Part 1: Historical Introductions

Eschatology Notes - Samuel Waldron

General Introduction

Systematic theology is properly the fruit of two other theological disciplines: exegetical theology and historical theology. Exegetical theology provides the raw materials and blueprint, while historical theology provides the expert counsel with which to build the house of systematic theology.

Systematic theology is properly the fruit of two other theological disciplines: exegetical theology and historical theology. Exegetical theology provides the raw materials and blueprint, while historical theology provides the expert counsel with which to build the house of systematic theology. Eschatology is one of the topics or loci of systematic theology. As such it also should be properly the fruit of the interaction of exegetical and historical theology. It is the purpose of the first part of these lectures to examine briefly the expert advice of historical theology with regard to the subject at hand. That is to say, it is our goal in this overview to examine the basic views and perspectives, options and alternatives, on the subject of eschatology which professing Christians and orthodox theologians throughout the history of the church have set before us in their teaching ministries.

An overview like this can never be uninteresting or distasteful to us if we remember two things. First, we must remember the promises of Christ to be with and build His church throughout this age between His two advents (Matt. 16:17, 18; Matt. 28:18-20). This means (among other important things) that we may expect to find in the history of the church a maturing understanding of the doctrinal content of the deposit of truth once delivered to all the saints. Second, we must remember that it is always a good thing in the study of any subject to have set before us all the different opinions and options available to us as we study the Word of God. Of course, some people react into a kind of skepticism when they begin to realize the various doctrinal opinions which professing Christians have held. This is both wrong and unnecessary. Skepticism is always the wrong response to that scriptural revelation which the Reformation has taught us is not only authoritative, but also sufficient and clear (2 Tim. 3:15-17). But such skepticism is also unnecessary. Orthodox Christianity throughout the ages is unified enough with regard to the great fundamentals of the doctrine of last things, and the fact that other Christians have believed and held error because of the remaining sin and darkness of their minds does not negate the ability of the Spirit of God to lead the church of Christ into a better understanding of scriptural truth. In fact, their very mis-steps may be over-ruled to help us see the proper way more clearly.

An overview of the thinking of Christians throughout the ages on the doctrine of last things is, therefore, of great practical importance to any study of eschatology. It is sad, therefore, that such studies appear to be rather rare.⁽¹⁾ It is certainly true that books on prophecy and the last things rarely worry much about the expert counsel of the ages.⁽²⁾ This part of these lectures is simply a humble, but necessary attempt at a beginning in providing an adequate overview of the history of the doctrine of last things.

The major periods of intense doctrinal discussion about the subject of eschatology have been the Early church and the Modern church. Therefore, this treatment of the history of eschatology will treat, first, eschatology in the Early and Medieval church periods and, then, eschatology in the Reformation and Modern periods of the church.

Section 1: Eschatology in the Early and Medieval Church

I. The Apostolic Fathers and Early Premillennialism

Introduction:

The phrase, Apostolic Fathers, is the common designation for the authors of early Christian writings who were the younger contemporaries of the Apostles. The normal reaction of a Christian who with high expectations sits down to read the writings of such men is, to say the least, disappointment. Though their writings are marked by a sincerity with regard to adhering faithfully to the teaching of the Apostles, they are also marked by a superficiality with regard to their understanding of the teaching of the Apostles. For this reason, they are marked by a vulnerability to unconscious and serious deviations from their teaching. There is a pervasive moralism and incipient catholicism visible in their writings.

This being the case, the question is raised, Do the Apostolic Fathers have any doctrinal significance at all for us? If the Apostolic Fathers can in no sense be authoritative guides, does it matter in the least what they believed on any issue? William Cunningham's example here is noteworthy. He spends much time and effort showing the un-authoritative character of the Apostolic Fathers. He is a son of the Reformation uninfluenced by any latent Roman Catholic tendency, but even he ascribes a certain weight to the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers.

Whatever weight may be ascribed to the opinions of the fathers, and on whatever grounds the weight that is ascribed to them may be made to rest, no one disputes the propriety and the importance of ascertaining, as far as we can, what their views really were; and most theologians in modern times, whatever opinions they may entertain upon the general question of the deference to be paid to the fathers, have shown some desire to exhibit in their own behalf the testimony of the early church, whenever it could with any plausibility be adduced; and this has given rise to a great deal of learned, voluminous, and often intricate and wearisome discussion.....Both in these more ancient and in more modern times, men have acted upon a notion, more or less distinctly conceived, and more or less earnestly maintained, that the fact of a doctrine or system of doctrines having been held by the early church, afforded some presumption that it had been taught by the apostles. As a general position, this may, perhaps, be admitted to be true; but it needs to be very cautiously applied, and to be restricted within very narrow limits.⁽³⁾

Before coming to the question about the eschatology of the Apostolic Fathers which is most debated, something must be said about their position as to certain basic doctrines of Christian eschatology. The basic doctrines of the bodily resurrection, and eternal punishment are clearly upheld against all who would dispute them. Says Seeberg:

There is a vivid sense of the vanity and the perishable nature of this world, and of the glory of the eternal world, as well as the terrible character of the torments of hell (see especially Apocal. Petri.). The end of all things is thought to be very near...."The chief thing remained the final judgement of the world, and the certainty that the holy shall go to heaven to God and the unholy to hell." This was involved in the idea of reward for earthly conduct.⁽⁴⁾

In the Martyrdom of Polycarp Seeberg's comments are confirmed. In this writing we hear sentiments about eternal punishment in hell typical of the Apostolic Fathers.

And again (he said) to him, "I shall have you consumed with fire, if you despise the wild beasts, unless you change your mind." But Polycarp said: "The fire you threaten burns but an hour and is quenched after a little; for you do not know the fire of the coming judgement and everlasting punishment that is laid up for the impious. But why do you delay: Come, do what you will."⁽⁵⁾

The bodily resurrection receives special emphasis over against the Gnostic denial of the importance of the flesh in 2nd Clement.

Moreover, let none of you say that this flesh will not be judged or rise again. Consider this: In what state were you saved? In what state did you regain your sight, if it was not while you were in this flesh? Therefore we should guard the flesh as God's temple. For just as you were called in the flesh, you will come in the flesh. If Christ the Lord who saved us was made flesh though he was at first spirit, and called us in this way, in the same way we too in this very flesh will receive our reward.⁽⁶⁾

The great question, however, in the matter of eschatology with regard to the Apostolic Fathers concerns premillennialism. Dr. Charles Feinberg in Premillennialism or Amillennialism has asserted, "The entire early church of the first 3 centuries was Premillennial almost to a man."⁽⁷⁾ This is an extraordinary statement. It is the more extraordinary in light of the fact that in the following discussion it will be shown that among the eight different Christian writers usually classed as Apostolic Fathers there is good evidence for Premillennialism in only one, the Apostolic Father known as Papias.

Reputable historians sometimes assert that other Apostolic Fathers held premillennialism. Seeberg, for instance, affirms that Papias and Barnabas were chiliasts.⁽⁸⁾ It is, indeed, only the Fragments of Papias and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas which require examination with regard to the question of premillennialism in the Apostolic Fathers.

A. The Nature of the Question.

It is important here not to allow the obscuring of the question being discussed. The question is not whether the Apostolic Fathers taught the doctrine in some sense of the imminent return of Christ or the doctrine of the personal anti-Christ. Both the Didache, ch. 16, and the Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 4, 15 teach the coming of a personal anti-Christ.⁽⁹⁾ Both these points have historically been associated with Premillennialism. It is probably the comparatively widespread presence of these views in the Apostolic Fathers which is responsible for the reputation they have of being premillennial. In some periods of church history the only viable options have appeared to be postmillennialism or premillennialism. Viewed from within such an assumed framework and with only these two alternatives available, the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene church as a whole certainly would certainly appear premillennial.

The doctrines of an imminent return of Christ and the personal antichrist, however, are adopted by many who are not premillennial. They are held today, for instance, by many who would call themselves amillennial. The sine qua non of premillennialism is neither the doctrine of the imminence of Christ's return, nor the doctrine of a personal anti-Christ. It is rather the doctrine of a millennial reign after Christ's return and before the eternal state.

B. The Examination of the Evidence.

As noted above, only in the writings of two of the Apostolic Fathers is there possible evidence of premillennialism. Those two Apostolic Fathers are Papias and the so-called Barnabas. We will, therefore, examine the relevant statements in The Fragments of Papias and what is called The Epistle of Barnabas.

1. The Fragments of Papias

Papias claimed or was thought to be a hearer of John the Apostle and a friend of the martyr, Polycarp. He is said to have written five books in which he recorded statements of John and other early disciples. Here is the relevant statement of Papias as recorded in the church history of Eusebius (who intersperses his comments throughout it):

As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said: "The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metritis of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, "I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me." In like manner, (He said) that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man." [Testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. And he added, saying, "Now these things are credible to believers. And Judas the traitor," says he, "not believing, and asking, "How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord?" the Lord said, "they shall see who shall come to them." These, then, are the times mentioned by the prophet Isaiah: "And the wolf shall lie down with the lamb," etc. (Isa. xi. 6 ff.)."]

