Whither A-Millennialism?
By Ian Shaw
(This message was given at a Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony meeting in
Our subject is the
theological system of a-millennialism, and I purpose to define this system of interpretation,
and to show its errors and weaknesses.
My approach is not an academic one, but I trust it will be a practical
one. As a Christian, and with over
25 years in pastoral work and preaching, I have come across people with the
view that we are discussing. I have
read their theological works and their commentaries. I have spoken with them, and listened to
their preaching.*
[* The Jew is right by
interpreting literally the words of God’s prophets of old, concerning the
“day” to come, (2 Pet. 3: 8; Rev. 20: 4, 6). The Anti-Millennialist would prove, if
he could, that there is only one kingdom of God – an everlasting kingdom
in “a new heaven and a new earth”, (Rev. 21: 1): but they overlook God’s
promises to our Lord Jesus Christ (Psa. 2: 6, 9),
to Abraham and Jews (Gen. 22: 18. cf. Acts 7: 5) and to regenerate believers, (Gal. 3: 16, 18, 29): that is, to the overcomers
amongst them (Rev. 3 & 4): “I am coming
soon, Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown”
(Rev. 3: 11).
William Tyndale was quoted as having said: “There is none other way into the
“He who does not expect the personal return of the Lord Jesus
Christ to rule this earth nullifies the plain meaning of [God’s] prophets and apostles and of the Lord Himself, that is, the
Bible entire; and, there being simply no other guide to the future, he sails
into coming international darkness and tempest with neither chart, compass,
rudder, nor star of hope by which to steer or to be cheered. Yea, more and worse; he will be misled
by man’s unwarranted expectations which will utterly disappoint him:”
(G. H. Lang).
“He (Jesus Christ “the
King”) will rule from sea to sea and from
the River (
My desire is to
understand the teaching of the early church. It is not what 19th Century
Presbyterians believed, or even what 16th Century Reformers or 17th
Century Puritans understood, but what the
early church, as revealed in the
Book of Acts, learned from the Prophets.
INTRODUCTION
I have no desire to set up a straw man and knock
it over; that would not be profitable.
More importantly, it would not be glorifying to the Lord. I try to be honest and faithful with
this subject, in my reading and studying, and in my conversations with
a-millennialists. I seek to
understand their viewpoint, and I have done this seriously because my background is not a-millennial, but
post-millennial. Thus, I am
delving into a position from which I have not come, nor experienced.
In my research I have read theological works and
commentaries of some of the leading a-millennialists of this century and the
last century; but most particularly the
19th century, as it was then that this idea really developed as a
system. It seems to me the idea
of a-millennialism began with Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century,
and it has been held by people throughout the centuries; but, as I see it, it became a theological system with the
Princeton Theological Professors in the
I give an example. I have attended a church without a
pastor, which therefore had itinerant [wandering] preachers.
There were a-millennialists who came, and the same passage would be
preached on with completely different understandings being manifested. Although there may have been a general
consensus of opinion, there was a lot of variety.
I wish to confine our thoughts to the Book of
the Acts, as it records the time when truth was passed on to others by the
apostles. This was when the church
at
Further, in my studies, I have realised that the
Book of the Acts is the battleground between the ‘pre,’
‘post’ and ‘a’ millennial positions. I think if we have a good understanding
of the Acts of the Apostles (in its prophetic sections - where it quotes from
the Old Testament), then we shall better understand the other parts of the New
Testament. It has clarified my own
thinking on how the Old Testament was treated by Christians living in New
Testament days. It is the fruit of
that study that I want to bring to you.
A Definition of the Word
‘Whither’
Our subject is ‘Whither a-millennialism?’ The word ‘whither’ has three
definitions, depending on the tense used.
These are, ‘to what place,’ ‘to what point,’ or,
‘how far.’ I have taken the last, for that is what
we cannot trust - how far this system [of
a-millennial teaching] takes people. It
has many weaknesses as well as dangers.
There are dangers for the soul, dangers for our blessing, and, more
importantly, dangers because it robs God of His Glory. I find that it is human-centred rather than God-centred. It is pessimistic rather than optimistic. I believe our pre-millennial view is an
extremely optimistic one in the sense that we
look forward to the Christ of God coming into our midst, ruling and reigning
upon the [this]
earth,* and having a thousand years of glory,
showing what the earth will be like when
ruled by the Creator of all things.
