The Root question of Amillenial vs Premillenial

[Rich R]

An often overlooked aspect of amillenial vs premillenial is the method of interpretation. It is generally agreed among scholars that those who hold to the amillenial view employ the allegorical method of interpretation of scripture whereas the premillenial view is based on a literal interpretation of scripture. So a study of the history of biblical interpretation may help shed some light on the matter. I'll attempt to give a far from exhaustive commentary on the matter.

Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land

But is wasn't long before some began to change the plain meaning of scripture into allegory. Some of the early church fathers who did so include, Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, and Philo. Philo was a Jewish philosopher whose goal was to harmonize Plato with Moses, making his doctrine questionable at best. But it was Origen (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with making the allegorical method widely accepted by the mainstream church. He, like Philo and others before him, was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria. The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. I would suggest such a beginning is inauspicious to say the least.

It wasn't long before a problem a problem arose with the allegorical method, namely, who or what is to be the final authority as to what a particular passage meant? Who was to determine the precise "spiritual" meaning of otherwise plain words? One's mind could go wild without having some final authority to determine the precise meaning of plain words turned allegory.

That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. With few exceptions, it wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.

As I said, this is about as quick and dirty a summery of Biblical interpretation as quick and dirty gets. There is tons of information on the internet for anybody who wants to delver deeper into the matter. The main point I wanted to make was the amillenial vs premillenial ultimately comes down to allegory vs the plain meaning of scripture.

I want to clarify that I have nothing against those of the Catholic faith. I consider them my brothers and sisters and thus love them with my whole heart. But that has nothing to do with the history of the Christian church. Need I say, that the Protestant church also shares in the commission of many heinous acts throughout history? History is history. It is a record of things that actually transpired. It's not always pretty. The only solution to man's depravity will be when Jesus reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, when God renews the heavens and the earth, bringing them back to the original creation of Genesis, i.e. the renewed Garden of Eden.

 

[Wick Stick]

It is generally agreed among scholars that those who hold to the amillenial view employ the allegorical method of interpretation of scripture whereas the premillenial view is based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

No... that isn't well-agreed on. There are no scholars today that hold a fully allegorical interpretation of Scripture. There are also no scholars today that hold a fully literal interpretation. We all do our best to figure out which bits have meaning beyond the surface level.

There are a few "scholars" who claim to have a fully literal interpretation, but when you start to talk about specifics, even they are forced to admit that, for instance, the king of Assyria was not literally a tree like Ezekiel says.

There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land

This is false. There is plenty of evidence within the the Bible itself showing Jesus and others assigning a second layer of meaning to things in the Bible.

Hebrews 8, for instance, speaks of the Levitical priesthood and the tabernacle as being "shadows" of heavenly things. 1Peter 3 calls Noah's Ark a "figure" of baptism (in Greek an 'antitype'). Jesus Himself tells us that He has come to "fulfill" prophecy. And the gospel writers tell us explicitly that He DID fulfill several prophecies... which had already been fulfilled once.

For instance, Matthew 2:15 says, And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. This prophecy was first fulfilled in Moses day, when Israel was delivered "out of Egypt." Jesus fulfilled it a second time. It was re-filled.

Again, Matthew 1 says, Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.' This prophecy was first fulfilled in Isaiah 8, exactly 1 chapter after it was given. Again, Jesus fulfilled it a second time.

This sort of re-filling of prophecy (or even history) was common in 1st-century Judaism. We have a whole catalogue of Jewish literature from the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrating this sort of interpretation. The Melchizedek Scroll, for instance, looks forward to the advent of a Messiah after the pattern of Melchizedek, an Old Testament figure. Another example - The Pesher on Habakkuk takes the Old Testament book, and seeks to match the people and events there against the people and events of his own day.

I could make this post very long with examples (too late?), but suffice it to say that this method of interpreting the historical events of the Old Testament in light of current events is normative to Judaism. There's even a word for it - Pesher. Stick that word in Google and you may learn a few things!

It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method. He was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria. The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. I would suggest such a beginning is inauspicious to say the least.

You've skipped several hundred years... allow me to fill in the gap for you.

The Jewish sect of Pharisees rejected Jesus as Messiah. However, this left them with a problem. When they looked at their Scriptures, and interpreted them as a pattern for current events... well, they all pointed to Jesus as Messiah, and worse, to coming judgment because of that rejection.