As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions:" for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The presbyters, and the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostles, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. "But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.⁽¹⁰⁾

In his comments on these fragments of Papias' writings Eusebius asserts that Papias was a premillennialist.⁽¹¹⁾ The evidence of the fragments themselves--while not explicit--are probable evidence that he was.

2. The Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 15.

The Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the biblical Barnabas and probably dates from approximately the year 131. Even so, it is a valuable early Christian writing. Chapter 15 of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is very important from several angles in the history of doctrine including the subject of eschatology. The problem is, however, that it is also very complex and convoluted as the following quotation will enable you to see for yourself:

Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai. "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold therefore; certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.⁽¹²⁾

This is a highly complex passage. Superficially read, it does have a premillennial ring. It must be noted, however, that Barnabas makes no explicit reference to a thousand-year period on the 7th day. He speaks only of the destruction of the anti-Christ, the judgment of the ungodly, and the rest of the Messiah. W. J. Grier aptly comments:

Barnabas' scheme of history was patterned on the week of creation in Genesis I. The expression "He finished in six days" means, he says, that "the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years." The expression "He rested on the seventh day" contains the prophetic meaning that when Christ, coming again, "shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day."

Pre-millenarians take this seventh day of the millennium, but what pre-millenarian is willing to admit that the millennium is ushered in by the judgement of the ungodly, as Barnabas states? According to the Epistle of Barnabas, the seventh day will not come till "wickedness is no longer existing, and all things have been made new." The eighth day is the "beginning of another world", but all distinction seems to be done away between the seventh and eighth day, when Barnabas says that the Lord, in giving rest to all things (which happens on the seventh day) "makes the beginning of the eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world."

It is clear, at any rate, that Barnabas shuts out the possibility of an earthly millennium in which unregenerate men will be under the reign of Christ. It is perfectly clear too that he holds as all others of his time, that Christians and not Jews are the heirs of the covenant. It is interesting to note that D. H. Kromminga, a pre-millenarian, says the presumption is that "Barnabas was what we nowadays call an a-millennialist" (Millennium in the Church, p. 33.)⁽¹³⁾

Grier's exposition of this difficult passage certainly makes an amillennial interpretation of it possible, if not necessary. If this plausible and amillennial interpretation of Barnabas is adopted or even entertained as possible, the only clear evidence for premillennialism in the Apostolic Fathers is Papias.

What about Papias? Papias claims Apostolic sources for his statements. The fantastic character of what he records as coming from the apostolic circle raises, however, serious questions about the credibility of this claim. Thus, we must admit that Papias was very probably a Premillennialist, but also entertain grave reservations as to the supposed source of the statements recorded by Papias

But whatever questions we may have about the presence of premillennialism in the Apostolic Fathers, it is certainly and widely present in the next period: the second through the fourth centuries.

II. The Growth of the Early Premillennialism

Introduction:

Premillennialism enjoyed great popularity during the second through the fourth centuries of the Christian era. This becomes evident, first of all, in the writings of Justin Martyr.

A. Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr, since his writings date from approximately 160, may be mentioned first here. He makes mention of his premillennialism in his Dialog with Trypho, the Jew, chapters 76-81. It is very clear that Justin is a premillennialist. He says in chapter 80:

But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaia and others declare.

Other considerations blunt the edge of Justin's witness for premillennialism in the early church. First, Justin makes clear that not all Christians agree with him about premillennialism. This is implied in the above statement, but it is made explicit earlier in the same chapter. Trypho, the Jew, is cross-examining Justin about his belief that Jerusalem will be rebuilt as the center of a joyful fellowship of the Christ and his people during the millennium. Is he really serious, asks Trypho, in affirming a doctrine held also by the Jews? Justin replies:

I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.

Second, Justin's premillennialism is not only inconsistent with other statements he makes. It is also of a different kind than that commonly taught today. One of the great thrusts of Justin's Dialog with Trypho the Jew is the doctrine that Christians are the true Jews.⁽¹⁴⁾ Grier ably brings out these inconsistencies in Justin's premillennialism.

When Justin Martyr is speaking of the kingdom for which Christians look, he denies that it is a human kingdom - "you suppose we speak of a human kingdom, whereas we speak of that which is with God." Justin speaks of a general judgement at Christ's second coming, when death "shall for ever quit those who believe on Him and be no more: when some are sent to be punished unceasingly into judgement and condemnation of fire: but others shall exist in freedom from suffering, from corruption, and from grief and in immortality.

From these statements one would suppose there was no room for an earthly millennium in his teaching, yet inconsistently he says elsewhere that there will be a resurrection of the dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, and "that thereafter the general and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgement of all men would likewise take place." Justin's millennium would have no special place at all for the Jew, for he tells us over and over that Christians "are the true Israelite race". He tells us that he and others who are right-minded Christians on all points hold to this notion of a millennium, but he admits that "many who belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians think otherwise."

Papias and Justin, then, are the only two of all the writers in the first sixty years of the second century who may with any certainty be called pre-millenarians, and Justin is decidedly inconsistent. Others definitely by their statements exclude pre-millenarianism. The first two volumes of the Fathers in the Ante-Nicene Library contain 950 pages, but the indices give only two references under the word "millennium"; these two are to the statement of Papias and Justin.⁽¹⁵⁾

B. Irenaeus

Irenaeus was among the growing premillennial movement after the period of the Apostolic Fathers.

Ireneus, on the strength of tradition from St. John and his disciples, taught that after the destruction of the Roman Empire, and the brief raging of antichrist (lasting three and a half years or l260 days), Christ will visibly appear, will bind Satan, will reign at the rebuilt city of Jerusalem with the little band of faithful confessors and the host of risen martyrs over the nations of the earth, and will celebrate the millennial sabbath of preparation for the eternal glory of heaven; then, after a temporary liberation of Satan, follows the final victory, the general resurrection, the judgement of the world, and the consummation in the new heavens and the new earth.⁽¹⁶⁾

C. Tertullian and the Montanists

Tertullian was a respected leader of the church in North Africa early in the third century, but his zeal caused him to admire from a distance the Montanists concentrated in the eastern part of the church. Sometimes Tertullian has even been called a Montanist, but if this true at all, it is true only in a highly qualified sense. Tertullian did, however, agree with the Montanists with respect to their Premillennialism. Says Schaff:

Tertullian was an enthusiastic Chiliast, and pointed not only to the Apocalypse, but also to the predictions of the Montanist prophets. But the Montanists substituted Pepuza in Phrygia for Jerusalem, as the center of Christ's reign, and ran into fanatical excesses, which brought chiliasm into discredit, and resulted in its condemnation by several synods in Asia Minor.⁽¹⁷⁾

One authority gives this account of Montanist premillennialism.

Not long after the beginning of the prophesying Montanus crossed the Phrygian border and established himself with his followers in the city of Pepuza ... Pepuza, with the neighboring village of Tymion, he named Jerusalem. To this settlement, which was thenceforward the centre and holy city of Eastern Montanism, he endeavored to gather adherents from all quarters. These facts coupled with the lavish promises made by the prophets to their adherents and certain predictions of Maximilla ... apart from a more explicit oracle attributed to another prophetess ... would lead us to the conclusion that the `new prophecy' taught men to expect in the near future, at Pepuza, the final Parousia of the Lord .... The primitive Montanists, in fact, held the doctrine of chiliasm, but chiliasm of a new kind. It was this hope of the Parousia at their Jerusalem that gained for them the name of Pepuzians .... It is not necessary to pursue the history of Eastern Montanism in detail. For some years after the death of Maximilla, the last of the original trio, in 179-180, there were no prophets, and the church and the world enjoyed peace--facts which, as anti-Montanistic writers pointed out, disproved the claims of the first prophets.⁽¹⁸⁾

D. Other Premillennialists

Schaff provides this concluding summary of other premillennialists in this period of church history:

After Tertullian, and independently of Montanism, chiliasm was taught by Commodian towards the close of the third century, Lactantius, and Victorinus of Petau, at the beginning of the fourth. Its last distinguished advocates in the East were Methodius (d., a martyr, 3ll), the opponent of Origen, and Apollinaris of Laodicea in Syria.⁽¹⁹⁾

E. Conclusions--The Doctrinal Significance of Early Premillennialism

Premillennialists, as the example of Charles Feinberg shows, often bring forward this early premillennialism as a matter of weighty doctrinal significance in favor of premillennialism. As we have seen, the prevalence of premillennialism may be easily overstated. Nevertheless, even when the evidence is properly weighed, this early premillennialism may still seem to create a doctrinal presumption in favor of premillennialism to some minds. It may still appear difficult for the opponents of premillennialism to explain the prominence of premillennialism in the Early Church. It may be asked, Does not this evidence suggest that premillennialism originated within Apostolic Christianity?