[*As we look at God’s groaning creation, and
the way in which its sufferings are increasing day by day, we have a vivid
picture of pregnancy: and that pregnancy must increase until the time of the birth
from below. That is, at
the time of Christ’s descent, and not before then for, “the dead in Christ [now in ‘in the heart of the earth’] will rise [up out of Hades] first:” (1 Thess. 4:
16); cf.
But, are all ‘the
dead in Christ,’ going to be resurrected when Jesus returns? No.
Only “those who are considered worthy of taking part
in that age” (Luke 20: 35). That is, the Millennial Age when His
“glory” will be displayed over the
whole earth: “for the earth will be full of
the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11: 9).
Jesus’ words point us forward to an “age” yet to come at the time of His return. It will also be a time of “rest” for those of His redeemed people, who
“make every effort to enter” (Heb. 4: 11). That “rest”
is millennial-rest;
it is “a Sabbath-rest” for His
redeemed people. It is also a
‘rest’ for this earth for “a thousand years”- there will be “no longer any sea” in the “new
earth”: (Rev. 21: 1).]
An A-Millennial
Statement
Professor
Louis Berkhof
stated in his book, ‘Systematic
Theology,’ in a section on Millennial Views, ‘the idea of the millennium ... is not an integral part of Reformed theology.’ However, after that, he conceded that
‘Reformed theology cannot afford to ignore the
wide-spread millenarian views.’ The a-millennialists of today have
ignored Dr Berkhof because they have ignored pre-millennialism. Sadly, I have found, in my own
experience, that a-millennialists neither
know nor understand our position, and fear its implications.
A Definition of
‘A-millennialism’
Here is a definition of a-millennialism by Dr
Berkhof. He said, ‘There
are large numbers, however, who do not believe that the Bible warrants the
expectation of a millennium, and it has become customary of late to speak of
them A-millennialists. The
a-millennial view is, as the name indicates, purely negative.’
(With that second phrase we would concur).
‘It
holds that there is no sufficient Scriptural ground for the expectation of a
millennium, and is firmly convinced that the Bible favours the idea that the
present dispensation of the kingdom of God will be followed immediately by the
kingdom of God in its consummate and eternal forms.’ I
must say that the present is not the kind of millennium I find attractive.
Dr. Berkhof is not alone in his theories. I refer later to Mr J A Alexander, because he wrote a commentary on Acts. He was a Presbyterian of the 19th
Century, and a man greatly respected by the peers of his time and by those who
survived him. His books are still
being published.
The a‑millennial
theory is based on a spiritual interpretation of the prophetic writers
concerning the future, and the outlook of the spiritual fulfilment rather than
the literal fulfilment. When
a-millennialists go to the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, they only look
for spiritual interpretations, and do not take what is printed on the page as
literal.*
[* By looking for amd using spiritual
interpretations, the deplorable thing about much of today’s litriture is
that it should never have been written.
By denying the wonderful outburst
of prophetic light in the nineteenth century, they are set on restoring the
prophetic outlook of four centuries ago, with a present millennium, an historic
Apocalypse, no literal reign of Christ on this earth and the nation of
“The
You might well wonder about those poor
Christians who do not have a theological education or do not hold theological
degrees, who are not steeped in Hebrew and Greek, and who have not spent their
lives in academia. You may well wonder
about all those glorious Christians with a simple faith from the first century
until now, who just went to the Word
of God and found their theology there, by reading and believing what it
said. I say reverently, we are
not commanded to merely read the Bible and understand it, but the Lord intends
us to believe His Word and accept by faith those things we do not understand.* Reading and believing are necessary. There are things in the Bible that I do not
understand, and there are things that I do not expect to understand until I
experience the great joys to which I look forward in the future, but I believe
these things by faith.
[* It would appear that the majority of
Christians do not understand that God is a Rewarder
of all who diligently walk in
obedience to His commands.
Enoch walked with and pleased God, and was rewarded by being rapt
into heaven; Noah walked and pleased God, and was saved through the Flood; and
Christians who walk with God by living to please Him, will escape the
Great Tribulation, (Luke 21: 34-36; Rev. 3: 10).
“If we understand
aright his [God’s] character, and abstain
from those things which justly offend him, all his divine perfections are on
our side. But if we transgress, the
wrecks of former ages may assure us, that he will vindicate his own glory on
us, as he did on the guilty ones of old.
