Works on Old Testament from Amillennial perspective?
- Thread starter thistle93
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
While I think Geerhardus Vos transcended the petty millennial discussions (and labeling oneself a-, post-, pre usually indicates more about one's ecclesial politics), I think Vos's works would be a good place to start.
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
O.T. Allis' Prophecy and the Church is a classic, though it has been some years since I read it, so I can't really comment on his approach specifically.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Hi Matthew!
From the amil camp:
E.J. Young, a commentary on Daniel; and one on Isaiah (3 vol); he also wrote An Introduction to the Old Testament; and two smaller studies on Genesis, one on Gen 1, and one on Gen 1-3.
H.C. Leupold, commentaries on Daniel, Zechariah, and Isaiah.
Charles Alexander, commentary on Zechariah and his prophecies.
Stuart Olyott, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained.
Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church; God Spake By Moses: An Exposition of the Pentateuch; The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy.
G.K. Beale . . . he has written a number of recent works, showing the inter-relatedness of the Old and New Testaments, and the extensive use of the former in the latter. He is a premiere Old Testament scholar and commentator as well as the same for the New.
-------
Hello Jacob! When you say, "labeling oneself a-, post-, pre usually indicates more about one's ecclesial politics", this may but reflect your "exploratory, all-over-the-page" phase in the study of eschatological views at present, rather than a clear statement of fact. Likewise your saying, "the petty millennial discussions" – as such are of vital importance in discerning a sound eschatological hermeneutic.
I do, however, commend you for your open-minded exploration of the various positions; I think it important to suspend one's judgment until one is clear as to what is true.
From the amil camp:
E.J. Young, a commentary on Daniel; and one on Isaiah (3 vol); he also wrote An Introduction to the Old Testament; and two smaller studies on Genesis, one on Gen 1, and one on Gen 1-3.
H.C. Leupold, commentaries on Daniel, Zechariah, and Isaiah.
Charles Alexander, commentary on Zechariah and his prophecies.
Stuart Olyott, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained.
Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church; God Spake By Moses: An Exposition of the Pentateuch; The Unity of Isaiah: A Study in Prophecy.
G.K. Beale . . . he has written a number of recent works, showing the inter-relatedness of the Old and New Testaments, and the extensive use of the former in the latter. He is a premiere Old Testament scholar and commentator as well as the same for the New.
-------
Hello Jacob! When you say, "labeling oneself a-, post-, pre usually indicates more about one's ecclesial politics", this may but reflect your "exploratory, all-over-the-page" phase in the study of eschatological views at present, rather than a clear statement of fact. Likewise your saying, "the petty millennial discussions" – as such are of vital importance in discerning a sound eschatological hermeneutic.
I do, however, commend you for your open-minded exploration of the various positions; I think it important to suspend one's judgment until one is clear as to what is true.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I'm really not over the page. I have moved away from historic premil, true, but I still grant many of the exegetical challenges they offer other positions. I am a historicist. There is no waffling on that. I simply don't like neat-and-tidy millennial schemes. I can easily find big problems in all schemes, which is why I try to avoid that.
My political statement means this: in some microdenominations, if you are not postmillennial you cannot be ordained. Or, I am a member of some Klinean message boards and they openly state that any non amil position denies the gospel. Granted, those are extreme views, but still...
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Jacob, when you say, "I simply don't like neat-and-tidy millennial schemes. I can easily find big problems in all schemes", I'd be interested in your finding "big problems" in the amil view of the "eclectic" or "modified idealist" position of Greg Beale, Vern Poythress, Dennis Johnson et al. Such would not be well characterized as "neat-and-tidy...schemes", as they are nuanced and do draw from the sound aspects of the other schools (hence the appellation "eclectic"). *
In an earlier thread you told of some problems you had with the amil here, though these weren't substantial.
----------
Matthew, above I neglected to mention Kim Riddlebarger's, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist, as in a very interesting chapter, "Forerunners of the Antichrist: The Old Testament Background to the Doctrine of Antichrist", he draws a number of lines – from an amil perspective – of Antichrist types, and prophecies, in the OT and ties them into a number of their fulfillments in the NT, in a way I thought was quite illuminating.