To this question it may be replied that it is not necessary to assume from the evidence presented that premillennialism originated within Apostolic Christianity. As the quotations from Justin have already suggested, a Christian premillennialist could recognize a remarkable similarity between his own views and those of the Jews at this point. This tends to confirm the view that premillennialism originated within ancient Judaism. Masselink in his polemic work against premillennialism asked the question:

"What is the origin of this strange doctrine?" You ask. The careful study of church history will furnish us with the conclusive answer. Premillennialism is a descent of ancient Judaism. There is a striking resemblance between the offspring and the parent. The old Jewish conceptions of an external Messianic kingdom have found their perfect embodiment in the Chiliastic theory of the millennium. Premillennialism is a relic of Judaism.⁽²⁰⁾

Geerhardus Vos in his Pauline Eschatology offers abundant evidence that within pre-Christian Judaism there had grown up an eschatological system which related the idea of the Messianic kingdom to the eternal state by way of making them consecutive phases in God's plan for the end of history. That is to say, the Messianic kingdom occurs before the final judgment at the end of history and the eternal state. In 4 Ezra, for instance, the Messianic kingdom lasts four hundred years at the end of history.⁽²¹⁾ It seems likely that early Christians coming out of a judaistic background imported this view into their new faith. Rather than spiritualizing the Messianic kingdom or in some way seeing the Messianic kingdom as already present in the church, they retained the entire Jewish eschatology and placed it at the end of history.

This ancestry of premillennialism is, of course, not conclusive against it. A premillennialist might claim that these views developed in inter-testamental Judaism from Old Testament rootage. Yet, it does provide an explanation for the early Premillennialism which is consistent with rejecting it as the authentic eschatology of the Bible.⁽²²⁾

III. The Withering of the Early Premillennialism

The growth of premillennialism did not continue. Two major influences appeared to have brought about the complete demise of premillennialism: the excesses of Montanism and the verdict of Augustine.

A. The Excesses of Montanism

The peculiar form of Premillennialism held by the Montanists has already been noted. Their extremes had the marked tendency to bring disrepute upon Premillennialism in the early church and certainly contributed to its gradual demise. When several church councils in Asia Minor decreed against Montanism, this could not help but have a negative effect on their favorite doctrine of premillennialism.⁽²³⁾

B. The Verdict of Augustine

There was no greater theological authority for the Middle Ages than Augustine of Hippo. When Augustine rejected premillennialism, the eschatological course of the next 1000 years was set and anti-premillennialism would be the position of the vast majority.

Augustine's key pronouncements against premillennialism occur in the City of God (Book 20, chapters 6-10). In chapter 7 Augustine, having just described premillennialism, gives this assessment of it:

And, this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God; for I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert, that those who rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians. It were a tedious process to refute these opinions point by point: we prefer to show how that passage of Scripture [Revelation 20--SW] should be understood.

At this point Augustine proceeds to give what is very clearly an amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20. Included toward the end of this exposition are clear indications that Augustine believed in a personal antichrist who comes on the scene in the final little season before Christ's return after the thousand years are completed. (Note chapters 13 and 19 of Book 20.)

These chapters of Augustine are fascinating in the light they shed on the withering of premillennialism in the early church. We see the process itself going on in the fact that Augustine once had held and then rejected premillennialism. We see something of the reason for Augustine's distaste for premillennialism: he sees it as encouraging a `carnal' hope for the future. It also seems clear that Augustine would find little practical objection to a premillennialism which had shed this kind of `carnality'. (Augustine's subsequent exposition makes clear, however, that he would still have serious exegetical objections to premillennialism.)

The growth and withering (or rise and fall) of premillennialism in the Early Church may be diagramed as follows

/\ 400 [Augustine Repudiates]

/ \ 350

/ \ 300 Lactantius, Methodius,

/ \ 250 Commodian

\ / 200 Montanists, Tertullian

\ / 150 Justin Martyr, Irenaeus

\ / 100 Papias

\/ 50 ???

IV. The Doctrine of the Medieval Church

These pronouncements of Augustine were of high authority throughout the period of the Medieval Church and even into the Reformation. Calvin himself probably held the same approximate view as Augustine. Yet the seemingly straightforward amillennialism of The City of God in which the thousand years is identified as the whole period (except for the little season at the end of the age) between Christ's first and second advents is not the whole story about the doctrine of eschatology which dominated the Augustinian church. There is a different angle on this which must also be considered. This angle or perspective also found in the writings of Augustine anticipates an eschatological perspective of a more postmillennial character.

Augustine's relating of the Church to the State in his controversy with the Donatists in North Africa forms the context of this perspective. During this controversy, as Leonard Verduin notes⁽²⁴⁾, it was Augustine who first presented a theological justification for the use of the state by the church to physically coerce the heretical or unconverted. Clearly, this implied an alteration in the Church's ante-Nicene views of the relationship of the Church to the State. Verduin describes this new view as a Christian sacralism. He defines a sacral society as a society in which only one religion is permitted. Thus, political unity is thought to require religious unity. This is confirmed by the less sensational presentation of Warfield who notes that Augustine taught the concordance of Church and State.⁽²⁵⁾

The justification of all this required certain fundamental changes in the earlier views of Augustine himself. Brown comments,

He had changed his mind on one point only. Ten years previously, he had thought that the ages before the coming of Christianity belonged to a more primitive `stage of moral evolution;' and that, in his own days, Christianity was purely `spiritual' religion. It had risen entirely above the physical sanctions and the enforced observances of that `shadowy' past. Now Augustine was no longer so sure.⁽²⁶⁾

Augustine now began to appeal to the Old Testament to justify physical sanctions against unbelievers. Verduin notes, "It was easy for Augustine to slide back from Constantine to David and from the church-state now known as Christendom to the Church-state that was Israel. That backward slide is easy in the context of a flat theology."⁽²⁷⁾ The phrase, "flat theology," is Verduin's apt way of describing a theology which has missed the progression and upward movement of Biblical theology. In other words, again using the language of Verduin, Augustine missed the distinction between early and late that characterizes the Biblical revelation. Having missed the Biblical distinction, Verduin notes that Augustine substitutes a false early and late of his own.⁽²⁸⁾ This false early and late was made necessary by a certain objection raised against Augustine's theological justification of coercion.

A complaint was raised by some ... who were having difficulty accepting the idea of compulsion in the things of the faith that there was no "example found in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles of any petition presented in behalf of the Church to kings of the earth against her enemies" -- precisely what Augustine and his large following were doing. In his "letter to Vincentius," Augustine replied: "Who denies this? None such is to be found. But at that time the prophecy, "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth: serve the Lord with fear, "was not yet fulfilled,"⁽²⁹⁾

This citation from Augustine and many others brought forward by Verduin⁽³⁰⁾ shows that Augustine felt that the difference between the persecuted church of the New Testament and the Constantinian church could be explained by the fulfillment of prophecies like Psalm 2. Simply put, Augustine taught that there was a qualitative difference between the condition of the church in the New Testament period and the triumphant condition which the church had now attained in the Constantinian era prior to the Second Advent of Christ. This idea bears a striking resemblance to a certain school of eschatology and Verduin does not miss this. "However, before long he and his followers were identifying the change that had put an end to cross-bearing with the millennium as pictured in the Apocalypse."⁽³¹⁾ It is not, then, far-fetched to find the origin of Postmillennialism, or, at least, the controlling and formative distinction of systematic Postmillennialism in Augustine. Neither is it surprising that views of the relation of church and state similar to his often have characterized systematic Postmillennialists. Indeed, strikingly similar views characterize the resurgent postmillennialism of the Theonomic or Christian Reconstruction movement of our day.

Section 2: Eschatology in the Reformation and Modern Church

General Introduction: Eschatology and the Reformation

A. The Heritage of the Reformation

In this second section of our consideration of the history of eschatology we will focus on the period of the Modern Church. We might, therefore, be accused of overlooking a key period of doctrinal development in the history of the church, the period of the Reformation. The eschatology of the Reformation period, however, was dominated by Augustine. For the Reformation really inherited and for the most part adopted without modification the old `amillennialism' of Augustine as laid out in The City of God. The early Reformers such as Calvin and Luther were thoroughgoing Augustinians. Thus, this orientation is not surprising.⁽³²⁾

B. The Innovation of the Reformation

At only one place may the Reformation be identified with an innovation, contribution, or distinction with regard to eschatological teaching. This has to do with the clear and forthright identification of the papacy as the antichrist. This was the view of the eschatologically bold, Luther. It was also the view of the eschatologically reserved, Calvin. Indeed, it was the general view of the Protestants.⁽³³⁾ The confident identification of the papacy or the line of Roman Catholic popes with the antichrist was pregnant with eschatological implications for the modern period.

In Luther--though not apparently in Calvin--this identification of the papacy as the antichrist led to, suggested, or at least fitted nicely what has been called the `historicist' system of prophetic interpretation.<sup>(34)</sup> Historicism viewed the Book of Daniel, but especially the Book of Revelation as giving a consecutive outline of the events of the present age up till the second advent. Of course, to discern the true teaching of these books a symbolic and figurative system of interpretation had to be utilized. Often associated with this `historicist' method of interpretation was the theory that the days of prophecy stand for years. This led to the idea that the 1260 days (Rev. 11:3; 12:6) stood for an important prophetic period of 1260 years during the present age. This idea becomes enormously significant in later prophetic interpretation.