“This history of
“The First
Recurrection is limited to a portion of the redeemed Church; that while eternal
life and [an eternal] inheritance are of faith
and free grace, and common to all regenerate believers freely as such, the millennial crown and the first
resurrection are a reward – the reward of suffering for and with
Christ; a special glory, designed to comfort and support believers under
persecution: a need and use which I have little doubt the Church will before
long be called on collectively to experience…” (William
Bough). “All honest difficulty on this truth vanishes, I think, when
we examine what God rewards:” (D. M. Panton).]
Acts 1: 6
- 11
Dr Berkhof said, ‘It is remarkable that the New Testament, which is the
fulfilment of the Old, contains no indication whatsoever of the
re-establishment of the Old Testament theocracy by Jesus, nor a single
undisputed positive prediction of its restoration.’ I would answer his comment by going to
this passage of the Word of God. In
verse 6, we see a corporate [united] coming
together of the disciples immediately prior to our Lord leaving the earthly
scene in His ascension. They
brought a corporate question to the Lord Jesus Christ, asking, ‘Lord, wilt Thou at this
time restore again the kingdom to
What would we say if we knew someone was going
to [heavenly] glory? What would be our last
conversation? This is what was
happening here, and there was this burning question. It was not just a random question. It was not just an impulse of
Peter’s. This was the burning
question, and it was a corporate question. It was not
only one person asking but the whole group as they gathered together, and within the question there was a burning priority.
The burning priority was about the timing
– ‘Is it now?’* Our a-millennial friends seem to miss
this point; they think of the event, not about time. Our Lord graciously answered the
disciples by saying that it was not for them ‘to
know the times and the seasons.’ Then, the Lord said that the Father had
put such times into ‘His Own power.’ Here we see human ignorance, and the latter
part of the verse tells us of divine knowledge. The Father knows the time. These
disciples had no problem with the event.
[* There can be no doubt that the regenerate are now
in “the
They believed that the kingdom was to be
restored. The timing was the
important question, which is entirely in keeping with what we read in the
Gospels. It is not for us to know
that time either, so there is nothing new here. We are kept in ignorance about the time
and it is good that it is so.
The disciples’ question was in parts. It relates to the ‘restoring again,’ ‘the kingdom to
The Lord Jesus Christ was laying the foundation
of His second advent and the restoration of His kingdom at the beginning of
this new era and this was an opportunity to clarify false hopes and
misunderstood teaching. This would
have been the occasion because He was about to ascend into heaven and it was
the last time that they would view Him, and hear Him in the flesh. If their question was wrong, if the
priority within the question was wrong, if
their [millennial] hopes
were wrong, this would have been the time to put them right, but the Lord does
not do this.
There is encouragement in the Lord’s reply
to believe the literal hope fostered
by the inspired prophets. What our
Lord told His disciples was, that it was not for them to know the times and the
seasons of the great future event.
Then, in verse 8, we have the further
revelation by the Lord of what would be given until the manifest kingdom of our
Lord, ‘But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye
shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.’ Here the Lord spoke of the era before the restoration of the manifest kingdom. It is the era of God the Holy Spirit
when He will give power to His Church.
He was to send out His people; they were to begin initially at
Verse 9 tells us of the Lord
being ‘taken up,’ and in verses 10 ‑ 11 we read, ‘And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went
up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of
Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, Which is taken up from
you into heaven, shall so come in like
manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.’ Here is the encouragement to believe
that the kingdom, asked about by the disciples, will be post [after the]
second advent, after this age of God the Holy Spirit, in which we are
now living.
Now this
was the teaching of the church in those days.* The truth was to be taken into the
world; there was to be preaching of foundation truth concerning salvation and
redemption in Jesus Christ alone.
We might imagine some of those disciples, years later, recalling how
they took the message of the atonement, the resurrection, the doctrine of
election, to the world, and as they thought of the ascension, they would
remember that they had also made known the hope of the restoration of
[* Barnabas
in the first century thus comments upon these words of Moses: “
‘And God made in six days the work of his hands,
and he finished on the seventh day, and he rested in it, and sanctified it.’ This it
signifies, that the Lord God will finish all things in six thousand years. For a day with him is as a thousand
years; as he himself testifieth, saying, ‘Behold
this day shall be as a thousand years.’ Therefore,
children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, shall all things be
consummated. ‘And he rested the seventh thousand day’; this signifies, that when his Son shall come, and shall
abolish the season of the Wicked one, and shall judge the ungodly, and shall
change the sun and the moon and the stars, then he shall rest gloriously in
that seventh day” (Epist. Cap. 15).]