----------
* Here is a brief summary of the eclectic view by Poythress, to give you an idea of it:
All the schools except the historicist school have considerable merit. Can we somehow combine them? If we start with the idealist approach, it is relatively easy. The images in Revelation enjoy multiple fulfillments. They do so because they embody a general pattern. The arguments in favor of futurism show convincingly that Revelation is interested in the Second Coming and the immediately preceding final crisis (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1-12). But fulfillment in the final crisis does not eliminate earlier instances of the general pattern. We have both a general pattern and a particular embodiment of the pattern in the final crisis.
Likewise, the arguments in favor of preterism show convincingly that Revelation is interested in the seven churches and their historical situation. The symbols thus have a particular embodiment in the first century, and we ought to pay attention to this embodiment.
Finally we have a responsibility to apply the message of Revelation to our own situation, because we are somewhere in church history, somewhere in the interadvental period to which the book applies. Here is the grain of truth in the historicist approach.
We can sum up these insights in a single combined picture. The major symbols of Revelation represent a repeated pattern. This pattern has a realization in the first-century situation of the seven churches. It also has a realization in the final crisis. And it has its embodiment now. We pay special attention to the embodiment now, because we must apply the lessons of Revelation to where we are. (The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, p. 37)
In an earlier thread you told of some problems you had with the amil here, though these weren't substantial.
----------
Matthew, above I neglected to mention Kim Riddlebarger's, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist, as in a very interesting chapter, "Forerunners of the Antichrist: The Old Testament Background to the Doctrine of Antichrist", he draws a number of lines – from an amil perspective – of Antichrist types, and prophecies, in the OT and ties them into a number of their fulfillments in the NT, in a way I thought was quite illuminating.
----------
* Here is a brief summary of the eclectic view by Poythress, to give you an idea of it:
Combining the Insights of the Schools
All the schools except the historicist school have considerable merit. Can we somehow combine them? If we start with the idealist approach, it is relatively easy. The images in Revelation enjoy multiple fulfillments. They do so because they embody a general pattern. The arguments in favor of futurism show convincingly that Revelation is interested in the Second Coming and the immediately preceding final crisis (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1-12). But fulfillment in the final crisis does not eliminate earlier instances of the general pattern. We have both a general pattern and a particular embodiment of the pattern in the final crisis.
Likewise, the arguments in favor of preterism show convincingly that Revelation is interested in the seven churches and their historical situation. The symbols thus have a particular embodiment in the first century, and we ought to pay attention to this embodiment.
Finally we have a responsibility to apply the message of Revelation to our own situation, because we are somewhere in church history, somewhere in the interadvental period to which the book applies. Here is the grain of truth in the historicist approach.
We can sum up these insights in a single combined picture. The major symbols of Revelation represent a repeated pattern. This pattern has a realization in the first-century situation of the seven churches. It also has a realization in the final crisis. And it has its embodiment now. We pay special attention to the embodiment now, because we must apply the lessons of Revelation to where we are. (The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, p. 37)
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I might in the future. As Riddlebarger commonly says, any debate on millennial positions will hinge on presuppositions. Riddlebarger approaches certain OT texts with presuppositions already in place (like Isaiah 65:20) and having reworked that text around his presuppositions, he can then draw the conclusion, "The Bible never says ________ about ____________."
The problem with these kind of discussions is that they require a huge amount of hermeneutical spade work, whic I really don't feel like doing at the moment. You say you don't find my earlier problems against amillennialism substantial. Fair enough, but I do find them substantial and I am content wtih that.
At the end fo the day, at least for now, I am happy to rest with the Reformed position on historicism (ala Gillespie, Rutherford, Knox, et al).
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Jacob, please! I really do expect more than sound-bites from you, which you avoid substantiating.
To presuppose is to have an understanding of something one brings to help illuminate and comprehend other things, and we all have such.
What you say of Riddlebarger is just fluff; he approaches the Scripture with a well-considered hermeneutic, and you seem to denigrate him for this, as though this were prejudice rather than scholarship; and your remark on his view – which you never reveal, or even cite! – of Isaiah 65:20, implying he twists the text to fit his presupposition, is uncharitable to say the very least. Apart from that derogatory innuendo you have really said nothing.
I can understand if you have not the time or inclination to do the “huge amount of hermeneutical spade work” these discussions “require”, but then why throw out sound-bites which give the impression they are the result of such hermeneutic labor, and then decline to substantiate them when challenged by someone who takes these matters very seriously (after all, we are talking of the word of our God), and who is inclined to do the spade work.