In order to blunt the edge of the Protestant polemic against the papacy Roman Catholic interpreters developed two alternative methods of prophetic interpretation. These views (known as preterism and futurism) later became important in the history of Protestant eschatological thought. Froom's explanation of this development is helpful and appears to be generally correct:

Rome's answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually conflicting and contradictory. Through the Jesuits RIBERA, of Salamanca, Spain, and BELLARMINE, of Rome, the Papacy put forth her Futurist interpretation. And through Alcazar, Spanish Jesuit of Seville, she advanced almost simultaneously the conflicting Preterist interpretation. These were designed to meet and overwhelm the Historical [Historicist--SW] interpretation of the Protestants. Though mutually exclusive, either Jesuit alternative suited the great objective equally well, as both thrust aside the application of the prophecies from the existing Church of Rome. The one accomplished it by making prophecy stop altogether short of papal Rome's career. The other achieved it by making it overleap the immense era of papal dominance, crowding Antichrist into a small fragment of time in the still distant future, just before the great consummation.⁽³⁵⁾

Historicism, then, saw the Book of Revelation as providing a consecutive symbolic account of the history of the gospel age. Preterism thought that the Book of Revelation dealt with events fulfilled long before Constantine in the period of the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. Futurism views the events of the Book of Revelation as dealing mainly with events connected with a future tribulation before the coming of Christ.

It is, then, a Protestantism firmly convinced that Rome was the antichrist and, therefore, inclined to an historicist interpretation of prophecy that we confront at the beginning of the history of the Modern Church. I propose to summarize the course of eschatological thought in the Modern Church under three heads:

I. The Rise of Postmillennialism (Thesis)

II. The Reaction of Premillennialism (Antithesis)

III. The Return of Amillennialism (Synthesis)

I. The Rise of Postmillennialism (Thesis)

Millennial expectations of both the premillennial and postmillennial variety gradually grew up in the general context of the Puritan movement centered in the British Isles. Iain Murray in a fascinating chapter found in his Puritan Hope⁽³⁶⁾ carefully traces the development of these expectations. The development begins, he asserts, with the teaching of the restoration or future conversion of the Jews by two progenitors of the Reformed movement in Britain.

One of the first developments in thought on prophecy came as further attention was given to the Scriptures bearing on the future of the Jews. Neither Luther nor Calvin saw a future general conversion of the Jews promised in Scripture; some of their contemporaries, however, notably Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, who taught at Cambridge and Oxford respectively in the reign of Edward VI, did understand the Bible to teach a future calling of the Jews. In this view they were followed by Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. As early as 1560, four years before Calvin's death, the English and Scots refugee Protestant leaders who produced the Geneva Bible, express this belief in their marginal notes on Romans chapter 11, verses 15 and 26. On the latter verse they comment, `He sheweth that the time shall come that the whole nation of the jews, though not everyone particularly, shall be joined to the church of Christ.'⁽³⁷⁾

Murray then traces how this belief became common among the Puritans. He concludes, "From the first quarter of the seventeenth century, belief in a future conversion of the Jews became commonplace among the English Puritans."⁽³⁸⁾

Martyr's view was, however, that this conversion of the Jews was to be one of the climactic events of history.⁽³⁹⁾ Later developments led to the expectation that associated with the conversion of the Jews would be a further glorious calling of the Gentiles. This thought was strengthened by the promulgation of a kind of premillennialism which associated these events with the 1000-year period of Revelation 20. This premillennialism claimed for a short while a small following among some Puritans. Prominent among these were Joseph Mede and Thomas Goodwin.⁽⁴⁰⁾ Premillennialism was, however, brought into scandal by the extremes of the premillennial `Fifth-Monarchy' men.

Rejecting the literalism of this premillennialism, some Puritans did, however, identify the future period of blessing for the church with the 1000 years of Revelation 20 interpreted spiritually. When this happened, a genuine or systematic postmillennialism was inaugurated. Murray's comments here are helpful:

We have traced in these last few pages a sequence and development of ideas which may be enumerated as follows: (1) the jews to be converted; (2) their calling to be associated with a further expansion of the Church and therefore not to be at the end; (3) a fuller development and future prosperity of the Church to be identified with the thousand years' peace of Revelation 20; and (4) Christ himself to inaugurate this future reign and raise his saints.

It is important now to notice that these beliefs are not so necessarily related as to stand or fall together. The majority of Puritan divines believed that the scriptural evidence was broad enough to warrant an acceptance of points one and two above. Some considered that point three was correct, but that the `resurrection' to usher in the millennium was not to be taken literally; it refers, they thought, to the spiritual resurrection of the Church's influence in the world which will then be witnessed. This identification of the Church's time of highest development with a spiritual millennium was to command very wide support in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Protestantism. Whether right or wrong, no major difference exists between those who accepted this refinement of point three and those who only went as far as point two. Sometimes those who accepted point three, in the sense just given, have been termed `millenaries' or `chiliasts', but Millenarianism proper is the view represented by point four and it is here that a radical difference is involved.⁽⁴¹⁾

Froom asserts that Daniel Whitby, an Anglican clergyman who lived during the later period of Puritanism (1638-1726), was the originator of postmillennialism⁽⁴²⁾, but Murray's careful study of the Puritans show how misguided his view is. We must also remember that in some parts of the Augustinian tradition the thousand years was thought to begin only after the accession of Constantine. This is already something like Postmillennialism, and this aspect of Augustine's thought was not forgotten by the historicist Augustinians of the Reformation period. Men like Jonathan Edwards and other pillars of the eighteenth century revivals and missionary movements may have been influenced by Whitby, but they stood in an Augustinian and Puritan tradition which had been moving in a postmillennial direction. They were themselves certainly postmillennialists. They did believe that a great golden age of the church would precede the second coming of Christ.

Murray's statement that (what we would call) postmillennialism "was to command very wide support in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Protestantism" is certainly accurate.⁽⁴³⁾ This belief is the context in which we come to our next point.

II. The Reaction of Premillennialism (Antithesis)

The development and appeal of premillennialism in the 1800's cannot be understood apart from an appreciation of the fact that it arose in reaction to the dominant postmillennial viewpoint we have just mentioned. It also cannot be understood unless one realizes that the dominant, Protestant, method of interpreting Scripture was the historicism described earlier. It appears that, though the early premillennialism arose in reaction to postmillennialism, both the postmillennialism and the premillennialism of the early 1800's was historicist in its method of prophetic interpretation.

The validity of these observations upon the backdrop and appeal of resurgent British premillennialism is confirmed by the research and interpretations of Ernest Sandeen in his The Roots of Fundamentalism. The resurgence of premillennialism in the early 1800's was sparked, according to Sandeen, by three factors. Sandeen deals with these factors in a chapter entitled, "The Revival of British Millenarianism".⁽⁴⁴⁾

Here is what he says about the first factor: "In the first place, then, the British Millenarian revival was characterized by a new passion for the interpretation of the prophetic scriptures." As Sandeen indicates in the paragraphs preceding this assertion, events in Europe connected with the French Revolution sparked off this renewed interest in prophecy. Particularly arresting to the prophetic thought of the day was the way in which the French Revolution curtailed the power of the Church of Rome. Says Sandeen, "The Revolution brought the cheering sight of the destruction of papal power in France, the confiscation of church property, and eventually the establishment of a religion of reason; the final act occurred in 1798 when French troops under Berthier marched on Rome, established a republic, and sent the pope into banishment. Commentators were quick to point out that this"deadly wound" had been explicitly described and dated in Revelation 13. .... The identification of the events of the 1790s with those prophesied in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 provided biblical commentators with a prophetic Rosetta stone. At last a key had been found with which to crack the code. There could now be general agreement upon one fixed point of correlation between prophecy and history. After 1799, in Egyptology as in prophecy, it seemed as though there were no limits to the possibility of discovery."

The second aspect of the renewed interest in premillennialism was a renewal of interest in the state of the Jews. Sandeen discusses the part one Lewis Way played in this renewed concern for the Jews, but, as we have seen, interest in the Jews and their conversion was deeply rooted in the Puritan eschatological expectations. Of course, there it was normally connected with an Augustinian or postmillennial outlook.

The third aspect of this millenarian revival was renewed interest in the idea of the premillennial advent of Christ itself. Though Sandeen does not understand or underscore the appeal of this to Bible-believing Christians in that day, yet his words do underscore the way in which premillennialism would have struck believers in a day dominated by a postmillennial outlook.

The doctrine of the premillennial advent, the third aspect of the millenarian revival, seemed novel, probably mistaken, possibly heretical to most Anglicans of the day. In keeping with the standard Whitbyan eschatology, Christians had not been taught to expect the second coming during their own lives. The second advent, they felt, would occur only after the millennium and, therefore, must be more than one thousand years away. Many of the clergy had never troubled themselves over this kind of bewildering eschatological question or were frankly skeptical of the divine import of the apocalyptic mysteries of Daniel and Revelation.