So, rather than repenting, they decided to stop interpreting Scripture that way. Starting in roughly 90AD, the Pharisee sect led by Rabbi Akiva began a program of creating a single, established interpretation for all of Scripture, and aggressively persecuting any Jews who did not follow their interpretation. They went as far as modifying the Hebrew language (adding diacritical marks) to force a single interpretation onto each Hebrew word, where before the text itself allowed for multiple interpretations. This was the beginning of what would come to be the Masoretic text hundreds of years later. Rabbi Akiva even went so far as to declare their leader at the time to be THE Messiah. For their troubles, God sent them the Romans (again) and they were obliterated (again) in 135AD.

The Pesher method of interpreting Scripture remained popular in places with Jewish populations that were NOT Pharisees - in Israel, Syria, Ethiopia, and yes - Egypt. Where Pharisee groups held sway (Babylon, Asia Minor), this method was largely suppressed.

But what about the parts of the early church that were NOT Jewish - the Gentile converts? They mostly didn't practice Pesher interpretation of Scripture, but rather wrote in the style they were familiar with (dialectic being the chief style of the Hellenized philosopher).

Enter Origen. Origen created his own translations of the Scripture, and in order to do that, he had to learn Hebrew. And so he moved (for a time) to Israel, where he learned Pesher interpretation of the Bible. He then re-introduced it to the parts of the church that had not practiced it before.

It wasn't long before a problem a problem arose with the allegorical method, namely, who or what is to be the final authority as to what a particular passage meant? Who was to determine the precise "spiritual" meaning of otherwise plain words? One's mind could go wild without having some final authority to determine the precise meaning of plain words turned allegory.

This problem... is not a problem. It's a feature. We are all, individually, supposed-to-be able to take Scripture and apply it to our lives. I suspect this is how God speaks to most of us - a remembered verse here or there, perhaps out of its original context, yet it speaks to our life in the moment.

And this is done WITHOUT NEGATING THE ORIGINAL MEANING of the Scriptures. I wonder if you missed that along the way? Noah's story IS an anti-type of baptism... but that doesn't mean it isn't also historical. The Exodus of the Israelites pre-figures Joseph & Mary's flight and time in Egypt and return to Nazareth... but it also actually happened. It isn't a question of one or the other. It's a question of adding layer upon layer on top of the original.

That problem was solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. It wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.

Augustine did for Christians what the Pharisees did for the Jews - he forced a single interpretation onto Scripture. And in doing so, he caused it great harm.

-Jarrod

 

[Keraz]

Jesus reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, when God renews the heavens and the earth, bringing them back to the original creation of Genesis, i.e. the renewed Garden of Eden.

Jesus will Return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Revelation 19:16
He will reign for a thousand years, then the new heavens and earth comes for Eternity, God with mankind. Revelation 21:1=7

Any denial of this plainly stated Bible truth, is error and will not happen.

 

[TribulationSigns]

That problem was solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. It wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.

Not at all, actually it is the doctrine of Christ Himself, and the proof of that is that it is found on the pages of scripture that predate any teachings of Augustine. Despite what you may have heard from its detractors, Amillennialism is nothing more than what the scriptures themselves teach.

Amillennialism: A Word Direct From The Scriptures. Everything the word stands for was taken "directly from scripture,", so then what is "called" Amillennialism is nothing more and nothing less, than the truth of the Word of God. In other words, it is a word finding its meaning directly in the scriptures.

The fact is, when you have the truth, there are bound to be those who hold like or similar views. That's the nature of honorable Bible study. It is consistent with other honorable people's views who study the scripture when gleaned correctly. For example, my studies on Israel aren't following the Apostle Paul's personal doctrine, who some claim first started replacement theology, they are my testimony of the scriptures. My studies on Amillennialism aren't following Augustine's doctrine, who some claim first started Amillennialism, they are my testimony of scripture. My studies on Predestination aren't following John Calvin's doctrine, who some claim first started this doctrine, they are my testimony of the scriptures, etc. etc. I don't follow any man but Christ and His Word.

 

[Rich R]

No... that isn't well-agreed on. There are no scholars today that hold a fully allegorical interpretation of Scripture. There are also no scholars today that hold a fully literal interpretation. We all do our best to figure out which bits have meaning beyond the surface level.

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying scholars hold either a allegorical or a literal approach. I was saying that scholars say that the question of amillenialism vs premillenialism comes down to which method one uses.

This is false. There is plenty of evidence within the the Bible itself showing Jesus and others assigning a second layer of meaning to things in the Bible.

Hebrews 8, for instance, speaks of the Levitical priesthood and the tabernacle as being "shadows" of heavenly things. 1Peter 3 calls Noah's Ark a "figure" of baptism (in Greek an 'antitype'). Jesus Himself tells us that He has come to "fulfill" prophecy. And the gospel writers tell us explicitly that He DID fulfill several prophecies... which had already been fulfilled once.

