Millennialism – Chapters 7-8

Ok…so I know what you’re thinking: “Ummm…where exactly have you been? It’s been a month since the last recap of Dr. Charles Feinberg’s ‘Millennialism’?!?” I know, I know. To be fair, this is exactly what I thought might happen when I posted the 1st article on it. But enough excuses…let’s get on with it.

——————–
Millennialism – Ch 7, “The Kingdom in the Old Testament”

Chapter 7 is aptly named, as Dr. Feinberg traces the promises of the Kingdom throughout the Old Testament. After all, if the entirety of Premillennialism stands or falls on whether or not the Bible teaches a literal kingdom period, then it behooves us to find where it is listed. So, Dr. Feinberg takes us on a ride through the covenants. He shows traces of the promises beginning on the proto-evangelion (which I personally find a little bit of a stretch to apply it to the Kingdom; those were direct promises of Jesus Christ & the victory over sin & death) – through Abraham & the patriarchs – through Moses – through David, the prophets, etc. Over & over we see Scripture after Scripture detailing different aspects of the promised Kingdom.

The point? A literal kingdom period is not solely mentioned in the millennial verses of Revelation 20:4-6. The kingdom is *routinely* portrayed as literal throughout the whole of the Old Testament. It’s no wonder that at the Ascension of Christ, the disciples were still asking about a literal kingdom (Acts 1:6); they had every reason to expect it. After all, the prophecies regarding Jesus were fulfilled literally; why not the Kingdom?

————————-
Millennialism – Ch 8, “The Kingdom Offered, Rejected, and Postponed”

From the Old Testament, Dr. Feinberg goes to the New…and directly into the Gospel according to Matthew. After all these prophecies showing that a Davidic King was to come, Matthew takes pains to show that Jesus is the appointed Son of David. And this Son of David preached repentance & the kingdom. And just as John the Baptist, the people would have expected (from their Old Testament prophets) that the “kingdom” would have been a literal kingdom. As Dr. Feinberg writes:

… Jesus departs into Galilee in fulfillment of the prophetic word and begins to preach: “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17). That is exactly the same message as John.
Have we any right to assume that Christ meant something altogether different in the employment of those words than did John? Nor did Christ explain what was meant by those words; His hearers knew full well their import. How unwarranted is the assertion, then, of those who find that Christ’s ideas and conceptions of the kingdom involved something far removed from the thought of His hearers. Yet they declare that Christ never held to the essentially earthy or material character of the kingdom. (pg. 132)

From there, Dr. Feinberg moves though the entire book of Matthew. The Law (as given in the Sermon on the Mount, “it is the law of Moses raised to its highest power.” Pg. 133), the works of the King as shown in Matt 8-9 & the miracles, the proclamation of the kingdom to the house of Israel (through the sending out of the 12 disciples in Matt 10), the rejection of the King’s forerunner (John the Baptist – Matt 11), the rejection of the King in Matt 12. Even the parables (Matt 13) point to how the kingdom was given to some, and rejected by others.

At this point, Dr. Feinberg goes into detail on the parables – which I’ll leave to the reader to absorb. Needless to say, the parables say much about the kingdom.

But so it continues throughout Ch 8. Dr. Feinberg shows example after example of Jesus pointing to the kingdom, and not once does Christ correct any notion of the kingdom other than a literal idea. There are many spiritual aspects to be sure – but not once did Jesus say, “Stop thinking of a literal kingdom.” That is what the Old Testament prepared them to look for, and Jesus supplemented that teaching tremendously.

We’ve got a ways to go yet in this book – and I promise I will try to make the reviews more regular in their appearance. I might also begin summarizing a bit more.

To God be the glory!

Millennialism – Ch 5-6 Combo!

It’s been a while since I’ve posted on Dr. Charles Feinberg’s “Millennialism”, so let’s pick it up with a two-fer! Actually, Chapters 5 & 6 are rather short, so it makes sense to combine them into one blog post.

—Chapter 5: “The Historical Argument for Premillennialism”—

The title for this chapter is completely self-explanatory, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that somehow this is an unnecessary argument. A classic critique of Dispensationalism is that the theological system is such a recent innovation, appearing at the writings of John Darby in the mid-1800’s. Not that premillennialism belongs solely to Dispensationalism (it doesn’t), but the historical account shows that premillennialism is anything BUT a recent theological position within the church. As Dr. Feinberg argues, premillennialism was THE predominant school of thought among the Church Fathers until Origen’s allegorical interpretations & it was almost permanently set aside after Augustine.