These words provide the basis for thinking that the premillennialism of the early 1800's was a kind of biblical and believing reaction against the lack of emphasis upon Christ's second coming and toward the emphasis of the New Testament upon the imminence and practical importance of Christ's second coming. This emphasis was (it seemed) taught on the face of the New Testament.

And a further implication (in this historical context) of this emphasis must be appreciated. In a context where everyone assumed that some kind of millennium awaited the church in the future the only doctrine which seemed consistent with any doctrine of the imminence of Christ's second coming was one in which Christ returned before the thousand years not afterwards.

Sandeen's comments also make clear that the premillennial revival was originally of an historicist kind of premillennialism. In a strange way the Protestant assumption that the papacy was the antichrist served to ignite in the late 18th century a renewed interest in the prophetic scriptures. The French Revolution's assault upon the papacy looked amazingly prophetic to protestant and historicist interpreters. Thus, these convictions were connected with the revival of premillennialism which followed.

This early historicist premillennialism in a few decades received a deadly wound of its own. Historicist prophetic interpretation of a premillennial variety was made to order for the date-setting mania that often accompanies renewed interest in prophecy. Says Sandeen:

William Miller illustrated, with telling exaggeration, a fundamental dilemma of the historicist school of millenarians. Chronology formed the structure of their dogma; they had tied themselves to a prophetic timetable derived from events predicted in the Bible, especially Revelation. Although the non-Millerite millenarians seldom became committed to a specific month and day, there was scarcely a year that passed without one or another millenarian expectation being disappointed. This was particularly true from 1843 to 1848 and again from 1867 to 1870, when prophetic calculation and civil unrest coincided to bring expectations to a boil.⁽⁴⁵⁾

William Miller was an American. His views had not been derived in any direct sense apparently from British Millenarians. Yet they paralleled that of the British historicist premillennialists in remarkable ways. Sandeen remarks:

The most famous millenarian in American history, William Miller, was far from being a fanatic. A self-educated farmer from Low Hampton, New York, he showed no interest in prophecy during his early years and was, in fact, something of a skeptic until converted in 1816. During the next few years, precisely at the time that British prophetic interest began to stir, Miller became fascinated with interpretation of prophecy. Depending almost entirely upon his own exegesis of the Bible, Miller developed a system of prophetic interpretation that came remarkably close to duplicating that being developed by the historicist Premillennialists of Britain .... William Miller taught a doctrine of the last times that differed remarkably little from that proclaimed by the British nineteenth-century millenarians. The main thrust of Miller's teaching was that Christ would return, the wicked be judged, and the world cleansed by fire about 1843. His convictions were founded upon the same assumptions as were those of the historicist premillenarians in Britain--that the prophecies of the Bible were always literally fulfilled and that chronological sequences in the apocalyptic books should be interpreted according to the year-day theory.⁽⁴⁶⁾

The Waterloo of historicist premillennialism in America is graphically described by Sandeen:

But on 22 October 1844 the sun sank as it had on every other day since creation, and Christ had not come. In retrospect the Millerite movement appears to have virtually destroyed premillennialism in America for a generation .... most of those to whom a more diffuse millenarian movement (similar to that of Great Britain) might have appealed were reached instead by the Millerites and either converted and disillusioned or else disillusioned immediately. In the wake of the tragedy of 1844, who could lift up his head and proclaim the message of an imminent advent? Miller's success before 1844 is matched only by the difficulties he created for anyone brave enough to attempt to preach a millenarian message after 1844. It took a long time for America to forget William Miller.⁽⁴⁷⁾

Though not as dramatically or definitively, yet similar disappointments recurred in historicist premillennialism in Britain.⁽⁴⁸⁾ The blunders and disappointments of historicist premillennialism contributed to the appeal of a new form of premillennialism marked by the futurist method of prophetic interpretation. Sandeen remarks:

After 1844 the historicist's position began to lose the almost undisputed position that it had held during the first generation of the millenarian movement. .... Futurism, the competing eschatology of Irish millenarians and the Plymouth Brethren, gradually became more prominent during the 1840s and eventually commanded the adherence of a great part of the British and, especially, the United States millenarians.⁽⁴⁹⁾

The genesis of futurism among Protestant premillennialists must be traced to the influence of Edward Irving. In 1826 Irving came into the possession of a book written by Manuel Lacunza, The Coming of Christ in Glory and Majesty. As might be expected from one converted out of a Jesuit background, the method of prophetic interpretation utilized in this book was futurism. Says Mark Sarver:

As concerns the developments leading up to the emergence of dispensationalism, the primary significance of Lacunza's work lay in its futurism with reference to the interpretation of the book of Revelation (not only regarding the millennium of chapter 20 but also the tribulation of chapters 6 to 19).⁽⁵⁰⁾

The futurism popularized by Irving is the backdrop and context of the development of the Dispensationalism of J. N. Darby. Though there were futurists who were not Dispensational, yet Dispensationalism grew and could only grow on the futurist ground plowed by Irving. Though the precise details are somewhat obscure, it seems clear, for instance, that the secret or pretribulational rapture theory emerged from within the context of the revival of spiritual gifts in Irving's congregation. It is clear that this theory was given a considerable measure of acceptance at the Powerscourt Conferences in 1831 and 1833. Both Darby and Irving were present at these conferences.

Darby built Dispensationalism upon the foundation laid by Irving. Many of his emphases may be found in seed form in Irving. He taught a pessimistic view of the future until Christ's second advent. He emphasized the apostasy of the churches and urged believers to withdraw into what became the Plymouth Brethren assemblies. To defend the secret rapture theory of an any-moment pretribulational coming of Christ he emphasized the distinction between Israel and the church. This distinction was both novel and crucial to the defense of Darby's system. Iain Murray remarks:

At Albury and in Irving's London congregation a curious belief, practically unknown in earlier Church history, had arisen, namely, that Christ's appearing before the millennium is to be in two stages, the first, a secret `rapture' removing the Church before a `Great Tribulation' smites the earth, the second his coming with his saints to set up his kingdom. This idea comes into full prominence in Darby. He held that 'the Church' is a mystery of which only Paul speaks. She is Christ's mystic body and will be complete at the `rapture'. The Jews and other Gentiles converted thereafter will never be Christ's bride: ` I deny that the saints before Christ's first coming, or after his second, are part of the Church.' With breath-taking dogmatism Darby swept away what had previously been axiomatic in Christian theology.⁽⁵¹⁾

Darby's pretribulational, secret rapture soon became an issue of division among the Plymouth Brethren. A leading Brethren teacher, B. W. Newton, soon took exception to it.

By 1840, B. W. Newton had begun what was to become a lifelong critique of the doctrine of the secret rapture and the theological implications associated with it. In his treatise Five Letters on Events Predicted in Scripture as Antecedent to the Coming of the Lord Newton posed the question, "Is the church directed in Scripture to expect a secret coming of the Lord Jesus Christ?" and answered with a resounding no.⁽⁵²⁾

Despite the continued opposition of Newton Darby's uncompromising zeal brought him to a place of dominance among the Plymouth Brethren. It was his distinctive Dispensationalism which was, therefore, the brand of futurist Premillennialism which was in the best position to replace the collapsing historicist premillennialism in America.

Darby himself brought Dispensationalism to America visiting seven times between 1862 and 1877. Though he had greater difficulty convincing Christians in America to withdraw from their assumedly apostate churches into Brethren assemblies, his Dispensational theology had enormous influence on many who did not withdraw. Important contacts of Darby who became conduits of Dispensational influence were James H. Brookes (who became perhaps the most respected Millenarian of his generation in America) and Dwight L. Moody (who, while not as fervent in his Dispensationalism, yet provided a prominent platform for Dispensationalism to be spread). Through the prophecy and Bible conference movement of the late 1800s and the alliance with D. L. Moody Dispensationalism came to occupy a respected place in the united front of American premillennialism.

Dispensationalism, as just noted, was part of what may be called a united Millenarian movement in America until the death of Brookes and other early Millenarian leaders in the late 19th and early 20th century. At about the period just mentioned, however, first Nathaniel West and then Robert Cameron attacked the pretribulational position. Arno C. Gaebelein responded for the pretribulational view. The ultimate result was the dominance of Dispensationalism among the Premillennialists.

Why did the pretribulationists (with so little to be said biblically for their position) emerge dominant after this controversy? The first reason has to do with the fact that the Dispensationalists were more willing to continue the fight. Mark Sarver explains:

This heated exchange left the two sides irreversibly polarized. Cameron sought to heal these wounds and construct a united front for both post and pretribulationists, but Gaebelein cut off his former allies and launched out upon a vigorous pretribulationist campaign. In 1901 he organized conferences in Boston, New York City, and at Sea Cliff, Long Island. In 1902 he expanded this conference ministry even further. As a result of these and other efforts, the dispensationalist party, more willing to continue the fight, emerged the stronger of the two.⁽⁵³⁾

With the publication of the enormously popular Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 the dominance of pretribulationism was assured.

