, P. 45.] he shows he would include any who denied
premillennialism in this category, since he included in it those that denied the
resurrection, a companion teaching.
It would seem safe to conclude with Peters:
When surveying the historical ground...we are forced to the conclusion
that those writers...who insist upon the great extent of Chiliasm in
the Apostolic and Primitive church are most certainly correct. We,
therefore, cordially endorse those who express themselves as Muncher
(ch. His., vol. 2, p. 415), that "it (Chiliasm) was universally re-
ceived by almost all teachers," and (pp. 450, 452) refers it, with
Justin, to "the whole orthodox community...." [G. N. H. Peters, THEO-
CRATIC KINGDOM, I, p. 498].
Walter Copes
The joy of the Lord is my strength
(wcopes@communique.net)
Walter L Copes