For instance, Matthew 2:15 says, And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. This prophecy was first fulfilled in Moses day, when Israel was delivered "out of Egypt." Jesus fulfilled it a second time. It was re-filled.

Again, Matthew 1 says, Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.' This prophecy was first fulfilled in Isaiah 8, exactly 1 chapter after it was given. Again, Jesus fulfilled it a second time.

This sort of re-filling of prophecy (or even history) was common in 1st-century Judaism. We have a whole catalogue of Jewish literature from the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrating this sort of interpretation. The Melchizedek Scroll, for instance, looks forward to the advent of a Messiah after the pattern of Melchizedek, an Old Testament figure. Another example - The Pesher on Habakkuk takes the Old Testament book, and seeks to match the people and events there against the people and events of his own day.

I could make this post very long with examples (too late?), but suffice it to say that this method of interpreting the historical events of the Old Testament in light of current events is normative to Judaism. There's even a word for it - Pesher. Stick that word in Google and you may learn a few things!

The telling of the fulfillment of prophecy has nothing to do with allegory. It is instead a plain statement that says another plain statement in the past has come true. Allegory is more akin to assigning some hidden or spiritual meaning to otherwise plain language.

In fact, I'm glad you brought that up. Clearly many prophecies of Jesus' first appearance have come to pass in a most literal manner. Born of a virgin, going to Egypt, no broken bones, three days in the grace, etc all came to pass just as the plain meanings of the prophetical words said they would. So why would we not take the same simple meaning of the words that describe his second coming? What justifies taking some prophecy literal but other parts allegorical?

You've skipped several hundred years... allow me to fill in the gap for you.

The Jewish sect of Pharisees rejected Jesus as Messiah. However, this left them with a problem. When they looked at their Scriptures, and interpreted them as a pattern for current events... well, they all pointed to Jesus as Messiah, and worse, to coming judgment because of that rejection.

So, rather than repenting, they decided to stop interpreting Scripture that way. Starting in roughly 90AD, the Pharisee sect led by Rabbi Akiva began a program of creating a single, established interpretation for all of Scripture, and aggressively persecuting any Jews who did not follow their interpretation. They went as far as modifying the Hebrew language (adding diacritical marks) to force a single interpretation onto each Hebrew word, where before the text itself allowed for multiple interpretations. This was the beginning of what would come to be the Masoretic text hundreds of years later. Rabbi Akiva even went so far as to declare their leader at the time to be THE Messiah. For their troubles, God sent them the Romans (again) and they were obliterated (again) in 135AD.

The Pesher method of interpreting Scripture remained popular in places with Jewish populations that were NOT Pharisees - in Israel, Syria, Ethiopia, and yes - Egypt. Where Pharisee groups held sway (Babylon, Asia Minor), this method was largely suppressed.

But what about the parts of the early church that were NOT Jewish - the Gentile converts? They mostly didn't practice Pesher interpretation of Scripture, but rather wrote in the style they were familiar with (dialectic being the chief style of the Hellenized philosopher).

Enter Origen. Origen created his own translations of the Scripture, and in order to do that, he had to learn Hebrew. And so he moved (for a time) to Israel, where he learned Pesher interpretation of the Bible. He then re-introduced it to the parts of the church that had not practiced it before.

That is all true, but I don't see it's relevance to the OP. It's good additional information, but I don't see you contradicting the little I did say.

This problem... is not a problem. It's a feature. We are all, individually, supposed-to-be able to take Scripture and apply it to our lives. I suspect this is how God speaks to most of us - a remembered verse here or there, perhaps out of its original context, yet it speaks to our life in the moment.

Again true, but those individual communications will never contradict the written scriptures which claim to be the truth. According to pretty much any dictionary one may choose, truth means that which conforms to reality. Now someone may say that reality is fluid, not absolute. But wouldn't such thinking be stating an absolute? Truth and reality are absolutes. There may not be one single person that knows all about truth (well, there actually isn't), but that doesn't change the truth.

And this is done WITHOUT NEGATING THE ORIGINAL MEANING of the Scriptures. I wonder if you missed that along the way? Noah's story IS an anti-type of baptism... but that doesn't mean it isn't also historical. The Exodus of the Israelites pre-figures Joseph & Mary's flight and time in Egypt and return to Nazareth... but it also actually happened. It isn't a question of one or the other. It's a question of adding layer upon layer on top of the original.

I understand that to be the case. But again, it is not relevant to my OP. You may be reading more into my OP than I intended. Or it could be my writing style!

Augustine did for Christians what the Pharisees did for the Jews - he forced a single interpretation onto Scripture. And in doing so, he caused it great harm.

