Does Premillennialism actually come from a LITERAL interpretation?

[Manuel]

I read this on another thread:

I'm premillennial. However eschatology is my weakest area. I was raised amillennial but I don't believe Riddlebargers arguments make much sense anymore compared with what scripture actually says. I believe it must literal not symbolic or it just doesn't make sense.

I hear this a lot from premillenialists, and yet I have never found one single passage in the Scriptures that interpreted literally will lead me to premillenialism, without reading them with a premillenialist predisposition and/or assumption; so what are the pasages in Scripture that I'm supposed to interpret literally that will lead me to premillenialism? Is Premillenialism really an eschatological position that stems from a literal interpretation of prophecy?

 

[LawrenceU]

In a short answer, no. If it were it would be the historic interpretation of Scripture. It is not. Historically it is a rather novel ideal.

 

[discipulo]

A starting point on the topic is that Premillenialism assumes that the mention of 1000 years in Revelation 20:2-7 means literally a period of 1000 years.

But the weeks of Daniel no longer mean literal weeks of 7 days.

So the alleged premill literal hermeneutic is very inconsistent.

I remember a booklet by a dutch Dispensational premil called Wim Malgo that said that the locusts in Rev 9 are helicopters.

Premill + Dispensationalism, In my humble opinion, makes quite a mess out of Redemptive History.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

As far as a literal 1000 year period, that is in Rev. 20, although it is very doubtful that it was intended literally. Once you accept a literal millennium, then you have to accept a literal reign of Christ on the earth, so in that sense you would be premillennial in that Christ must neccesarily come back prior to the start of the millennium.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

The post apostolic fathers were premillennial. It seems it was the majority position actually until Augustine invented Amillenialism with his book the City of God in around 420AD! That's a long time after the apostolic age ended. It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts.

 

[KSon]

It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts.

This is where a "Now covering head" emoticon would be most-appropriate.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The post apostolic fathers were premillennial. It seems it was the majority position actually until Augustine invented Amillenialism with his book the City of God in around 420AD! That's a long time after the apostolic age ended. It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts

While it is certainly true that many early church fathers held to a premillennial view, it was certainly not the consensus or even neccesarily the majority. Most of the early supporters of premillenialism were Jewish converts whose view on this was heavily influenced by their understanding of Jewish prophecy. As for the actual apostles, we obviously do not know how they felt and I find it curious that we would somehow think it less likely for a Christian in 150 AD to misinterpret scripture than a Christian today. The point is that many people in early Christianity held to a premillennial view, and many did not, just as it is today. Your blanket assertion that all the post apostolic church fathers were premillennial is false and misinformed. It is also worth noting that the variety of premillenialism held by early Christians looks very little like the dispensational variety held today,which is truly a cult in itself In my humble opinion.

 

[Fly Caster]

It's been interesting to be involved in a Bible study of Isaiah with a group of guys almost exclusively premillennial. Some things that I have noticed about the "literal" method of interpretation:

O.T. references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion, Babylon, etc. are to be taken "literally" but N.T. references defining Israel, Zion & Jerusalem as the Church are not.

O.T. references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion, Babylon, etc. are to be taken "literally" but some O.T. references to Edom refer to all nations opposed to God.

The "literal" interpretation is the most simple, straightforward, and easily understood, while the final outcome of the system looks like this--

... and the final outcome of my own more complex, complicated and confusing manner of interpretation looks like this--

 

[Osage Bluestem]

The post apostolic fathers were premillennial. It seems it was the majority position actually until Augustine invented Amillenialism with his book the City of God in around 420AD! That's a long time after the apostolic age ended. It seems Augustine just gave up on waiting and came up with an easy "symbolic" eschatolgy to explain away his doubts

While it is certainly true that many early church fathers held to a premillennial view, it was certainly not the consensus or even neccesarily the majority. Most of the early supporters of premillenialism were Jewish converts whose view on this was heavily influenced by their understanding of Jewish prophecy. As for the actual apostles, we obviously do not know how they felt and I find it curious that we would somehow think it less likely for a Christian in 150 AD to misinterpret scripture than a Christian today. The point is that many people in early Christianity held to a premillennial view, and many did not, just as it is today. Your blanket assertion that all the post apostolic church fathers were premillennial is false and misinformed. It is also worth noting that the variety of premillenialism held by early Christians looks very little like the dispensational variety held today,which is truly a cult in itself In my humble opinion.