The second reason for the triumph of the Dispensational view of Christ's second coming probably has something to do with the very nature or premises of the premillennial movement. Pretribulationism appeared to accord better with the expectation of Christ's return at the heart of the premillennial movement. Says Sandeen:

But perhaps more important was the continually reiterated argument of the pretribulationists that the hope of Christ's return had to be an imminent hope or it was not hope at all. If one believes that a period of tribulation must first take place before the coming of Christ, they said, then he cannot look forward to the second advent but must wait only for greater suffering. Regardless of the question of scriptural justification for one point of view over the other, the pretribulationist position was certainly more likely to appeal to that portion of American Christendom which was attracted by the millenarian message.⁽⁵⁴⁾

Thus, it was that Dispensational Premillennialism became dominant among Premillennialists. Because such Millenarians allied themselves with other conservatives to fight Modernism in the Fundamentalist movement. Dispensationalism has been viewed as, if not completely dominant, yet the leading theology in the many churches and institutions created or controlled by Fundamentalism in America.⁽⁵⁵⁾

III. The Return of Amillennialism (Synthesis)

Introduction:

The following historical summary of the eschatological debates between Bible-believing Christians in the mid- to late-twentieth century will concentrate on the attack of a resurgent Amillennialism upon a dominant Dispensationalism. I believe this concentration is justified by the fact that these two viewpoints have emerged as the dominant `players' in the eschatological match of our century. It is unnecessary to multiply statements by both postmillennialists and historic premillennialists in our century which simply assume that this assessment is the case. A single instance may be given, however, merely for the sake of illustration. John Murray (whose historical assessment as one of the premier systematic theologians of our century should not be ignored) wrote these words in a book review in 1942:

In the judgment of the present writer it is regrettable that in current literature on the millennial debate so little attention is paid to the postmillennial position. Just as a great amount of the debate in the century that has passed suffered from neglect of the amillennial position and consequently much of the premillennial criticism rested upon an ignorance or ignoring of the amillennial view, so now the debate is impoverished and in some cases prejudiced by ignoring the postmillennial view fairly or completely.⁽⁵⁶⁾

One of the evidences of doctrinal advance in the 20th century is the emergence of a consensus that there are four basic eschatological views held by Bible-believing Christians. It is appropriate at this point in this brief history of Christian eschatology to provide brief descriptions or definitions of these various views. These views have been denominated as follows: Dispensational Premillennialism, Historic (or Covenant) Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism.

Dispensational Premillennialism holds, of course, to the doctrine of the premillennial return of Christ. It is to be distinguished from the historic premillennial position by the clear separation or distinction it makes between the Church and Israel as two peoples of God who alternatingly and recurrently are the focus of God's plan in the succeeding dispensations of world history. A further distinctive mark of Dispensationalism historically is its doctrine of a pretribulational and secret rapture of the church as the first of two stages in the second coming of Christ. This distinctive requires the church/Israel distinction and is implied by it.⁽⁵⁷⁾

Historic (or perhaps more accurately Covenant) Premillennialism holds that in some sense the Church is the new or true Israel of God. It is, thus, distinguished from Dispensationalism in its rejection of the Church/Israel distinction and pretribulationism. At the same time it agrees with Dispensationalism in teaching the Premillennial return of Christ.

Amillennialism is that view which holds that the thousand years of Revelation 20 refers to the present gospel age. For this reason some of its advocates have wished that it might be re-named realized millennialism since `amillennialism' appears to imply that this view believes in no millennium.⁽⁵⁸⁾ On the other hand, there is an element of truth in the term, amillennialism. The millennium may be and often is defined as a great golden age of peace, prosperity, and righteousness in the history of the world prior to the eternal state. The adjective, millennial, certainly carries this connotation. Amillennialists believe in no such period. Thus, in this sense, amillennialism (literally from the Latin--no millennialism) is aptly named.

Postmillennialism agrees with amillennialism in teaching that Christ returns after the thousand years of Revelation 20. A strict or systematic postmillennialism ought to and often has interpreted the thousand years of that chapter as a future golden age prior to the return of Christ. In fairness, however, it must be said that some postmillennialists have adopted what we might call an amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 and identified the thousand years with the whole of the present, gospel age.⁽⁵⁹⁾ These postmillennialists have opted to establish their optimistic hopes for the prosperity of the gospel and the church on other grounds.

One further word of clarification is necessary with regard to this delineation of the different eschatological views held by Christians. It is clear that there is a basic cleavage between the premillennial (chiliast) views and the anti-premillennial (anti-chiliast) views. It is difficult in a few cases to distinguish the two premillennial views and difficult as we have seen in a few cases to distinguish plainly between amillennialism and postmillennialism. Both amillennialism and postmillenniallism are postmillennial in the sense that both believe that Christ returns after the millennium described in Revelation 20. While some historic premillennialist have approached the amillennial position in their denial of the church/Israel distinction and in their adoption of a two-age approach to redemptive history⁽⁶⁰⁾, their premillennialism still gives the best and most objective vehicle by which to distinguish their eschatological view from others.

In studying the return of amillennialism we will look successively at its setting, sources, and synthesis.

A. Its Setting

1. A Century of Debate between Premillennialism and Postmillennialism

The story of how postmillennialism became the dominant eschatological system of evangelicals during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries has already been told. Thus, it was not controversy between the old Augustinian amillennialism and premillennialism which marked the eschatological conflict of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To some degree both sides shared a common faith in a millennial golden age before the eternal state was ushered in.⁽⁶¹⁾ Thus, as John Murray's statement above has already implied, the distinctive perspectives and positions of amillennialism were mostly ignored and neglected in this battle royal between millennialists (postmillennialists) and millenarians (premillennialists).⁽⁶²⁾

2. The Triumph of Premillennialism among Bible-believers

It is not too much to say that, at least among Bible-believing Christians, triumph in this long conflict between premillennialism and postmillennialism belonged to the premillennialists. This is, of course, not too say that evangelical postmillennialism was wiped out. Though this has sometimes been claimed by premillennialists, and though it is certainly true that postmillennialism has lost the dominance it once claimed, an evangelical and supernaturalistic postmillennialism has lingered on among conservative Reformed thinkers.⁽⁶³⁾ Indeed, in recent days postmillennialism has become one of the distinctives of the small but vocal wing of Reformed theology called Theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism.

The reasons for this triumph of premillennialism must prominently include three causes. The first is that postmillennialism somewhat unjustly became associated with the great enemy of all conservative Christians and institutions during the last half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. Though the Puritan movement within which the foundations of postmillennialism were laid was certainly not liberal or rationalistic, and though prominent advocates of postmillennialism like Jonathan Edwards opposed the rationalism of their age, yet it is likely that many who had more or less compromised Christianity with the optimistic rationalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries found optimistic postmillennialism a good fit.⁽⁶⁴⁾ It was certainly easier to accommodate their ebbing supernaturalism within postmillennialism than within the bluntly supernaturalist premillennialism.

The second reason for the triumph of premillennialism was that the postmillennialism even of conservatives during the centuries of its dominance had more and more focused the hopes and expectations of Christians on matters which even if true were yet secondary in the New Testament. The triumph of the gospel, the golden age of the church, and more immediately death and the intermediate state in heaven had filled the horizon of expectation of the believer. Thus, when premillennialism arose sounding the clarion trumpet of the second advent of Christ and the resurrection of the believer, and when it pointed to the clear New Testament witness that His coming was the believer's hope and His coming was near, this proclamation came with an extraordinary freshness and power to Bible-believers whose future perspectives had been dominated by the postmillennialism of the age.

The third reason for the demise of postmillennialism and triumph of premillennialism was again in some respects unfortunate, but notwithstanding this yet very real. The actual events of the first half of the twentieth century shattered the optimism of an earlier and more innocent age. The apostasy of liberalism in the churches, the rise of communism in the world, two cataclysmic world wars, and the great depression took all the optimistic wind out of the sails of postmillennialism. Granted that such world events should not be the source from which we quarry our eschatology, it remains true that it is not just postmillennialism which has profited from worldly events. Historicist Premillennialism arose partly on account of the events connected with the French Revolution. Futurist Premillennialism was not hindered by the erection of state of Israel after the Second World War. Finally, whether it was right or not, the fact is that these events seemed to many to drive the last nails in the coffin of postmillennialism and hasten its fall from power in the church.

An earlier section of this study has stated that Dispensationalism became dominant among Premillennialism in the early 1900s. This was connected with a third and final reality which sets the scene for the return of amillennialism.

3. The Destruction of the Alliance between Millenarians (Premillennialists) and Conservatives in Fundamentalism

Connected with the dominance of Dispensationalism was the demise of the alliance between Millenarians and Conservatives in their war against Modernism. The break up of this alliance is nowhere more plainly illustrated than in the splits in the conservative Presbyterian body formed under J. Gresham Machen. The story is well-known and detailed in a number of places.

J. Gresham Machen with the able assistance of John Murray resisted the peculiarly Fundamentalist tenets of their Presbyterian allies: abstinence and premillennialism.⁽⁶⁵⁾ Eventually this resulted in the breakup of what was called the Presbyterian Church of America and the creation of separate presbyterian bodies under the leadership of the Dispensationalist, Carl McIntire, and the Premillennialist, Allen Macrae.