I appreciate the excellence of your mind, and so remark when you fall short of this standard.
To presuppose is to have an understanding of something one brings to help illuminate and comprehend other things, and we all have such.
What you say of Riddlebarger is just fluff; he approaches the Scripture with a well-considered hermeneutic, and you seem to denigrate him for this, as though this were prejudice rather than scholarship; and your remark on his view – which you never reveal, or even cite! – of Isaiah 65:20, implying he twists the text to fit his presupposition, is uncharitable to say the very least. Apart from that derogatory innuendo you have really said nothing.
I can understand if you have not the time or inclination to do the “huge amount of hermeneutical spade work” these discussions “require”, but then why throw out sound-bites which give the impression they are the result of such hermeneutic labor, and then decline to substantiate them when challenged by someone who takes these matters very seriously (after all, we are talking of the word of our God), and who is inclined to do the spade work.
I appreciate the excellence of your mind, and so remark when you fall short of this standard.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
I've just begun reading Vos's Eschatology of the Old Testament. I've hardly read enough of it to give an informed opinion, but it seems promising so far!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I simply do not have time to engage in large-scale eschatology debates. I gave soundbites because I figured they were originally sufficient to answer the question. I have a longer response to Riddlebarger, but I don't have time to write out multiple pages. I am content in my sanctification that such will have to do for now. Most of my time is geared towards reading Protestant Scholastic texts and dealing with converts to Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
Another of the reasons I am not spending a lot of time on this is that I am roughly amil in time-structure, and since amil is the simplest eschatological system there is no point in complex analyses. I simply dispute (though I do not hae time for a full refutation--that's life) Riddlebarger's claim that there is no text in the bible that speaks of a golden age. But since you want reasons:
1. By phrasing it "golden age," he places on the postmilllennialist (of which I am not) an extreme burden of proof. It's a smooth debating move, I grant. I simply deny the (asserted) claim that I seek a golden age.
2. I do not see the "split-mountain range" view of OT prophecy as necessarily applying to ALL of OT prophesies. Riddlebarger gives examples of it applying to other OT texts, I grant, but he does not show that such a split-view necessarilry applies to Isaiah 65:20. He is assuming what he is trying to prove.
3. If Isaiah were simply using that verse to "describe heaven in the only terms he could," pace Lee Irons, Kline, and Riddlebarger, then why didn't he just say so? If you are going to describe heaven and no dying, then why mention dying in heaven? OT Jews aren't that dense that they couldn't figure it out Anthony Hoekma actually understands this problem better than any.
4. Specifically, and on to different verses, when the gospel and the victory of the Servant goes out to the isles (Is 42 onwards), what do the isles represent? Presumably we both reject the literalist interpretation. So what do the isles represent? This is why I joking remarked that many amils simply take a red crayon and write "Jesus" OR "CHURCH" over large swaths of biblical prophecy that aren't necessarily mentioned in the New Testament and presumably don't refer to secular Israel, since that would entail premillennialism. Further, do we have any good reason for rejecting Rutherford's claim that the isles refer to Britain? Why not?
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Thank you for the response, Jacob!
A few thoughts: I do think it is the postmil and the premil that use the term “golden age” with regard to their millennial views, and not – at least initially – Riddlebarger. Where has it been asserted that you have sought a golden age (unless you are referring to your premil days)?
I gather what you call the “split mountain-range” view of prophecy is the same as what is also called “multiple fulfillment” or “prophetic perspective” with regard to certain prophecies. I have never heard it applied to Isaiah 65:20, nor do I think it appropriate.
Speaking of Isaiah 65, and verses 17 through 25, it is a difficult passage, and I have seen some excellent amil expositions of it; I have never seen Riddlebarger deal with it. The premils and postmils try to use this passage against the amil, though I think such have been answered well.
I don’t know who among the amil commentators you have consulted, OT and New, but I personally have not seen,
“many amils simply take a red crayon and write ‘Jesus’ OR ‘CHURCH’ over large swaths of biblical prophecy that aren't necessarily mentioned in the New Testament and presumably don't refer to secular Israel”
Though I suppose on internet forums this could possibly be seen, though not on PB to my knowledge.