If we take what the actual apostles wrote literally then we arrive at premillenialism. John Macarthur is very good at explaining this. Welcome to Grace to You

 

[Bill The Baptist]

If we take what the actual apostles wrote literally then we arrive at premillenialism. John Macarthur is very good at explaining this. Welcome to Grace to You

If you read what Jesus said in the gospels, you will see that premillenialism is untenable.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

If we take what the actual apostles wrote literally then we arrive at premillenialism. John Macarthur is very good at explaining this. Welcome to Grace to You

If you read what Jesus said in the gospels, you will see that premillenialism is untenable.

I don't understand how.

 

[KSon]

I have found in my studies of eschatology the word "literal' is in no way helpful. The issue is one of hermeneutics, in particular which priority to you hold to with regards to the OT and NT:

1. The NT is read in light of the OT
2. The OT is read in light of the NT

To paint with a broad brush and say that amillers arrive at their conclusions through a lesser level of exegesis would be wrong (not saying you have). I would invite you to read some of the writings mentioned above, as well as some of the writings of Greg Beale, to see that Option #1 (favored by the likes of John MacArthur) has some issues when you look at the ways the NT, and the apostles in particular, use OT texts.

Some cursory searches of previous PB threads may prove profitable in this as well.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I don't understand how.

You could read The Gospel in Revelation by Graeme Goldsworthy, or just read the gospels themselves. I think Jesus best summed it up when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The reason that the Jews crucified Jesus was because they were expecting a messiah who would overthrow the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom. Jesus made it clear that the kingdom was spiritual. People are now making the exact same mistake regarding his second coming, expecting an earthly kingdom. Let me say it again, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AND WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SPIRITUAL ONE!

 

[Brandon1]

Consider this from Justin Martyr,

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXX)

The early church is varied on this topic. It is true that the early church practiced pre-millenialism, however, read the early churches theology and see if its premillenialism is informed by a dispensational hermeneutic. Read Irenaeus "On Apostolic Preaching." Read Tertullian "Against Praxeus." These arguments against the Gnostics focus on the continuity of God's revelation from Old to New Testament and the importance of seeing biblical history as one part in a larger story.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I don't understand how.

You could read The Gospel in Revelation by Graeme Goldsworthy, or just read the gospels themselves. I think Jesus best summed it up when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The reason that the Jews crucified Jesus was because they were expecting a messiah who would overthrow the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom. Jesus made it clear that the kingdom was spiritual. People are now making the exact same mistake regarding his second coming, expecting an earthly kingdom. Let me say it again, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AND WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SPIRITUAL ONE!

I've been reading the gospels my whole life. I just don't see it. It is true that Christ has a spiritual kingdom but it is also true he will have an earthly one and all of the prophecies to Israel will be fulfilled. There is no other way to explain the temple in Ezekiel other than the premillennial model. Even Matthew Henry had no explaination for this. He called it the most difficult part of scripture. The reason for that is because Amillenialism and Postmillenialism can't explain it. It doesn't fit at all. I've never read a good explaination for it other than the premillennial model.

 

[torstar]

1st Thess 4:

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

This has always been given to me as the reason behind belief in a pre-trib, pre-mill Rapture. A secret dog whistle one whereby nobody knows what happened, but every believer disappeared, with 2 returns of Christ embedded here, with a delay between.

The 3 times I have asked someone to read it very carefully and honestly tell me just where I would find any of their view here, 2 admitted it doesn't even remotely exist and 1 got really angry. One pastor friend who teaches this view sheepishly admits it's just not there but his flock likes the thought of it.

I used to believe it till I read it for myself... patience is advised...

---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

Also, please do not confuse what would be called an "historic" pre-mill view with the "dispensational" pre-mill view.

I trust those who are cloaking their mixing of the two are not being deceptive...