B. Its Sources

Wilbur Smith decried the break up of the alliance between the Reformed conservatives and the premillenarians: "What began as a powerful thrust for the evangelical faith, a repudiation of modernism and inclusiveness, dwindled to minor proportions."⁽⁶⁶⁾ Yet it was out of the crucible of the purified Reformed witness of Westminster Seminary and others from a conservative Dutch Reformed background that a major assault was mounted against the fortress of Dispensationalism. This is, of course, not to say that attacks upon `pessimillennialism' have not come from the new postmillennialism. It is also not to discount the guerilla warfare mounted by men like George Eldon Ladd from within the Premillennial camp. Yet it is a simple matter of historical accuracy to say that the major resistance to Dispensational dominance has come from amillennialism in the twentieth century. Even the bibliographies of writers from the different viewpoints given by a postmillennialists like Boetner show the predominance of amillennial writers.⁽⁶⁷⁾

C. Its Synthesis

1. Its Explanation

The amillennialism which has returned to assault Dispensationalism in the twentieth century is one matured and made wiser through its observation of the conflict between premillennialism and postmillennialism. First, it is an amillennialism which through the vulnerability of postmillennialism to the emphasis of premillennialism on the centrality and imminence of Christ's return has learned that the expectation and nearness of Christ's second coming is the true hope of the believer. Second, it is an amillennialism which wishes to distance itself from the charge of spiritualizing and allegorizing which in some cases came too close to home in the older Augustinian amillennialism. Third, it is an amillennialism which is aware of the biblical emphasis on an earthly reign of Christ and now lays emphasis upon the doctrine of a redeemed earth.

To speak plainly, the amillennialism which has arisen in the late twentieth century has incorporated into itself two perspectives associated with premillennialism in the past. Against postmillennialism premillennialism argued the nearness and centrality of the second advent of Christ. Amillennialists today are convinced of the biblical propriety of this emphasis. With postmillennialism premillennialism has accused amillennialism of spiritualizing away the plain promises in Scripture of an earthly reign of Christ. Too often in the past amillennialists have indeed interpreted such promises as a reference to heaven or to the present spiritual glory of the church. Amillennialists today are increasingly aware that in order really to meet the biblical propriety of an emphasis upon an earthly reign of Christ they must depart from such interpretations and emphasize the doctrine of a redeemed earth. Anthony Hoekema sees the issues very plainly when he says:

Dispensationalists accuse us amillenarians of "spiritualizing" prophecies of this sort so as to miss their real meaning. John F. Walvoord, for example, says, "The many promises made to Israel are given one of two treatments [by amillennialists]. By the traditional Augustinian amillennialism, these promises are transferred by spiritualized interpretation to the church. The church today is the true Israel and inherits the promises which Israel lost in rejecting Christ. The other, more modern type of amillennialism holds that the promises of righteousness, peace, and security are poetic pictures of heaven and fulfilled in heaven, not on earth." On a later page, after quoting and referring to a number of prophetic passages about the future of the earth, Walvoord goes on to say, "By no theological alchemy should these and countless other references to earth as the sphere of Christ's millennial reign be spiritualized to become the equivalent of heaven, the eternal state, or the church as amillenarians have done."

To the above we may reply that prophecies of this sort should not be interpreted as referring either to the church of the present time or to heaven, if by heaven is meant a realm somewhere off in space, far away from earth. Prophecies of this nature should be understood as descriptions--in figurative language, to be sure--of the new earth which God will bring into existence after Christ comes again--a new earth which will last, not just for a thousand years, but forever.⁽⁶⁸⁾

2. Its Effects

Whether through the assault of its enemies, or perhaps also from its own inherent instability, the classical Dispensationalism of Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible have shown a clear tendency to splintering and modification in recent years. Grover Gunn and Curtis Crenshaw in their book, Dispensationalism--Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow, distinguish classical dispensationalism and neodispensationalism.⁽⁶⁹⁾ Mark Sarver distinguishes four types of Dispensationalism: "Bullingerite" hyper-dispensationalism, "hardline" or classical Dispensationalism, Neodispensationalism, and those whom Sarver calls the "one-people-of-God dispensationalists.⁽⁷⁰⁾ The anthology entitled, Continuity and Discontinuity--Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, edited by John S. Feinberg displays the amazing fluidity within modern dispensationalism.⁽⁷¹⁾

Conclusion:

James Orr in his important work, The Progress of Dogma, argues that the history of the church displays in its doctrinal development a logical order. The church refines its doctrinal understanding in progressive steps by rejecting more and more subtle deviations from the truth and balance of the Word of God. It seems clear that the time has come in the modern church for the epochal refinement of the church's eschatology. As one observes the Augustinian amillennialism of the early Reformers being developed first in a postmillennial direction, then opposed by a revived premillennialism, then this revived premillennialism being itself stretched to an extreme in Dispensationalism, and finally the return of a wiser amillennialism, there is the kind of thesis--antithesis--synthesis development which marked earlier doctrinal development and especially is illustrated in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of Christ.

Many important lessons may be drawn from this for ourselves. We must beware of reacting in an imbalanced way against the errors of the Millenarian movement lest we lose the lessons that its very arising teaches. We must appreciate the light which God has been pleased to shine out of His Word in our era. We should attempt to give ourselves with renewed enthusiasm and confidence, therefore, to the study of eschatology.

Appendix: The Eschatology of John Murray

John Murray is one of the premier Reformed theologians of the twentieth century. He also has the distinction of being the Reformed hammer which smashed the original alliance between Millenarians and Reformed conservatives in the original Presbyterian Church of America. The student may be interested in the classification into which Professor Murray falls with regard to his eschatology.

It certainly seems clear that given his Scottish Reformed background Professor Murray approached the subject of eschatology with predilections in the direction of postmillennialism. There is something plaintive about his complaints at the neglect of postmillennialism in the twentieth century eschatological debate in a review he wrote in 1942 (Collected Writings, vol. 3, p. 304). It is also clear from his commentary on Romans 11 that he held views with regard to the conversion of Israel and the consequent blessing of the world which are consistent with postmillennialism (Cf. also volume 2 of his Collected Writings, p. 409).

Yet the case for designating Murray as a postmillenarian is not so clear-cut as these facts might indicate. There is evidence of terminological advance in a key issue related to millennial debate. In earlier writings Murray denied the imminence of Christ's return as a premillennial error (Collected Writings, volume 2, pp. 406, 407). This statement is dated in 1963. By 1968 Murray is willing to accept a doctrine of the imminence of Christ's return so long as the word, imminence, is biblically defined (Collected Writings, volume 2, pp. 400).

It is interesting to note, then, that in a writing dated 1943 that Murray refers to postmillenarians in such a way as to leave the suggestion that he is not fully in their camp. In an article entitled, The Christian World Order, which provided Murray a perfect opportunity to announce his postmillennialism, Murray skirts the issue and grounds the Christian's obligation to work for such a world order simply on ethical--not eschatological--grounds. He says, "It is true that the postmillenarian believes that before Christ comes the world will become Christian. But even the most consistent supernaturalistic postmillenarian cannot hold that, even in that period of unprecedented prosperity for the kingdom of God upon earth which he posits as antedating the Lord's coming, the world order will be so completely conformed to the divine will that all sin will be eradicated ..." (Collected Writings, vol. 1, p. 357).

It is also noteworthy that Murray in way not fashionable among postmillennialists taught the coming of a future personal man of sin (Collected Writings, vol. 2, p. 410).

Iain Murray, as we saw in our study of the rise of postmillennialism, distinguishes several elements in the rise of millennial expectations among the Puritans. Murray's comments here are helpful here in our analysis of John Murray's eschatology:

We have traced in these last few pages a sequence and development of ideas which may be enumerated as follows: (1) the jews to be converted; (2) their calling to be associated with a further expansion of the Church and therefore not to be at the end; (3) a fuller development and future prosperity of the Church to be identified with the thousand years' peace of Revelation 20 ....⁽⁷²⁾

It is clear that John Murray held points one and two, but there is no evidence that he held point three.⁽⁷³⁾ There is no evidence, then, that Murray was a systematic postmillennialists. It seems best on the basis of the general tenor of the rest of his eschatological thought to classify him within the amillennialist camp.

1. James Orr in his Progress of Dogma (Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey) concludes with a very brief treatment of the subject, as does Louis Berkhof in The History of Christian Doctrines, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1978). Leroy Edwin Froom's The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers is the only full length treatment of the subject, but it is marred in its value by his own prejudices and somewhat unorthodox perspective.

2. A happy exception is W. J. Grier's The Momentous Event (The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1945) which begins with a brief but penetrating look at the perspectives in church history on the millennium.