Totally agree! But not necessarily because he said their was a single interpretation, but because he arrived at that interpretation by way of allegory instead of sticking to the plain sense of words which do contain the truth. But the real harm he caused was anointing the Roman Church as the final arbitrator of truth.

 

[Rich R]

Jesus will Return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Revelation 19:16
He will reign for a thousand years, then the new heavens and earth comes for Eternity, God with mankind. Revelation 21:1=7

Any denial of this plainly stated Bible truth, is error and will not happen.

Seems simple enough to me!

Why complicate things by looking for some hidden or secret meaning to plain language?

I guess it makes some feel special, like the Gnostics who felt they were initiated into some higher knowledge, and thus set apart from the simpletons. I've been accused of being just such a simpleton for believing the plain meaning of words. I suspect you may share in that accusation?

 

[Rich R]

Not at all, actually it is the doctrine of Christ Himself, and the proof of that is that it is found on the pages of scripture that predate any teachings of Augustine. Despite what you may have heard from its detractors, Amillennialism is nothing more than what the scriptures themselves teach.

Amillennialism: A Word Direct From The Scriptures. Everything the word stands for was taken "directly from scripture,", so then what is "called" Amillennialism is nothing more and nothing less, than the truth of the Word of God. In other words, it is a word finding its meaning directly in the scriptures.

I understand at least part of amillenial doctrine to say that the 1,000 year reign is not literal. If I'm wrong abut that, could you tell me what you think it means. But if I do understand the doctrine correctly, where does it say that the 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation are anything other than 1,000 years?

The fact is, when you have the truth, there are bound to be those who hold like or similar views. That's the nature of honorable Bible study. It is consistent with other honorable people's views who study the scripture when gleaned correctly. For example, my studies on Israel aren't following the Apostle Paul's personal doctrine, who some claim first started replacement theology, they are my testimony of the scriptures. My studies on Amillennialism aren't following Augustine's doctrine, who some claim first started Amillennialism, they are my testimony of scripture. My studies on Predestination aren't following John Calvin's doctrine, who some claim first started this doctrine, they are my testimony of the scriptures, etc. etc. I don't follow any man but Christ and His Word.

Ultimately that is a good practice. However, there is actually nothing wrong with learning about scripture from other people.

Acts 8:30-31,

30 So Philip ran up and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.​

​

31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.​

​

If you read the next few verses in Acts 8, you may see that as a result of a man's (Phillip's) guidance, the eunuch ended up believing in Jesus and getting baptized.

However, that doesn't mean you should believe whatever someone tells you about the scriptures. In Acts the Bereans to whom Paul spoke didn't believe him until they verified it for themselves from the scriptures. But don't take my word for that. Read Acts 17 and see for yourself if it's true or not. Listening to others and then verifying what they say is a valid method of learning about God.

 

[Wick Stick]

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying scholars hold either a allegorical or a literal approach. I was saying that scholars say that the question of amillenialism vs premillenialism comes down to which method one uses.

You've created a differentiation... that doesn't matter. Everyone, whether a scholar or not, uses NEITHER a completely literal nor completely allegorical approach. It's fine to use a general rule, but like the pirate captain said... the rules are more like guidelines.

The telling of the fulfillment of prophecy has nothing to do with allegory. It is instead a plain statement that another plain statement in the past has come true. Allegory is more akin to assigning some hidden or spiritual meaning to otherwise plain language.

When you have multiple fulfillments of the same prophecy, it very much has to do with allegory. Isaiah said "the virgin will be with child" in chapter 7 of his book. It was fulfilled literally in chapter 8, a few verses and a few months later. Yet 600 years later, it was re-fulfilled... and that means that there WAS a "hidden or spiritual meaning" behind what he wrote originally.

And it isn't limited to prophecy. The Israelites sojourned in Egypt and then returned to the Promised land... literally. That's history; not prophecy. Yet that was a pattern that was later fulfilled, when Joseph took his family to Egypt for a sojourn and returned. Noah literally got in an ark and was saved through a flood... yet that was a type that was fulfilled in baptism. The Israelites literally slaughtered a lamb and painted the doorposts with its blood... I think you can guess the fulfillment there.

In all these cases, there clearly WAS a "hidden or spiritual meaning to otherwise plain language" which is how you defined allegory.

That is all true, but I don't see it's relevance to the OP.

How does one use an allegory? You take a story (whether literal or fanciful) and apply its lesson to present events, right? We now agree that the Jews did this in their Peshers on Scripture.