I’m not familiar with Rutherford on eschatology. I’ll get back to you on other takes on the reference to “isles”.
I certainly agree with you that the “amil is the simplest eschatological system”, as it is the most congruous with the Biblical vision and Scriptural data.
I am not familiar, however, with what a “historicist amil” view would look like. I think the basic paradigm of the amil (aka realized or inaugurated eschatology, or present millennium) is the idealist, though that in itself – the undiluted or “consistent” idealism – distances itself from any historical referents whatever, and is comprised solely of symbols depicting dynamics throughout the NT church age. I do not hold to this view, and it is in disrepute among many – though not all – amil scholars.
The eschatology wars have left the visionary terrain in shambles and ruin, clouds of complexity obscuring the sight and understanding of many. Yet the vision of the Apocalypse given John by Christ is possessed of a great simplicity and clarity when seen through the hermeneutic of the eclectic or modified idealist approach. It is my desire to make this simplicity and clarity known. I also endeavor to answer objections from the other schools.
A few thoughts: I do think it is the postmil and the premil that use the term “golden age” with regard to their millennial views, and not – at least initially – Riddlebarger. Where has it been asserted that you have sought a golden age (unless you are referring to your premil days)?
I gather what you call the “split mountain-range” view of prophecy is the same as what is also called “multiple fulfillment” or “prophetic perspective” with regard to certain prophecies. I have never heard it applied to Isaiah 65:20, nor do I think it appropriate.
Speaking of Isaiah 65, and verses 17 through 25, it is a difficult passage, and I have seen some excellent amil expositions of it; I have never seen Riddlebarger deal with it. The premils and postmils try to use this passage against the amil, though I think such have been answered well.
I don’t know who among the amil commentators you have consulted, OT and New, but I personally have not seen,
“many amils simply take a red crayon and write ‘Jesus’ OR ‘CHURCH’ over large swaths of biblical prophecy that aren't necessarily mentioned in the New Testament and presumably don't refer to secular Israel”
Though I suppose on internet forums this could possibly be seen, though not on PB to my knowledge.
I’m not familiar with Rutherford on eschatology. I’ll get back to you on other takes on the reference to “isles”.
I certainly agree with you that the “amil is the simplest eschatological system”, as it is the most congruous with the Biblical vision and Scriptural data.
I am not familiar, however, with what a “historicist amil” view would look like. I think the basic paradigm of the amil (aka realized or inaugurated eschatology, or present millennium) is the idealist, though that in itself – the undiluted or “consistent” idealism – distances itself from any historical referents whatever, and is comprised solely of symbols depicting dynamics throughout the NT church age. I do not hold to this view, and it is in disrepute among many – though not all – amil scholars.
The eschatology wars have left the visionary terrain in shambles and ruin, clouds of complexity obscuring the sight and understanding of many. Yet the vision of the Apocalypse given John by Christ is possessed of a great simplicity and clarity when seen through the hermeneutic of the eclectic or modified idealist approach. It is my desire to make this simplicity and clarity known. I also endeavor to answer objections from the other schools.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Here is my position in a nutshell
I read the entry for antichristus in Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Sources. He gives the basic summary of the historicist position. So here is how I look at it: per timing and structure, I accept the Reformed position that the papacy is the antichrist. I also accept the basic amillennial timeline (millennium is now). The historicist narrative would seem to give it a "postmillennial" flavor to it, given the destruction of Antichrist, etc. If so, so be it. I really don't care about labels. I have no desire to defend either "postmillennialism" or "random ethic common grace amillennialism." I admit a sort of tension follows. That's fine. I've come to accept the dictum of "Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty," so I have no problem in saying that this system isn't as neat and tidy as one could make it. In fact, I would be worried if it were.
I read the entry for antichristus in Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Sources. He gives the basic summary of the historicist position. So here is how I look at it: per timing and structure, I accept the Reformed position that the papacy is the antichrist. I also accept the basic amillennial timeline (millennium is now). The historicist narrative would seem to give it a "postmillennial" flavor to it, given the destruction of Antichrist, etc. If so, so be it. I really don't care about labels. I have no desire to defend either "postmillennialism" or "random ethic common grace amillennialism." I admit a sort of tension follows. That's fine. I've come to accept the dictum of "Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty," so I have no problem in saying that this system isn't as neat and tidy as one could make it. In fact, I would be worried if it were.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