3. William Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 1, p. 176.

4. Reinhold Seeberg, History of Doctrines, pp. 80, 81.

5. Martyrdom of Polycarp, 11:2.

6. Homily, 9:4.

7. Dr. Charles Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism, p. 27, cf. p. 202.

8. Seeberg, vol. 1, p. 81; Berkhof states that Papias, Barnabas and Hermas were Premillennialists. Berkhof's assertion about Hermas appears, however, to be so completely without justification that there is no evidence to be weighed and no need for Hermas even to be discussed, The History of Christian Doctrines, p. 41.

9. Didache, ch. 16; the Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 4, 15.

10. Papias, Fragments, IV, V, VI; This may be found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 153, 154.

11. This is as good a place as any to warn the student that `chiliasm' and premillennialism, though often used as synonyms in writings on eschatology, are not always equivalent. Chiliasm is sometimes used to refer to the millennium of systematic postmillennialism. Note Iain Murray's comments in The Puritan Hope, pp. 49, 271.

12. The Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 15.

13. W. J. Grier, The Momentous Event, pp. 22, 23.

14. See especially Justin Martyr's Dialog with Trypho the Jew, ch. XI, CXX, CXXIII, CXXV, CXXXV.

15. Grier, op. cit., pp. 24, 25.

16. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, [AP&A edition], vol. 2, p. 276

17. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 276

18. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, pp. 828,829.

19. Schaff, vol. 2, p. 276

20. William Masselink, Why Thousand Years?, p. 20.

21. Geerhardus Vos, Pauline Eschatology, pp. 228ff.

22. It may also be asked, Why did premillennialism flourish so well on Christian soil? In my opinion the growing atmosphere of legalism and externalism appears to have encouraged the growth of premillennialism. The same theological soil which produced a growing legalism produced a growing premillennialism. Contemporary theologians have properly noted that there is in the eschatology of the New Testament a tension between certain aspects of the last things which have already come to pass and aspects of the last things which have not yet happened. This observation suggests a correlation between the growing legalism of the church of the first few centuries and the growing premillennialism of the church in the first few centuries. In both legalism and chiliasm there is a receding of the already in favor of an increased emphasis on the not yet. This receding of the already and increasing prominence of the not yet had two ramifications. First, the emphasis on grace is bound up with the already in the New Testament (Eph. 2:1-8; Matt. 24:11-13; Rev. 5:9, 10). The emphasis on effort and perseverance is bound up with the not yet (Heb. 4:11 cf. Heb 3:6, 14; Matthew 5:20; 7:13, 14). The receding of the already facilitated a distorted emphasis on the duties bound up with the not yet producing legalism. Second, the same receding of the already in favor of the not yet leads to a neglect of the fact that the Kingdom has come. If one forgets this, it is easy to apply passages which speak of the Kingdom solely to the future, I. Corinthian 15:21ff for instance. Just as the emphasis on the not yet leads to a focus on our persevering effort which can be easily distorted into legalism, so it also leads to a focus on the future kingdom which can be easily distorted into premillennialism. Bound up, then, with the growing legalism of the early church was also a growing externalism. This externalistic tendency is visible in both the chiliasm and the legalism of the Apostolic Fathers. The fantastic emphasis on physical plenty in the millennium (cf. Papias) fits in well with the growing externalism of the church during this period.

23. So hostile was the eventual reaction to Montanism that it even tended to have a specific influence on canonical matters. This happened because some reacting against Montanism began to reject the Johannine writings to which Montanism made such frequent reference. F. F. Bruce describes this reaction: "One interesting by-product of the Montanist movement was the suspicion which it engendered in some people's minds against the Johannine literature of the New Testament, to which Montanists so confidently appealed. Their doctrine of the second advent was based on a literal interpretation of the millennium mentioned in the book of Revelation, and there were those who found it impossible to reject this Montanist doctrine without at the same time rejecting the book of Revelation. One of those who rejected the book was a Roman presbyter named Gaius, author of a Dialogue in which he maintained a debate with Proclus, leader of the Montanists in his day (c. 200). Apparently Gaius attributed the book to Cerinthus, a heretic who flourished about the end of the first century. But there is reason to believe that Gaius also rejected the apostolic authority of the Fourth Gospel, from which, of course, the Montanists drew their doctrine of the Paraclete. ... Gaius had no great following in his view of the Fourth Gospel, however; a small group of people who maintained a view similar to his, but (like him) were orthodox in all other respects, are referred to by a fourth-century writer as the Alogoi. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame, p. 220.

24. Leonard Verduin, The Anatomy of a Hybrid, pp. 119ff.

25. B. B. Warfield, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine, (vol. 4 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield), p. 126.

26. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo, p. 237ff.

27. Verduin, p. 111.

28. Verduin, p. 109.

29. Verduin, p. 110.

30. Verduin, pp. 106-111.

31. Verduin, p. 107.

32. Several notes of minor interest regarding Luther and Calvin may br mentioned here. Luther seems to have entertained strong hopes that Christ would return in a relatively short period of time. Also, Luther early in his career harbored doubts about the canonicity of the Book of Revelation. Such doubts were usually connected with the suspicion that it taught premillennialism. Calvin never wrote a commentary on the Book of Revelation--one of the rare exceptions to his commenting in the entire canon of the Bible. This is not an omission characteristic of Premillennialists.

33. The importance of this view is manifested by the fact that it even found its way into the Westminster Confession of Faith and via the Westminster into the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Chapter 26, paragraph 4).

34. See Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 266ff. and pp. 426ff.

35. Froom, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 486, 487. There is good evidence that the origin of Protestant futurism, especially of the Dispensational variety, does indeed trace back to these Jesuit interpreters through Edward Irving's translation of the futurist interpretation of the Book of Revelation by Manuel Lacunza. Cf. Ernest Sandeen's The Roots of Fundamentalism, pp. 17, 18, 37. Froom's implied claim that these Jesuits originated futurism and preterism is, however, questionable.

36. Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope, pp. 39-55.

37. Murray, op. cit., p. 41.

38. Murray, op. cit., p. 43.

39. Murray, op. cit., p. 45.

40. Murray, op. cit., pp. 48, 53.

41. Murray, op. cit., pp. 48, 49. Murray says in a footnote connected with this statement that it is this that is responsible for the confusion surrounding the use of chiliasm and millenarianism (and related words) in eschatological literature. Millenaries are not always premillennialists. Sometimes they are the exact opposite, postmillennialists.

42. Froom, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 651.

43. Even Froom tacitly admits this; op. cit., vol. 2, p.652.

44. Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, pp. 5-14.

45. Sandeen, op. cit., p. 59.

46. Sandeen, op. cit., pp. 52, 53.

47. Sandeen, op. cit., pp. 54, 55.

48. Sandeen, op. cit., p. 60; cf. also p. 18 of Mark Sarver's The Historical Genesis and Development of Dispensationalism.

49. Ibid.

50. Pastor Mark Sarver, The Historical Genesis and Development of Dispensationalism, p. 10.

51. Murray, op. cit., p. 200.

52. Sandeen, op. cit., p. 65.

53. Sarver, op. cit., p. 26.

54. Sandeen, op. cit., pp. 220, 221.

55. The genesis and development of Dispensationalism because of its importance in American Fundamentalism deserves a much more extended treatment than it is given here. The student should see the paper by Mark Sarver quoted several times in this brief presentation and placed as an appendix at the end of the lecture manuscript.

56. John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 3, p. 305.

57. In a day when it has become `politically correct' or a necessity of doctrinal orthodoxy in many circles to call oneself a Dispensationalist there are, of course, self-proclaimed Dispensationalists who have opted for a posttribulational view of the rapture and second coming. So, for instance, Robert H. Gundry describes himself in The Church and The Tribulation, p. 28. This, however, is rare and contrary to the general trend of what we have seen in the treatment of the rise of premillennialism and dispensationalism in the 19th century.

58. Cf. for instance Anthony Hoekema in The Bible and The Future, pp. 173, 174.

59. Cf. for instance Anthony Hoekema in The Bible and The Future, pp. 176, 177.

60. Cf. for instance George Eldon Ladd in The Presence of the Future.

61. Sandeen, op. cit., pp. 42, 43.

62. This is the somewhat inadequate terminology suggested by Sandeen, op. cit., p. 5.

63. Cf. The well-known postmillennial work of Loraine Boetner, The Millennium, and also the work of J. Marcellus Kik entitled, An Eschatology of Victory.

64. Cf. The comments of Sandeen on the combination of nationalism and postmillennialism in America, op. cit., pp. 43-46.

65. Cf. Iain Murray's biography of John Murray in the Collected Writings of John Murray vol. 3, pp. 66f.

66. Cf. Iain Murray's biography of John Murray in the Collected Writings of John Murray vol. 3, pp. 68.

67. Loraine Boetner, The Millennium, pp. 10-13.

68. Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and The Future, pp. 275, 276.

69. Grover Gunn and Curtis Crenshaw, Dispensationalism--Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow, p. 7.

70. Sarver, op. cit., pp. 28ff.

71. Continuity and Discontinuity--Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, edited by John S. Feinberg.

72. Murray, op. cit., pp. 48, 49.

73. I have been unable to locate any written comments of Murray on Revelation 20.

Part 2: Structural Considerations