In your first post, you said that the early church did not do this with Scripture... with the insinuation that we shouldn't either. While I agree that the early church in Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy did not do this... my conclusion is different. They should have done this! It was part of their heritage from Jesus and His Apostles, but it was suppressed among the Jews by Pharisee influence, and the Gentile converts did not have it as a natural part of their culture.

Origen may not be proto-orthodox, but he did the church a great favor by re-introducing them to a part of their heritage they had left behind (and by translating the Scriptures, too). =)

 

[Rich R]

You've created a differentiation... that doesn't matter. Everyone, whether a scholar or not, uses NEITHER a completely literal nor completely allegorical approach. It's fine to use a general rule, but like the pirate captain said... the rules are more like guidelines.

Yes. There are some things in the scriptures we should take as an allegory. In fact Paul said he himself used an allegory in Galatians 4:24. An allegory is a legitimate tool of grammar. It is a figure of speech which is used to emphasize something. They are to be used and understood in a precise way. They are not to be used nor read in some willy-nilly manner. Though not literal in and of themselves, they to point to a literal meaning.

The main thing is, we need to recognize when something should be taken literal and when it is a figure of speech. The general rule of thumb is to take something literal whenever possible, whenever it doesn't create contradictions or other problems. It's exegesis 101.

Personally, I see no reason to take the 1,000 years in Revelation as nothing other than 1,000 years. It works just fine that way.

When you have multiple fulfillments of the same prophecy, it very much has to do with allegory. Isaiah said "the virgin will be with child" in chapter 7 of his book. It was fulfilled literally in chapter 8, a few verses and a few months later. Yet 600 years later, it was re-fulfilled... and that means that there WAS a "hidden or spiritual meaning" behind what he wrote originally.

And it isn't limited to prophecy. The Israelites sojourned in Egypt and then returned to the Promised land... literally. That's history; not prophecy. Yet that was a pattern that was later fulfilled, when Joseph took his family to Egypt for a sojourn and returned. Noah literally got in an ark and was saved through a flood... yet that was a type that was fulfilled in baptism. The Israelites literally slaughtered a lamb and painted the doorposts with its blood... I think you can guess the fulfillment there.

In all these cases, there clearly WAS a "hidden or spiritual meaning to otherwise plain language" which is how you defined allegory.

I don't see it that way. I see multiple real events occurring as they were literally promised. There was a virgin in Isaiah's time who bore a son and there was the virgin birth of Jesus. Neither birth requires allegory. They are both literal fulfillment of a literal prophecy.

How does one use an allegory? You take a story (whether literal or fanciful) and apply its lesson to present events, right? We now agree that the Jews did this in their Peshers on Scripture.

In your first post, you said that the early church did not do this with Scripture... with the insinuation that we shouldn't either. While I agree that the early church in Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy did not do this... my conclusion is different. They should have done this! It was part of their heritage from Jesus and His Apostles, but it was suppressed among the Jews by Pharisee influence, and the Gentile converts did not have it as a natural part of their culture.

Where do you see Jesus using allegory to say that the land God promised Israel is really the church, or that the church replaced Israel, for example? Honestly, I don't see any plain statement made by Jesus that would support either assertion

Origen may not be proto-orthodox, but he did the church a great favor by re-introducing them to a part of their heritage they had left behind (and by translating the Scriptures, too). =)

You mean their supposed Platonic heritage? I would hardly take that as a favor. In my judgment, to this day, way too much orthodox doctrine has its roots in Greek philosophy.

BTW, thanks for the discussion brother!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

An often overlooked aspect of amillenial vs premillenial is the method of interpretation. It is generally agreed among scholars that those who hold to the amillenial view employ the allegorical method of interpretation of scripture whereas the premillenial view is based on a literal interpretation of scripture. So a study of the history of biblical interpretation may help shed some light on the matter. I'll attempt to give a far from exhaustive commentary on the matter.

There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land

It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method. He was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria. The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. I would suggest such a beginning is inauspicious to say the least.

It wasn't long before a problem a problem arose with the allegorical method, namely, who or what is to be the final authority as to what a particular passage meant? Who was to determine the precise "spiritual" meaning of otherwise plain words? One's mind could go wild without having some final authority to determine the precise meaning of plain words turned allegory.

That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. With few exceptions, it wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.

As I said, this is about as quick and dirty a summery of Biblical interpretation as quick and dirty gets. There is tons of information on the internet for anybody who wants to delver deeper into the matter. The main point I wanted to make was the amillenial vs premillenial ultimately comes down to allegory vs the plain meaning of scripture.