Now if the a‑millennial assumption of the
Old Testament prophets merely having a spiritual meaning is correct, then
surely when a prophet is quoted in the New Testament we would expect the
meaning of the prophecy to be made clear.
The desire of the a‑milennialist is to assume that this prophecy
should read ‘rule My church,’ or
‘rule My disciples,’ or ‘rule My elect;’ but that was not said. It is ‘My people
Acts
2:16-21
We have noted that the a-millennialist gives no
warrant in the New Testament for a future kingdom [upon
this earth], and we have observed from Acts 1 that there
certainly is such warrant. Acts 2:17-21 is a quotation from Joel 2: 28-32. Mr
Alexander, dealing with this passage, said, ‘The
negative defence is followed by the positive.’ That is true. Peter said those men were not drunken,
it being only the third hour of the day.
Mr Alexander added, ‘This is not intoxication, it is inspiration, and the
fulfilment of a signal prophecy.’ So, we have an a-millennialist saying
that Joel 2:28‑32 is ‘a signal prophecy.’ Signals on the road are to be followed
to preserve our own safety and that of others; and they are to be looked for
because they give guidance as to when to stop and when to go.
He gives, in this passage, three ways in which
we should of necessity go. He says,
‘In all such cases, it is necessary, first, to
identify the passage; then, to ascertain the form of the quotation; and
finally, to fix the sense in which it is applied.’ That gives us an idea of his
thinking. He does not use the word
‘interpreted,’ but ‘applied.’ Let us follow him.
He says, ‘The
first question is determined here, partly by the mention of the prophet’s
name.’ Well, I would
not say just partly but particularly ‑ by the prophet’s name. We are told in verse
16, ‘But this is that which was spoken by
the prophet Joel.’ It is not Amos, not Isaiah, not David,
not Jeremiah, but Joel. There is
nothing ‘partly’ about that; it is
definitely Joel. So far we agree
the prophet’s name, and the actual existence of the passage quoted in the
text of the Old Testament.
Basically, he says we find in Acts 2: 16-21 the
passage from Joel. Thus he asserts
the first part has been answered.
Next, he desires that we ‘ascertain the form of the quotation,’ and by
that he means, to whom is it directed?
We find a wide array of people mentioned in verses
17-18. It is to ‘all flesh,’ ‘your
sons, and your daughters,’ ‘your
young men,’ ‘your old men,’
male and female servants. We know
where this Scripture comes from; we know of whom it is speaking; and we know
who it is going to affect because we read it in the passage. So far we are in agreement with Mr
Alexander. However, he has a
problem in verse 17 with the three words
‘prophesy,’ ‘visions,’ and ‘dreams.’
Mr. Alexander says, ‘As we do not read of any such effects at Pentecost, the
terms of the prediction must have been understood by the apostles as figures
and types of extraordinary spiritual influence, and not as the precise forms in
which the promise was to be fulfilled.’ As he did not see prophecy, visions, or
dreams, he thought they must be figures and types. Now where does he go for his
authority? He concluded Pentecost
is not in the precise form that Joel predicted. It was not the exact form because they
spoke in tongues.
Prophecy in the Bible is not just foretelling
the future; it is also forth-telling.
In earlier days, Scottish Free Church Presbyterian Ministers were called
prophets, not because they foretold events but because they forth-told the Word
of God, or, in other words, they preached.
Could that not be part of the prophecy, forth-telling the Word of God?
Who knows whether these people at that time ‑
or the night before, or in weeks succeeding ‑ had visions and
dreams? That may be conjecture, but
a-millennialists make fatal errors.
Look at this passage in Acts; notice
‘they were all with one accord in one place.’ Those mentioned in chapter 1: 6 would have been there, and also the
hundred and twenty referred to later in the chapter together with the vast
array of people spoken of in Acts 2: 9-11,
who were from different parts of what was then the
Let us have a careful look at the passage. Joel 2: 28
speaks about the start of an age.
That is important because Mr Alexander, who is representative of
a-millennialists, sees that this prophecy will be fulfilled in one day, but
that is not what Joel predicts. The
age is to begin with dreams and visions; and in the Acts of the Apostles we
find prophets - one named Agabus; we find people speaking in tongues - the
verification of the message from heaven in the apostolic era; we see Peter and
Comelius having visions, dreams. Joel was not predicting a one-day event; he
was speaking of an age. Going
on to Joel 2: 32, this passage speaks of
calling upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, which we do in the age in which we are living. In Joel 2:30
we read of the approach of the end of the age. Verse 31
gives the events immediately prior to the end of the age. Also in verse
31 we see the second advent itself.