As has been standard in the book, Feinberg shows where Amillennialists disagree, and then proceeds to demonstrate they were wrong. (One charge that cannot be made against the late Dr. Feinberg is that he was unbiased! But in fairness, he made it clear which side of the argument he stood on in the 1st pages.)

The bottom line Dr. Feinberg is getting across is that (1) premillennialism is absolutely biblical, and (2) premillennialism has a great historical basis within the church…and thus it is an absolutely valid alternative to amillennialism.
.

—Chapter 6: “Pre- and Amillennialism as Systems”—

Admittedly, this chapter is one of the most circular arguments in the book thus far, at least to my reading. Basically, it says that premillennialism has an accompanying theological system & amillennialism doesn’t, so premillennialism must be the better system. Obviously an argument can be made on *why* a theological system matters, but it seems that Feinberg assumes this truth; he does not provide one.

If there’s any critique I have thus far with the book, this goes to the heart of it. Dr. Feinberg’s work is extensive, no doubt…but he seems to have written it for the academia & not the layperson. I’m learning a lot from the book, but I would hesitate to give it to someone as a primer on premillennialism…most people (and I would include myself with them at times) would get lost with all the counterarguments to other theologians out there.

——-
Next time: we begin part 2 – Dr. Feinberg’s analysis of the premillennial system. I’m hoping we get beyond the counterarguments here & into the depths of the foundation of premillennialism.

Millennialism – Ch 4: Covenantism

As with Ch 3, the focus of Ch 4 isn’t so much a primer or explanation of what Covenant theology teaches; but rather a critique of certain areas of Covenantism & a rebuttal to arguments Covenant theologians use against Dispensationalists.

Dr. Feinberg shows the Covenantalist canard that ‘Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation’ is often taught, but of course, untrue (pg. 83). He shows that Covenantalists divide up the Scriptures just as much as Dispenstationalists while claiming unity throughout just as Dispensationalists do (pg. 87). He demonstrates that Covenant theology is almost as young as Dispensationalism, and certainly cannot lay claim to any advantage of age (pg. 89). And of course, he take issue with their interpretation of Scripture – as seen in many examples throughout the chapter, pointing out inconsistencies regarding the plan of salvation (mostly ppg. 86-89).

Personally, I do wish Dr. Feinberg had taken the time to systematically go through specific tenets of Covenantism & critique them. But then again, I suppose that is what the remainder of this book will be dedicated to, at least in the area of the Millennium.

Exit quote from the 2nd endnote on the chapter:

“It should be stated that the concepts in a covenant of works and a covenant of grace are not unbiblical; however, nowhere can one find them systematized into covenants in Scripture. Even the nomenclature of the covenants never occurs in the Bible (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 177, 183-184). It needs no argument to prove that dispensations are found in the Bible (cf. Eph 1:10, 3:9). It is passing strange that Scripture nowhere mentions a covenant of works or a covenant of grace as it does with a covenant with Abraham, the covenant with Moses at Sinai, or the new covenant.” (pg. 90)

Millennialism – Ch 3, Dispensationalism

As ought to be expected, a book dealing with premillennial eschatology is going to at some point take up the criticism of Dispensationalism, and that is exactly what Dr. Feinberg does here. Feinberg had earlier in the book freely admitted his bias for the dispensational system, and it certainly played out in his career, in part as a member of the Scofield Reference Bible Revision Committee.

The chapter is not a primer on Dispensationalism. He touches on a bit of the basics, but leaves the discussion of what Dispensationalism actually is to men like Chafer, Scofield, and Ryrie. Instead, the chapter is a defense against the numerous critics of Dispensationalism.

To this extent, much of this chapter reads like insider baseball…if you know the players & statistics, it’s a lot easier to follow along. For the rest of us, we’ve no choice but to rely on the reporting in the chapter, trusting the accounts are accurate and fair (and from what I’ve heard of Dr. Feinberg, I’ve no doubts to the contrary).

Feinberg covers a lot of ground here in a short amount of time. He shows that roots of Dispensationalism go much further back in history beyond Darby & the Brethren, but to some of the earliest theologians in the church (ppg. 68, 80). He demonstrates (quoting LS Chafer in the process) that ALL Christians adhere to at least some aspects of dispnsationalism (pg. 69). He destroys the accusation that Dispensationalists have wrought great havoc and division upon the church:

“Let us turn to specifics: Can anyone compute how many men and women have been challenged in prophetic conferences to trust Christ for salvation, to make their Bible study more meaningful, to answer the call of God to the mission fields of the world, to live lives honoring to the Lord? Let Bass or any other nondispensationalist name one study Bible with as much blessing spread to the people of God as the Scofield Reference Bible. As for divisions in the Christian church, have the divisions in the Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, and independent denominations been caused by adherence to dispensational theology? The controversies have been over personalities, polities, practices, liberalism versus orthodoxy, rather than over dispensationalism. In the heat of controversy, let no one overstep the bounds of truth.” (pg. 76)

From here, Feinberg spends a bit of time on a few of the distinctions between Covenant theology and Dispensationalism, quoting Ryrie as the main difference. For Covenant theology, the main “unifying principle…is soteriological.” For Dispensationalism, the main unifying principle is what Feinberg calls:

“theological or perhaps better eschatological, for the differing dispensations reveal the glory of God as He shows off His character in the differing stewardships culminating in history with the millennial glory.” (pg. 77)

The chapter is much shorter than the preceding one, and (again) is addressed more at the critics of dispensationalism rather than putting forth a positive argument for it. With Feinberg’s high regard for Scofield, Chafer, and Ryrie, it seems that he allows them to make those arguments, whereas his focus was more directed at defending the use of the system to help us look at the Scriptures regarding the Millennium.

Chapter 4 takes up the flip side of this argument and is entitled, “Covenantism.” Hopefully I’ll pick up there sometime later this week.

Millennialism – Ch 2, part 2

Continuing on in the background of Biblical interpretation. Dr. Feinberg is a staunch proponent of the grammatical-historical-literal hermeneutic (as are most dispensationalists), and he provides an excellent apologetic for it.

Numbers: A favorite area of symbolism for Amillennialists is that of numbers – specifically in the book of Revelation. To which Dr. Feinberg replies,

“It cannot be denied that numbers have symbolic value, but that is not admitting that they have no temporal significance. Prophetic numbers are symbolic just because and only because they are literal.” (pg. 42)

Reasons for the literal method (ppg. 46-47):
(1) God intended His prophecy to be understood in understandable terms.
(2) God often calls attention to the literal fulfillment of prophecy
(3) Literal interpretation does not minimize the value of the Old Testament
(4) The literal method does not require every word to be literal. Rather, the text is analyzed for the type of Scripture it is, and then interpreted according to the rules of that particular form of grammar (types, metaphors, etc.)…Scripture itself being the key determiner of what form of grammar it is.

Why is the method of Bible interpretation important to study? Because this is the foundational difference between premillennialism and amillennialism. Dr. Feinberg asserts (to which I have no reason to doubt) that the early church was almost entirely premillennial up until the influence of Origen’s allegorical interpretation. Whereas many amillennialists disagree with Origen’s method, the impact of his teachings are found wherever spiritual prophecies are spiritualized in their application. Dr. Feinberg lists examples of this in ppg. 49-52.

The remaining 10 pages of Ch. 2 are dedicated to various amillennial theologians’ complaints against the literal method of interpretation, as well as Dr. Feinberg’s answer to them. There are obviously too many to list in this limited format, but here are a few highlights:

F.E. Hamilton concedes that if a literal method of interpretation is taken, the most logical conclusion is the premillennial position. Yet he proposes an all-or-nothing scenario. “…if it be admitted that even one prophecy can be interpreted symbolically or spiritually, the whole principle…breaks down,” (pg. 53).

— Dr. Feinberg’s answer:

“But that rule will have to work both ways. It must mean that once the amillennialists interpret any prophecy literally, then their position breaks down. They believe that Christ is coming again. That means they must have taken the many prophecies of His second coming literally.” (pg. 53)

In other words, this is an objection the amillennialists themselves cannot sustain, when the rule goes the other way.

Murray complains that the literal method leads people to the mistake of the Pharisees by expecting a “literal fulfillment of every prophecy which led them to reject and crucify their Messiah.” (pg. 55)

— Dr. Feinberg’s answer:

“We should like to ask whether the prophecies of the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled? They assuredly were, as Matthew testifies again and again.” (pg. 55)

Hughes argues that the kingdom of heaven is a reference to a “kingdom that is not this-worldly and that is eternal because it is the kingdom of God.” (pg. 58)

— Dr. Feinberg’s answer:

“That does not mean the kingdom cannot be on earth, as he denies on the basis of John 18:36. Christ said, “Not of this world,” but He did not say, “Not in this world.” That shopworn argument against premillennialism could be removed for good, if only the rest of the verse (John 18:36) were considered, for it interprets the first clause of the verse.” (pg. 58)

Ladd is not an amillennialist, but nevertheless has complaints against the literal method & Dispensationalism. He makes the accusation that “Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament.” (pg. 60)

— Dr Feinberg’s answer is multi-faceted:
(1) Are the amillennialists afraid of a conflict between the Old Testament & New Testament?
(2) Ladd’s assertions about nondispensational teachings being based on the “explicit” teaching of the NT are a gross oversimplification & without proof. [Personal note: the exact same argument could be posed by dispensationlists the other way.]
(3) There is no evidence that the promises of Israel are fulfilled in the Church.
(4) Ladd’s arguments sound more like the arguments for the amillennial position, which he is opposed to.