I want to clarify that I have nothing against those of the Catholic faith. I consider them my brothers and sisters and thus love them with my whole heart. But that has nothing to do with the history of the Christian church. Need I say, that the Protestant church also shares in the commission of many heinous acts throughout history? History is history. It is a record of things that actually transpired. It's not always pretty. The only solution to man's depravity will be when Jesus reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, when God renews the heavens and the earth, bringing them back to the original creation of Genesis, i.e. the renewed Garden of Eden.

This is all false. The fact of the matter is that both amillennialists and premillennialists interpret some prophecy literally and some figuratively or allegorically. The difference is not that amils use an allegorical approach and premils use a literal approach. Not at all. Premils do not accept the literal interpretations that amils have of many passages upon which we base our doctrine.

Amillennialists base our doctrine on clear, straightforward scriptures and we use that foundation to help understand more difficult and debatable scriptures such as those found in highly symbolic books like Daniel, Isaiah and Revelation.

Our belief that Christ is reigning now and since His resurrection is based on literal, explicit scripture like Matthew 28:16-18, Ephesians 1:19-23, Colossians 1:12-13 and Revelation 1:5-6.

Our belief that Satan was bound by Christ and the subsequent powerful preaching of His gospel is based on straightforward scripture like Matthew 12:28-29, Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8 and Acts 26:18.

Our belief that all unbelievers will be killed when Christ returns (leaving no mortals to populate the earth) is based on straightforward scripture like Matthew 24:35-39, Luke 17:26-37, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Revelation 19:17-18.

Our belief that all of the dead, saved and lost, will be resurrected in the same hour is based on straightforward scriptures like John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:2 and Acts 24:15.

Our belief that all people, saved and lost, will be judged at the same time is based on what is clearly indicated in passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46.

Some amils, like myself, base our belief that the first resurrection itself is Christ's resurrection (which then means that having part in the first resurrection is to have part in His resurrection) on straightforward scripture like Acts 26:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:20.

We interpret any given verse or passage in context according to the type of text being used (literal, figurative, allegorical, metaphorical, symbolic, poetic, hyperbolic, Apocalyptic) without making any assumptions one way or another ahead of time about what type of text it is (no assumptions that any given text is allegorical or literal).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The main thing is, we need to recognize when something should be taken literal and when it is a figure of speech. The general rule of thumb is to take something literal whenever possible, whenever it doesn't create contradictions or other problems. It's exegesis 101.

That's a horrible approach to interpreting scripture. It's a biased approach. No assumptions should be made one way or another about any given verse or passage in terms of what type of text is being used, whether literal, figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic, Apocalyptic, etc. The type of text being used in any given verse or passage should not be assumed to be literal, but rather should be discerned based on the context of the passage. And an interpretation of any given verse or passage must not contradict any other scripture.

Personally, I see no reason to take the 1,000 years in Revelation as nothing other than 1,000 years. It works just fine that way.

It really does not because that contradicts the literal, plain scriptures which teach that Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection, that all mortals will be killed at His second coming (leaving no mortals to populate an earthly millennial kingdom, that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, that the dead are all resurrected at generally the same time or hour, that all people are judged at the same time.

 

[Wick Stick]

Personally, I see no reason to take the 1,000 years in Revelation as nothing other than 1,000 years. It works just fine that way.

I can think of a couple if you'd like...

Where do you see Jesus using allegory to say that the land God promised Israel is really the church,

I don't see that. I see a few places in the Bible that "earth" and "heaven" are used as metaphors for "the people of Israel" and "the government of Israel." But not in the gospels... they aren't poetic books.

...or that the church replaced Israel, for example? Honestly, I don't see any plain statement made by Jesus that would support either assertion

Replaced? No. Israel is a tree that grows from one root - the Lord God. Some Gentiles have been grafted to that root (and some haven't). Some Jews have been pruned from it (and some remain). As I read it, if you have been adopted, you have joined the Tribe; not replaced it.

You mean their supposed Platonic heritage? I would hardly take that as a favor. In my judgment, to this day, way too much orthodox doctrine has its roots in Greek philosophy.

No, I mean their Jewish heritage.

BTW, thanks for the discussion brother!

Likewise!

 

[David in NJ]

Not at all, actually it is the doctrine of Christ Himself, and the proof of that is that it is found on the pages of scripture that predate any teachings of Augustine. Despite what you may have heard from its detractors, Amillennialism is nothing more than what the scriptures themselves teach.

Amillennialism: A Word Direct From The Scriptures. Everything the word stands for was taken "directly from scripture,", so then what is "called" Amillennialism is nothing more and nothing less, than the truth of the Word of God. In other words, it is a word finding its meaning directly in the scriptures.