At the end of verse 32, we note the Deliverer will come to
Joel was predicting an age, from the apostolic
era with the apostolic gifts, to the Deliverer coming to
The passage in Acts follows
exactly the same format in its every detail. It is the initial formalisation of the
age. Verse
17 refers to the day of Pentecost.
In verse 21 is the calling of the
elect through this age. Verse 19 speaks of the end of this age. Verse 21
gives the precursors of the second coming, and at the end of verse 20 there is the second advent itself,
‘The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before that great and
notable day of the Lord come.’
You will know other texts that would compare
with that, but Mr Alexander (with other a-millennialists) has a problem with
this verse. He says, ‘These are prophetic figures for great and sudden
revolutionary changes’ ‑ not astral events but mere revolutionary
changes in that day. So Mr
Alexander comes to this verse and because
the things stated did not happen on the day of Pentecost he considers it must
be figurative; he says ‘it is symbolical.’ He must find another meaning; and
countless thousands of others who have come to this passage have done the same.
Matthew 24: 29-30 speaks of astral
activity before our Lord Jesus comes back again. Comparing scripture with scripture it
becomes obvious that a-millennialists show blinkered reasoning. They look upon this as a day and not as
an age. The prophet saw far beyond
the day of Pentecost. He was still
looking onward through the coming centuries, looking at the whole age from its
inception to its culmination.
I do some climbing in the
We could ask the a-millennialist, when will be
‘that great and notable day of the Lord’
mentioned in verse 20? If they look upon that as being one day,
it cannot be the first advent as that has passed. You may be forgiven for saying it is the
first advent of our Lord Jesus Christ if you only had the Book of Joel, but it
is explained here in Acts. Surely, we cannot miss the understanding
that it speaks of an age. The
a-millennialists would be more ready to apply this to our moral and ethical
situation, rather than give us the plain meaning of it.
This is the first
key to be found, that a-millennialists do not clearly distinguish prophetic,
especially apocalyptic, Scriptures.
They do not distinguish between
the first and the second advents. I
am becoming more and more convinced that they see the second advent from the
New Testament only, not from the Old Testament. I could be wrong with that, and given
the variety of a-millennialists, there are probably exceptions to the rule, but
I think, generally speaking, that when an Old Testament passage is quoted in
the New Testament, they have a problem distinguishing what is the first advent
and what is the second advent - the great and notable Day of the Lord. You need a key to open a door and this
first key opens a door to our understanding. This is one area in which
a-millennialists fall down, they do not distinguish between the first and the
second advents. That is why, when
they preach, they are blurred on one aspect or the other, because they do not
clearly distinguish.
Acts 2:
29-36
This passage is another example of how weak the
a-millennial system of interpretation is.
It is agreed that this passage is a quotation from three passages of
Scripture - 2 Samuel 7: 12-16, Psalm 89: 34,
and Psalm 132: 11. Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, shows
that these passages speak of the resurrection of the body,* and in particular, the resurrection of our Lord
Jesus Christ. We agree with
a-millennialists here; but the Scripture speaks of more. They only see resurrection, as they do
not look into the verses which follow.
We are in complete agreement that this passage speaks of the
resurrection, and particularly the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
a-millennialists try to find a complete fulfilment. They look for the whole prophecy to be
fulfilled at that time.
[* The expression, ‘the
resurrection of the body’ is nowhere to be found in Scripture;
we read always of, “the resurrection of
the dead.”
Why? Because Resurrection, when
it takes place, embraces the whole man and not just his body. It effects the state of not just the decomposed
‘body,’ but also that of his
disembodied
‘soul’: “Moreover my flesh (i.e. the body) also shall dwell [Gk. ‘tabernacle’]
in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my
soul
in Hades: (Acts 2: 26b, 27,
R.V.) As long as the body lies in
the grave, the soul remains in Hades: that is, not inside a tomb or a coffin,
but “in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12: 40; 16: 18. cf.
Luke 16: 23, etc.). Hence
Paul saught the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings, and hoped
to “attain
unto the resurrection (out) from the dead” (Phil
3: 10-12, Lit. Gk.). The
inspired apostle knew that not all who were regenerate would attain the ‘First’ resurrection; and to be resurrected at that
time, would enable one to enter the Messiah’s millennial kingdom
before the last general ‘resurrection of the dead,’
‘a thousand years’ later.]
