Amillennialism
from Ch. 2 of the booklet Amillennialism , by Bunting
THE BASIS OF AMILLENNIALISM
Amillennialists belong to what is known as the Allegorical School of
interpretation. In accordance with the principles of this school, some
of the plainest passages of Scripture, which any unbiased reader would
understand in a literal sense, are so spiritualised that their meaning
is entirely distorted, if not completely lost. It is true, the Bible
contains allegories and symbols and certain passages are intended to be
taken figuratively. No Scripture, however, should be so interpreted
except where the inspiring Spirit has made it perfectly obvious that it
should be treated in that manner. “Therefore,” says Dr. D L Cooper,
“take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning,
unless the facts of the context clearly indicate otherwise.” It is just
here that amillennialism fails. One of “the major errors of
amillennialism is that it fails to keep faith with the basic Protestant
principle of interpretation, namely, that the literal sense is primary.
Only where the Scripture itself indicates, may we take refuge in a
symbolical solution of any problem of exegesis.” (Dr. A Skevington Wood,
F.R.Hist.S., in “The Prophetic Witness").
Many instances of this process of spiritualising could be cited. For
the present a slight reference to one will manifest how unwarranted it
is. This has to do with the carefully furnished measurements of the City
of God and its glorious Temple in Ezek.40-48. The amillennialists
reduce these “explicitly detailed specifications to vague symbolism.
Anything that reads less like symbolism could scarcely be found in the
whole of Scripture. And what these severely practical measurements could
possibly symbolise defeats even the most resourceful allegorist”. (Dr. A
S Wood)
One feature which has down the years manifested the utter weakness
and unreliability of their system has been the multiplicity of diverse
interpretations propagated upon certain Scriptures There are several
amillennial views upon Ezek.40-48 and Dr. J F Walvoord speaks of having
“personally examined some fifty of their historical interpretations of
Revelation.” It seems that each teacher has interpreted according to his
own whim and fancy. Then, when an interpretation has proved untenable,
another has with ease been adopted and propounded in its stead. Not
infrequently these are contradictory the one to the other. Of the fifty
which Dr Walvoord examined, he states that not one of them would be
accepted by an intelligent person today. The handling of Holy Scripture
in such a haphazard manner is, to say the least, most disappointing and
unsatisfactory. It brings the study of prophecy into disrepute, and can
only bewilder and stumble the simple reader of the Word.
As might be expected, many of these views have been anything but sane
and sober. One writer understands Job’s three friends to represent the
heretics; his seven sons, the apostles; his flock of sheep, the people
of God; and “his hump-backed camels, the depraved Gentiles” (Cited by
Dr. G B Stanton, in “Kept From The Hour") Aquinas, writing upon Rev.20,
taught that “As seven mystically implies universality, so thousand
implies perfection whether in good or evil.” Auberlen believed that
“thousand symbolises that the world is perfectly leavened and pervaded
by the Divine: since thousand is ten, the number of the world, raised to
the third power, three being the number of God” (A R Fausset, in “The
Portable Commentary'”); while another would make the thousand years
symbolise “Potentiated ecumenicity.” These allegorists are guilty, not
only of interpreting Scripture in a light ind trifling manner, but of
actually changing its plain and sensible meaning. If God does really
mean one thousand years in Rev.20, “how else”, as Dr. Stanton asks,
“would He, or how else could He, write it?” Do men not fear that solemn
warning against “taking away from the words of the book of this
prophecy”? (Rev.22.19). The Bible is the holy, Spirit-breathed Word of
the living God, and he will not be held guiltless who in any way tampers
with, or whitdes away, the significance of its divine utterances.
As to their system of interpretation, one wonders why, if such
passages as Matt.24; Lk.21; and Acts 6.1-10 are to be spiritualised,
Christ did not say so to His disciples. Considering their ignorance was
He not morally responsible to warn them against giving to His words a
literal significance if a symbolical one was intended? “It is incredible
that God should in the most important matters, affecting the interests
and the happiness of man and nearly touching His own veracity, clothe
them in words, which, if not true to their obvious and common sense,
would deceive the pious and God-fearing of many ages” (Peters, cited by
Dr. J D Pentecost in “ Things to Come"). Or are certain prophecies to be
understood literally, while others, which to us seem just as literal,
are to be accorded a figurative connotation? And if certain prophetic
passages are to be understood thus, are we not free to interpret
doctrinal and historical passages in the same manner? Surely we must try
to be consistent. Yet to take this liberty would reduce many Scriptures
to the ridiculous, and make havoc of the faith. How then, if we do not
adhere to “the basic Protestant principle of interpretation,” are we to
know where to draw the line between the literal and the symbolical? Dr.
Stanton relates W E Blackstone’s account of a conversation between a
clergyman and a Jew, which is to the point here. “Taking a New Testament
and opening it at Lk. 1.32, the Jew asked: ‘Do you believe that what is
here written shall be literally accomplished — The Lord God shall give
unto Him the throne of His father, David, and He shall reign over the
house of Jacob forever’? ‘I do not’, answered the clergyman, ‘but rather
take it to be figurative language, descriptive of Christ’s spiritual
reign over the Church.’ ‘Then’, replied the Jew, ‘neither do I believe
literally the words preceding, which say that this Son of David should
be bom of a virgin, but take them to be merely a figurative manner of
describing the remarkable purity of Him who is the subject of the
prophecy’ .”
The Jew, of course, had the better of the argument. We most assuredly
believe that this and other prophecies of the humiliation and
sufferings of Christ were literally fulfilled at His first Advent, and
we have no reason in the wide world to believe that the prophecies of
His coming rule and glory will be fulfilled in any other manner.