The fact is, when you have the truth, there are bound to be those who hold like or similar views. That's the nature of honorable Bible study. It is consistent with other honorable people's views who study the scripture when gleaned correctly. For example, my studies on Israel aren't following the Apostle Paul's personal doctrine, who some claim first started replacement theology, they are my testimony of the scriptures. My studies on Amillennialism aren't following Augustine's doctrine, who some claim first started Amillennialism, they are my testimony of scripture. My studies on Predestination aren't following John Calvin's doctrine, who some claim first started this doctrine, they are my testimony of the scriptures, etc. etc. I don't follow any man but Christ and His Word.

Amillennialism is nothing more than what the scriptures themselves teach.

One BIG problem!
Amil is not in the scriptures just as pre-trib rapture is not in the scriptures!

pre-trib
amil
soul sleep

These are teachings from religion AND not from the holy men who spoke by the Holy Spirit.

Genesis is the Foundation of Truth = 1,000 literal years

 

[TribulationSigns]

One BIG problem!
Amil is not in the scriptures just as pre-trib rapture is not in the scriptures!

Read the article provided by the link above. Thank you.

 

[David in NJ]

Read the article provided by the link above. Thank you.

Read & BELIEVE Genesis = 1,000 literal years

Read & BELIEVE the Gospel = no pre-trib rapture

Read & BELIEVE the Apostles letters = no soul sleep

Read & BELIEVE Revelation = no pre-trib rapture, no soul sleep and 1,000 literal years REIGN

 

[Rich R]

This is all false. The fact of the matter is that both amillennialists and premillennialists interpret some prophecy literally and some figuratively or allegorically. The difference is not that amils use an allegorical approach and premils use a literal approach. Not at all. Premils do not accept the literal interpretations that amils have of many passages upon which we base our doctrine.

Amillennialists base our doctrine on clear, straightforward scriptures and we use that foundation to help understand more difficult and debatable scriptures such as those found in highly symbolic books like Daniel, Isaiah and Revelation.

Our belief that Christ is reigning now and since His resurrection is based on literal, explicit scripture like Matthew 28:16-18, Ephesians 1:19-23, Colossians 1:12-13 and Revelation 1:5-6.

Our belief that Satan was bound by Christ and the subsequent powerful preaching of His gospel is based on straightforward scripture like Matthew 12:28-29, Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8 and Acts 26:18.

Our belief that all unbelievers will be killed when Christ returns (leaving no mortals to populate the earth) is based on straightforward scripture like Matthew 24:35-39, Luke 17:26-37, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Revelation 19:17-18.

Our belief that all of the dead, saved and lost, will be resurrected in the same hour is based on straightforward scriptures like John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:2 and Acts 24:15.

Our belief that all people, saved and lost, will be judged at the same time is based on what is clearly indicated in passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46.

Some amils, like myself, base our belief that the first resurrection itself is Christ's resurrection (which then means that having part in the first resurrection is to have part in His resurrection) on straightforward scripture like Acts 26:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:20.

We interpret any given verse or passage in context according to the type of text being used (literal, figurative, allegorical, metaphorical, symbolic, poetic, hyperbolic, Apocalyptic) without making any assumptions one way or another ahead of time about what type of text it is (no assumptions that any given text is allegorical or literal).

How do you understand:

Eph 3:3-6,

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,​

​

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)​

​

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;​

​

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:​

Rom 16:25,

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

Taking it for what it says, I would say that there is something about our present age that nobody knew about until it was revealed to Paul, namely something about Gentiles being fellowheirs and of one body, i.e. the church. Therefore anything read into the OT about the church is just that; reading into the scriptures, otherwise knows as eisegesis.

 

[David in NJ]

How do you understand:

Eph 3:3-6,

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,​

​

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)​

​

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;​

​

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:​

Rom 16:25,

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

Taking it for what it says, I would say that there is something about our present age that nobody knew about until it was revealed to Paul, namely something about Gentiles being fellowheirs and of one body, i.e. the church. Therefore anything read into the OT about the church is just that; reading into the scriptures, otherwise knows as eisegesis.

Therefore anything read into the OT about the church is just that; reading into the scriptures, otherwise knows as eisegesis.

This is completely false.

How did Paul understand??? = from the OT Scriptures

 

[WPM]

An often overlooked aspect of amillenial vs premillenial is the method of interpretation. It is generally agreed among scholars that those who hold to the amillenial view employ the allegorical method of interpretation of scripture whereas the premillenial view is based on a literal interpretation of scripture. So a study of the history of biblical interpretation may help shed some light on the matter. I'll attempt to give a far from exhaustive commentary on the matter.