In 2 Samuel 7: 12‑16,
we see God speaking to David, in verse 12, about
Solomon (not about Christ in this case).
That is confirmed in verse 13 because
it speaks about Solomon building the temple and the Lord God establishing
Solomon’s kingdom; and notice the words, ‘for
ever.’ In verse 14, God is clearly speaking about Solomon’s future conduct, not the
Lord Jesus Christ; not Rehoboam, not others, but Solomon in particular. Verse 15
continues the same, but when we come to verse 16
we notice a covenant is being initiated, the eternal covenant that was established with David. Notice it has three parts ‑ (1)
his house, (2) his kingdom, (3) his throne. So, we have here a person, a kingdom, and a throne promised and predicted with the
addition, ‘for ever.’
In Psalm 89:3a
there is a quotation from 2 Samuel 7 but
with inspired additions. In verse 3 there is mention of a covenant with a
particular person, a chosen servant, David, confirmed by a divine oath with
referenc to the future. It is to be
established with his seed ‘for ever,’
and the throne built ‘to all generations’
(verse 4).
In Psalm 132: 11
more evidence is given to the everlasting covenant of God with David, ‘the LORD hath sworn in truth.’ That is repeated, for it continues,
‘He will not turn from it.’ So, we find a triple affirmation with
the truth of this passage and the other two passages, and in Acts all these passages are brought together. This triple affirmation is by One Who
does not need any affirmation because He is the Lord God, Creator and Maker of
heaven and earth. The promise is
that ‘of the fruit of thy body (notice,
a person) will I
set upon thy throne.’
There the throne is spoken of again, and it is David’s throne that is mentioned.
We can conclude from these three passages, and
their being brought together in Acts, that we are looking for two clear events not one; and this is where the
a-millennialist falters. We have
seen that these verses speak of the resurrection, as does Acts 2: 31, ‘He
seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,* that His soul was not left in hell [Hades], neither His flesh did see corruption.’
[* After a preview on the Mount of
Transfiguration, of the coming messianic kingdom, Jesus told the three
disciples not to mention what they saw “until the
Son of Man had risen [out] from the dead” (Mark
9: 9, Lt. Gk.). Now these
words troubled the disciples.
Why? Because of the Greek
preposition “ek” (“out”).
Ek nekron anaste ‘risen OUT FROM dead ones’. It was the presence of this preposition in
His statement, that caused the disciples, on that occasion, to question meaning
of His words. It was something
which was additional to their common creed. It was this select resurrection that
demonstrated Christ with “power to be the Son of God” and “the Firstborn of the dead and the Ruler of the kings of the
earth” (Rom. 1: 4; Rev. 1: 5):
when He left the place of the dead, all others in Hades were left behind, to
await His judgement before the time of their resurrection. This is the main thrust of Peter’s
speech on the day of Pentecost for he said: “David
DID NOT ASCEND TO HEAVEN”
(verse 34). Now if the soul, as is commonly
believed, can ascend into heaven at the time of death, what need would there be
for Resurrection? Does resurrection
not have to include both body and soul?
When Jesus rose from the dead, His soul was united to His body:
and He did not return to His Father in heaven until some time AFTER His resurrection, (John 20: 17): and neither can we. Those who believe they can are mistaken;
and with so many regenerate believers now holding on to mistaken and
unscriptural teachings, who would be interested in reigning with Christ upon
this earth, if they were already enjoying the presence of God in heaven? It is no wonder the importance of a
select resurrection to be attained is being ignored; and the belief of the
Millennium is being openly rejected by the A-millennialists. The “First
Resurrection” is the door which will lead those “considered wiorthy” into an earthly inheritance
in “the kingdom of the heavens” (Matt. 5: 20).
Luke 20: 35; Rev. 20: 4-6.
“How strange,”
says Robert Govett, “that any, after this clear
passage – (that ‘David is not
ascended’) – should fancy that the
saints are in heaven now!”
“For if you have conversed
with some that are called Christians, and do not maintain these opinions (the
millennarian), but even dare to blaspheme the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and say that there is no
resurrection of the dead, but that the souls, as they leave the body,
are received up into heaven, take care that you do not look upon these
as Christians…” (Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).]
But we have the protection and preservation of
the line in the Lord Jesus Christ, not in Rehoboam or Hezekiah, but in the
preservation of a line for the future in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Christ. Notice, we have two
confirmations in verse 32, ‘This Jesus hath God raised’ (the divine
affirmation) and, ‘we all are witnesses’
(the human confirmation). After
this, we find in verses 33-34, the
Lord’s ascension and exaltation [: and
not David’s].