 

[Steve Curtis]

Eusebius traces the history of chiliasm to Papias (circa 130): “The same author [Papias] presents other accounts... among them, indeed, he says that there will be a period of about one thousand years after the resurrection of the dead when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth. I suppose that such ideas came to him through a perverse reading of the apostolic accounts... he is responsible for the fact that so many ecclesiastical writers after him, relying on the antiquity of the man, held the same opinion; for instance Irenaeus, and whoever else may have held the same views." (History of the Church: 3, 39, 11)

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I've been reading the gospels my whole life. I just don't see it. It is true that Christ has a spiritual kingdom but it is also true he will have an earthly one and all of the prophecies to Israel will be fulfilled. There is no other way to explain the temple in Ezekiel other than the premillennial model. Even Matthew Henry had no explaination for this. He called it the most difficult part of scripture. The reason for that is because Amillenialism and Postmillenialism can't explain it. It doesn't fit at all. I've never read a good explaination for it other than the premillennial model.

Israel, the temple, and the new Jerusalem are all the same thing in the NT, the church of Christ.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I've been reading the gospels my whole life. I just don't see it. It is true that Christ has a spiritual kingdom but it is also true he will have an earthly one and all of the prophecies to Israel will be fulfilled. There is no other way to explain the temple in Ezekiel other than the premillennial model. Even Matthew Henry had no explaination for this. He called it the most difficult part of scripture. The reason for that is because Amillenialism and Postmillenialism can't explain it. It doesn't fit at all. I've never read a good explaination for it other than the premillennial model.

Israel, the temple, and the new Jerusalem are all the same thing in the NT, the church of Christ.

It gives specific building plans and even details activities. I see no way to spiritualize it. Spiritualization here ignores the text.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------

[/COLOR]Also, please do not confuse what would be called an "historic" pre-mill view with the "dispensational" pre-mill view.

I trust those who are cloaking their mixing of the two are not being deceptive...

Indeed. I was hoping someone would mention that there are different views on that. Some intermingle like Macarthur.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

It gives specific building plans and even details activities. I see no way to spiritualize it. Spiritualization here ignores the text.

The entire book of Revelation is very detailed, and yet it is very symbolic in nature. The genre of Hebrew prophetic literature is always like this. D.A. Carson teaches a class on Revelation at Trinity and before he lets his students even begin to dig into Revelation, they have to read at least 1000 pages of this type of literature so that they can understand the genre before trying to interpret.

 

[Fly Caster]

It gives specific building plans and even details activities. I see no way to spiritualize it. Spiritualization here ignores the text.

Does one have to be a 'literalist' to recognize that God, in building a "building fitly framed together" growing into His "holy temple," would have a specific plan and detailed activities?

 

[Notthemama1984]

If we take what the actual apostles wrote literally then we arrive at premillenialism. John Macarthur is very good at explaining this. Welcome to Grace to You

If you read what Jesus said in the gospels, you will see that premillenialism is untenable.

I don't understand how.

Sproul points out that many atheists will read the Gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus prophecied that His Kingdom would come in the first century. I am out the door so I cannot post the specifics, but look at Luke 9:27, Matthew 24 (This generation will not pass....), John won't taste death until Christ returns, etc. Taking these verses literally would show that premillennialism is an impossibility. These verses have to be explained in some other way.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I don't think we will ever agree completely on this issue, so maybe we should follow the lead of John Piper and become "panmillenialists"if we just have patience, then everything will "pan"out.

 

[Claudiu]

I don't understand how.

You could read The Gospel in Revelation by Graeme Goldsworthy, or just read the gospels themselves. I think Jesus best summed it up when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The reason that the Jews crucified Jesus was because they were expecting a messiah who would overthrow the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom. Jesus made it clear that the kingdom was spiritual. People are now making the exact same mistake regarding his second coming, expecting an earthly kingdom. Let me say it again, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AND WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SPIRITUAL ONE!

I've been reading the gospels my whole life. I just don't see it. It is true that Christ has a spiritual kingdom but it is also true he will have an earthly one and all of the prophecies to Israel will be fulfilled. There is no other way to explain the temple in Ezekiel other than the premillennial model. Even Matthew Henry had no explaination for this. He called it the most difficult part of scripture. The reason for that is because Amillenialism and Postmillenialism can't explain it. It doesn't fit at all. I've never read a good explaination for it other than the premillennial model.

Luke 24: 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

To say that there is still an earthly Kingdom would be to make the same mistake the Jews made in Jesus' time, for which he rebuked them. More importantly, it would be going contrary to Jesus' words when he says "that all things must be fulfilled."