There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land

Premillennialism gives lip service to credible and consistent hermeneutics, yet, when you engage with them and show them the many inconsistencies in their position, they quickly and conveniently dismiss it. Premillennialists are so adamant in us interpreting “a thousand years” as a literal wooden 1000 years, after all it mentions years, yet when you ask them ‘how long is the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes?’ they suddenly see the figurative intent.

It doesn't add up or make sense. Premillennialists make it up as they go. It is like the mark of the beast, they are so insistent on it being hyper-literal yet when it comes to the mark of God, which is mentioned more times in Revelation, they suddenly and effortlessly apply a spiritual meaning to that. This is double-standards. But that is Premillennialism. Look at the climactic detail of 2 Peter 3 or Revelation 19. They localize the destruction of the current heavens, earth (and the works therein), and the elements in 2 Peter 3, even though a plain reading of the text shows it is comprehensive conflagration. The same with Revelation 19. The destruction of "all flesh" is explained away to allow the populating of a supposed future millennial earth with countless mortal sinners. Literal rules of interpretation are thrown out the window here in order to facilitate Premillennialism.

It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method. He was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria. The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. I would suggest such a beginning is inauspicious to say the least.

It wasn't long before a problem a problem arose with the allegorical method, namely, who or what is to be the final authority as to what a particular passage meant? Who was to determine the precise "spiritual" meaning of otherwise plain words? One's mind could go wild without having some final authority to determine the precise meaning of plain words turned allegory.

That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. With few exceptions, it wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.

As I said, this is about as quick and dirty a summery of Biblical interpretation as quick and dirty gets. There is tons of information on the internet for anybody who wants to delver deeper into the matter. The main point I wanted to make was the amillenial vs premillenial ultimately comes down to allegory vs the plain meaning of scripture.

I want to clarify that I have nothing against those of the Catholic faith. I consider them my brothers and sisters and thus love them with my whole heart. But that has nothing to do with the history of the Christian church. Need I say, that the Protestant church also shares in the commission of many heinous acts throughout history? History is history. It is a record of things that actually transpired. It's not always pretty. The only solution to man's depravity will be when Jesus reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, when God renews the heavens and the earth, bringing them back to the original creation of Genesis, i.e. the renewed Garden of Eden.

This is not true. Have you studied the ECFs in depth? Why not back up your claims. This sounds like you've simply taken this information off a Premillennial website. Most of them are totally untrustworthy.

 

[WPM]

One BIG problem!
Amil is not in the scriptures just as pre-trib rapture is not in the scriptures!

pre-trib
amil
soul sleep

These are teachings from religion AND not from the holy men who spoke by the Holy Spirit.

Genesis is the Foundation of Truth = 1,000 literal years

Do you believe in biblical corroboration?

 

[WPM]

It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method. He was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria. The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. I would suggest such a beginning is inauspicious to say the least.

It wasn't long before a problem a problem arose with the allegorical method, namely, who or what is to be the final authority as to what a particular passage meant? Who was to determine the precise "spiritual" meaning of otherwise plain words? One's mind could go wild without having some final authority to determine the precise meaning of plain words turned allegory.

That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. With few exceptions, it wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.

As I said, this is about as quick and dirty a summery of Biblical interpretation as quick and dirty gets. There is tons of information on the internet for anybody who wants to delver deeper into the matter. The main point I wanted to make was the amillenial vs premillenial ultimately comes down to allegory vs the plain meaning of scripture.

I want to clarify that I have nothing against those of the Catholic faith. I consider them my brothers and sisters and thus love them with my whole heart. But that has nothing to do with the history of the Christian church. Need I say, that the Protestant church also shares in the commission of many heinous acts throughout history? History is history. It is a record of things that actually transpired. It's not always pretty. The only solution to man's depravity will be when Jesus reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, when God renews the heavens and the earth, bringing them back to the original creation of Genesis, i.e. the renewed Garden of Eden.

An elementary study of the early Church fathers’ teachings over the first 100 years after the cross shows that they generally saw the second coming of Jesus Christ as “the end” or “the end of the world.” They believed all the righteous would be rescued to inherit a new perfected earth. The wicked would be destroyed with this current corrupt earth. This is standard Amillennial teaching! There is a notable silence from the early writers, apart from Papias.

There is complete silence on a millennial existence in the first 100 years after the cross apart from Papias. Remember, Revelation was a later manuscript that was not believed to have gained wide influence outside of Asia Minor for quite a while. So, the absence of these early writers exegeting it is not strange.

Contrary to what many modern Dispensationalist apologists argue, the early church writers were not mainly Premillennialist. In fact, the doctrine, which seems to have had its origin in Asia Minor, was mainly limited to that area for many yrs.