This is not rocket science; it is simply taking
up the Bible and reading in Acts.
There we find a quotation from the prophet; we read the prophet and
understand the prophet better, and understand the Acts better. Firstly, we realise there is a
resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, followed by Pentecost, all at the
beginning of the [this evil] age.
Secondly, there is an exaltation of the Lord to sit at the right hand of
the Father (verse 34) ‘until I make Thy foes
Thy footstool’ (verse 35). This ‘until’
reminds us of a future time [and ‘age’], and when
we make comparisons with other Scriptures, we find that this will be the time when the Lord Jesus Christ comes back in power
and manifest glory.
Now, the a-millennialists think David’s
throne is transferred into heaven, but the passage tells us that ‘David is not ascended into the heavens,’
because he has not, as we have not,
experienced the bodily resurrection yet. So David’s throne cannot be in heaven. The throne that he has never sat upon
cannot be his throne. Some time ago
I was able to sit on the seat of the great John Gill. It was his chair because he sat on it;
but that throne in heaven could never be David’s because he has never sat
on it (and I do not think that it is any mistake that the inspired writer has
included this phrase here).
So, the first part of the Davidic promise was
fulfilled with the resurrection [of Jesus
Christ].
The second part of the promise relates to Christ sitting upon the [Father’s]
throne, waiting until His enemies are made His footstool ‑ till His
second advent ‑ and then
sitting upon the throne of David.
We, as pre-millennialists, see a part fulfilment here and a continuing fulfilment when the Lord
shall return from His divine throne to sit on David’s throne, exactly as
predicted.
A-millennialists try to find a complete
fulfilment, not only in these verses but in all these passages. They try to find a complete fulfilment
whenever a prophet is quoted. You do
not find that method of understanding in passages in the gospels when it speaks
about our Lord’s first advent.
So, is it legitimate to expect that method in passages dealing with the
second advent? Looking for a
complete fulfilment in New Testament quotes from Old Testament prophetic
Scripture is clearly a weakness in their system. It leads to fanciful reasoning,
unwarranted conclusions, and disharmony amongst commentators. I have found some a-millennialists will
not even deal with those parts of Scripture. Here is the second key – that a-millennialists constantly look for a
complete fulfilment.
When I looked for J A Alexander’s handling
of the throne I found he does not deal with it. Looking for the rebuilding of the
tabernacle mentioned in Acts 15, he does not
deal with that. It seems that when a-millennialists [and post-millennialists] come
across something they find difficult they go round it. These are commentators preparing pastors
(who have busy ministries) to understand the Word, and they do not deal clearly
with Scriptures in the Old Testament dealing with the second advent. In fact, and this is serious, some
a-millennialists will even turn away from the Authorised Version and will
introduce an alternative reading because it suits their particular
viewpoint. So, they turn from the
Textus Receptus to an unreliable version because it suits their fancy.
I thought I may have just stumbled across one
example, but no, I found this pattern in many passages, and not just in one
a-millennial writer. They are
always ready to use the spiritualising approach, ‘How can
we get out of this? Is there
another reading?’ If
there is one that favours their view, they will use this reading. That is unfaithful. They are willing to accept some words in
the one version but not the rest.
Acts
3:18-26
The handling of this passage shows how a plain
straight-forward Scripture is muddled by a-millennialism. J. A. Alexander commented on the phrase,
‘Those things, which God before had shewed.’ He tells us, ‘Before
had showed is more exactly rendered in the Rhemish version’
‑ a papal version which substantiates his own point of view.
Verse 19 says, ‘Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the
Lord.’ Mr Alexander
has a difficulty because this is speaking, at the end of the verse, about the
second advent, so why is there the space of time between people repenting and
having to wait for refreshing from the Lord at His second coming? I record this to show you the tensions
that they perceive.
Of the word ‘refreshing’
he says, ‘the English versions’ (which
would include the Authorised Version) ‘must be set aside upon a double
ground; because it violates the usage of the language to ... be philologically justified ... Looking simply at this verse, the times of refreshing ... might denote nothing more than the relief from pain and
other pleasurable feelings, which accompany repentance and conversion.’ They always have to be redefining these
Scriptures. They cannot accept them
as the straightforward passages they are.
They look for other authoritics.
They make tensions for themselves.