---------- Post added at 08:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 AM ----------

I read this on another thread:

I'm premillennial. However eschatology is my weakest area. I was raised amillennial but I don't believe Riddlebargers arguments make much sense anymore compared with what scripture actually says. I believe it must literal not symbolic or it just doesn't make sense.

I hear this a lot from premillenialists, and yet I have never found one single passage in the Scriptures that interpreted literally will lead me to premillenialism, without reading them with a premillenialist predisposition and/or assumption; so what are the pasages in Scripture that I'm supposed to interpret literally that will lead me to premillenialism? Is Premillenialism really an eschatological position that stems from a literal interpretation of prophecy?

No. As others have mentioned, it is not a consistent literal interpretation. Kim Riddlebarger says something along the lines of premillenialists being "literalistic" (not sure if this was the right word) but not "literal."

 

[Fly Caster]

We can clear up a lot of this by heeding the wisdom stated in Chapter 1 of the WCoF:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

I see this as the crux of the matter-- a question to be decided before we are ready to pick up the banner of any position. Is the first rule of interpreting scripture that we always apply a 'literal' meaning, or is the first rule that we apply other scripture to determine meaning?

In championing the 'literal' method, Charles Ryrie criticizes the Covenantal method with the following:

The first is this: as a result of the covenant of grace idea, covenant theology has been forced to place as its most basic principle of interpretation the principle of interpreting the Old Testament by the New. So Berkhof writes, "The main guide to the interpretation of the Old Testament is certainly to be found in the New". Ladd, too, wrote that "the present writer is ready to agree with the amillennialist that there is only one place to find a hermeneutic in the New Testament."
Of course, there is everything right about letting the New Testament guide us in our understanding of the Old Testament, but there is everything wrong about imposing the New Testament on the Old. And that is exactly what the covenant theologian does un-der the guise of a basic hermeneutical principle that tries to make Christ all in all but that in reality is guilty of superimposing Him arbitrarily on the Old Testament. He does the same with the doctrine of the church and with the concept of salvation through faith in Christ.

I don't want to assume to much, but it's pretty clear that by "imposing the New Testament on the Old" he means looking at the more-clear NT to interpret the less-clear passages of the OT. It's obvious that he is stating that one should employ the literal method and discard the method of interpreting the OT with the NT.

I fear that this strikes a blow against the Divine authorship of scripture. When one interprets the OT without refernence to the NT, he is going to end up with contradictions in his conclusions between the OT and the NT-- contradcictions which must either be reconciled with dual, seperate meanings (Israel always means Israel in the OT although it means the church a select few NT passages) and the inherit confusion that goes with it, or which must be reconciled by allowing unbelief in acknowledging that there are indeed contradictions in scripture.

We honor the Author of Scripture by acknowledging that it is it's own best interpreter. God is the author of scripture, but He is not the author of confusion. As it's author, it is His prerogative to designate it to be it's self-authenticating authority concerning it's interpretation. To protest that interpreting parts in light of clearer parts is in fact "to impose" is to assume that the book consists of divided parts compiled by divided authors held together by a divided cord.

There is still much that we can learn-- and I am but beginning my journey-- but I have to humbly reject the arguments behind the 'literal' method as unworthy. It sounds good-- it sounds noble-- in the face of unbelief and much Criticism today. But in looking more closely, I'm convinced that the Rerformers and the Divines got it right, and that the principle of applying scripture to scripture is the only safe guard against rampant unbelief and rampant confusion in circles of belief today.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

If we take what the actual apostles wrote literally then we arrive at premillenialism. John Macarthur is very good at explaining this. Welcome to Grace to You

If you read what Jesus said in the gospels, you will see that premillenialism is untenable.

I don't understand how.

Sproul points out that many atheists will read the Gospels and come to the conclusion that Jesus prophecied that His Kingdom would come in the first century. I am out the door so I cannot post the specifics, but look at Luke 9:27, Matthew 24 (This generation will not pass....), John won't taste death until Christ returns, etc. Taking these verses literally would show that premillennialism is an impossibility. These verses have to be explained in some other way.

I believe that in saying this generation will not pass away he meant that their teachings would remain in the world and relevant.