This is the strange thing. I could go on, but will
leave it at that, although I would like to have mentioned Acts 15.
Conclusions
Having had a number of a-millennialists in my
home, I have tried an experiment - I have told them exactly what I believe to
see what reactions I would get. I
have found that the vast majority of them have not shown us the respect of
seriously considering the pre-millennial viewpoint. They are not familiar with the truth
that we hold.
One minister was aghast that Philippians 2, which speaks about the Lord being known
in all the earth, was a prophecy about the second advent. He told me it was a theological passage
dealing with the first advent! He
was staggered that I looked upon it as a second advent passage. It is, of course, a quotation from
Habakkuk in the Old Testament. It
is very clearly second advent, but because he had not studied it he was unaware
of its implications.
As discussions have developed, I found that such
ministers have no reasoned or reasonable reply. One of them said that things were getting
better in the world. Clearly things
are getting worse. There may be
localised revivals in some parts of the world, like areas in Africa or South
East Asia; but we are living in a post-Christian culture in this country, and,
generally speaking, the more advanced men become the more depraved they
are. Giving them computers or
adding to the length of life through medical advances does not make society any
better.
A-millennialists seem to me to be abysmally
ignorant of what we stand for - some of
them even associate our beliefs with dispensationalism. A guest in my home, from a
dispensational background, said that when he went to college he was taught the
a-millennial viewpoint; and he threw away all his dispensational baggage. I think that they consider that our
pre-millennial position goes to the same excesses as that of dispensationalism,
with the same type of false conclusions and muddled thinking; but we are not dispensationalists, we are
historic pre-millennialists. We hold to the same viewpoint, by and
large, that the church did for the first three centuries - before
A-millennialists also tend to associate our viewpoint with that of the cults. Some cults may have a form of
pre-millennialism, but at least they have an optimistic viewpoint, which is
more than we can say for a-millennialists!
We give Christ His place as
co-equal with the Father, whereas the cults do not. One of the powers of cults is that they
take strands of the truth and weave it into their false beliefs, but that does not make that misused truth
any less true. I do not know if
the
I have also found that a-millennialists tend to think that pre-millennialism is immature, and
consequently naive. I have even
heard a chairman of a conference say that as a young Christian matures he
progresses from pre-millennialism to a-millennialism to post
millennialism. Many of those training for the ministry do not want to be found holding
to a belief which is seen as immature!
Today
pre-millenialism is a minority wiewpoint, and while minority does not mean
incorrect, how many people want to be in the minority? Remember the twelve spies that came back
to Moses. There was a majority
report which was unfavourable and there was a minority report by two of them,
Joshua and Caleb.
Another
viewpoint links pre-millennialism with Arminianism. I have asked, ‘Have you not heard
of the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, which proclaims the doctrine of grace
and pre-millennial truth?’ but sad to say, many do not know there is a
group of people who hold to the doctrine of grace and give the Lord His due
glory, and who also have this great optimistic view of the future.
I feel that the a-millennial position is one of
intellectual snobbery, which seeks human approbation. Men tend to ask, What says Luther? What says
Calvin? What says David Brown? Well, I say, What saith the
Scriptures? That is where we
should be looking for approbation.
We should not bother about what men, however great or good, say. They may have been men greatly used of
the Lord but they were only men.
Years ago, I was post-millennial. Looking back, I can say I did not hold
to that belief out of conviction but because it was a generally held belief of
the peer group in which I was. It
seems to me that many a-millennialists hold that position because it is the
consensus of the majority of the men they have been taught to respect.
Let me close by telling you of an American of
the last century, a man named George
Eldon Ladd. He said that more
people have become modernists and liberals from an a-millennial position than
from a pre-millennial point of view.
I do not doubt that this is the case because the pre-millennial
viewpoint causes us to be honest with the Scriptures and honest to ourselves;
and above all things we want to glorify the Lord of the Scriptures.
I think, as the Lord’s people, we have to
bear a testimony, and I desire to continue my challenges to
a-millennialists. I take the things
that I glean from studying the Scriptures and with these two keys of which I
have spoken, I try to show the sad mistakes being made. Oh! what a vast amount of blessing these
people lose; and what a vast amount of blessing I have received since Mr James Payne first sent me the magazine. I started reading the books and getting
tapes and the blessings that I have had since 1979 to this day have been some
of the greatest blessings that I have had from the Word of God. A-millennialists
are denying themselves these blessings, but more importantly, they are
denying the Lord His glory.
-------