---------- Post added at 11:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

We can clear up a lot of this by heeding the wisdom stated in Chapter 1 of the WCoF:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

I see this as the crux of the matter-- a question to be decided before we are ready to pick up the banner of any position. Is the first rule of interpreting scripture that we always apply a 'literal' meaning, or is the first rule that we apply other scripture to determine meaning?

In championing the 'literal' method, Charles Ryrie criticizes the Covenantal method with the following:

The first is this: as a result of the covenant of grace idea, covenant theology has been forced to place as its most basic principle of interpretation the principle of interpreting the Old Testament by the New. So Berkhof writes, "The main guide to the interpretation of the Old Testament is certainly to be found in the New". Ladd, too, wrote that "the present writer is ready to agree with the amillennialist that there is only one place to find a hermeneutic in the New Testament."
Of course, there is everything right about letting the New Testament guide us in our understanding of the Old Testament, but there is everything wrong about imposing the New Testament on the Old. And that is exactly what the covenant theologian does un-der the guise of a basic hermeneutical principle that tries to make Christ all in all but that in reality is guilty of superimposing Him arbitrarily on the Old Testament. He does the same with the doctrine of the church and with the concept of salvation through faith in Christ.

I don't want to assume to much, but it's pretty clear that by "imposing the New Testament on the Old" he means looking at the more-clear NT to interpret the less-clear passages of the OT. It's obvious that he is stating that one should employ the literal method and discard the method of interpreting the OT with the NT.

I fear that this strikes a blow against the Divine authorship of scripture. When one interprets the OT without refernence to the NT, he is going to end up with contradictions in his conclusions between the OT and the NT-- contradcictions which must either be reconciled with dual, seperate meanings (Israel always means Israel in the OT although it means the church a select few NT passages) and the inherit confusion that goes with it, or which must be reconciled by allowing unbelief in acknowledging that there are indeed contradictions in scripture.

We honor the Author of Scripture by acknowledging that it is it's own best interpreter. God is the author of scripture, but He is not the author of confusion. As it's author, it is His prerogative to designate it to be it's self-authenticating authority concerning it's interpretation. To protest that interpreting parts in light of clearer parts is in fact "to impose" is to assume that the book consists of divided parts compiled by divided authors held together by a divided cord.

There is still much that we can learn-- and I am but beginning my journey-- but I have to humbly reject the arguments behind the 'literal' method as unworthy. It sounds good-- it sounds noble-- in the face of unbelief and much Criticism today. But in looking more closely, I'm convinced that the Rerformers and the Divines got it right, and that the principle of applying scripture to scripture is the only safe guard against rampant unbelief and rampant confusion in circles of belief today.

I believe we should employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic while observing the law of non contradiction regarding all of the 66 books of the bible. Using this method is what convinced me the doctrines of grace were truely biblical.

 

[nwink]

I believe we should employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic while observing the law of non contradiction regarding all of the 66 books of the bible. Using this method is what convinced me the doctrines of grace were truely biblical.

Heb 12:22 "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, "

I Cor 10:1-4 "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

I could give more examples, but how does one with a wooden-literal hermeneutic understand these verses? In being consistent, wouldn't they have to charge Paul with allegorizing/spiritualizing OT concepts/truths?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I believe we should employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic while observing the law of non contradiction regarding all of the 66 books of the bible. Using this method is what convinced me the doctrines of grace were truely biblical.

Heb 12:22 "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, "

I Cor 10:1-4 "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

I could give more examples, but how does one with a wooden-literal hermeneutic understand these verses? In being consistent, wouldn't they have to charge Paul with allegorizing/spiritualizing OT concepts/truths?

We don't do it like that. If a passage is obviously spiritual like these are then that is indeed the plain meaning of the text.

 

[nwink]

We don't do it like that. If a passage is obviously spiritual like these are then that is indeed the plain meaning of the text.

But were these things "obviously spiritual" when only reading the OT text?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

We don't do it like that. If a passage is obviously spiritual like these are then that is indeed the plain meaning of the text.

But were these things "obviously spiritual" when only reading the OT text?

Those things literaly happened. But had a spiritual meaning that was later explained. So on reading the OT it is indeed taken literally that The rock gushed water etc...

It takes a knowledge of the whole bible to arrive at a doctrinal position on any subject in order to ensure the law of non contradiction was observed.