Whew! That’s a lot for one chapter. Ch 3 will deal directly with the topic of Dispensationalism, and it appears to be much shorter in comparison with this foundational topic of Biblical interpretation.

For me personally, I hold to the literal method of interpretation…which is no surprise given my viewpoint regarding pretrib/premill eschatology. The question I have is: why would anyone want to interpret the Old Testament symbolically? Shouldn’t we *desire* to know the literal interpretation for what God inspired to be written? If we’re truly seeking His will & His word, why wouldn’t we want to know what He literally said?

Perhaps that’s an unfair question taken from a biased point of view…but it seems to me that a literal interpretation is simply the most logical place to begin in Bible study.

Millennialism – Chapter 2, Biblical Interpretation (1)

Due to the length of the chapter & my time constraints, I’m going to have to finish the chapter later, but there were some things Dr. Feinberg points out that are so striking, I just had to share them in advance.

Chapter 2 is dedicated to the question of Biblical Interpretation. Dr. Feinberg rightly points out that the differences in hermeneutics are the foundation of the differences between premillennialism & amillennialism, so it makes sense to truly begin the study here.

He begins by laying out some basic rules of the grammatical-historical-literal (GHL) method, compares the spiritualization method (the basis for amillennialism) against the GHL, gives examples of spiritualization, and provides arguments for the GHL. That takes us to page 47 or so, when I had to stop for the time being.

He lays out great logic throughout the chapter, and it’s evident that Dr. Feinberg was an experienced debater on eschatology. So many of the arguments that are commonly brought up about premillennialism are addressed throughout the chapter. When opponents of premillennialism bring up weaknesses (from their perspective) or objections, Feinberg reminds us of 2 things:

First:

“First, when certain difficulties are affirmed of a doctrine that claims to be biblical, one is only required to show that a solution of the alleged problem is possible.” (pg. 39)

In other words, it’s not up to the proponent of premillennialism to so thoroughly argue a point that the only avenue left is the premillennial one. We merely need show that it is exegetically possible from the text.

Second:

“If any doctrine is shown on the basis of the laws of exegesis to be taught in the Bible, then to prove the doctrine false more is needed than the mere statement that the teaching brings to light even unanswerable problems.” (pg. 39)

The point here being that even if questions *do* arise from premillennial doctrine (when properly exegeted), it does not invalidate the already-arrived conclusions of premillennialism; it simply means there are questions. This throws out the red-herring arguments that go along the line of “But what about ____. How do you account for that?” There are questions with every viewpoint; but our exegesis needs to be what guides us through those questions; we don’t throw out the exegesis simply because we have questions along the way.

Dr. Feinberg goes into depth about such topics as spiritualizing numbers & other text (which he handles deftly) – I’ll need to save that for next time.

Millennialism – Chapter 1

If there’s one thing for certain, I’m going to know how to spell “Millennialism” by the end of this book. It’s always been a word that tripped me up (how many “n’s” again?).

The edition of the book I have (3rd & enlarged edition – 2008) actually has all the forwards & prefaces for all the previous editions included. All of them are worth reading & help give a background to the book – but I’m not going to report on them here.

The 1st chapter is short, sweet, and to the point. Dr. Feinberg basically addresses three issues:
(1) Why study eschatology?
(2) Admitting only 2 reasonable schools of thought: Millennialism & Amillennialism
(3) Shows a historical basis for Millennialism.

On the 1st point, Feinberg hits several of the arguments common today about promoting the study of eschatology. (I should add – the points he mentions are common *today*; but may not have been at the time this was written…I’m not aware of the rest of the thought at the time.) He notes that much of the Bible is dedicated to prophecy – that all theology eventually ends up in eschatology – and the way we view the end-times has a profound affect on the way we live today.

On the 2nd point, Feinberg freely admits his own position as premillennial and dispensational. But at the same time, he writes very honestly that there are only 2 logical positions in eschatology; and that they are mutually exclusive.

If the Bible does teach a Millennium, then we are compelled to admit that the premillennial view of biblical eschatology is the correct one. If, on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that the Word does not teach a Millennium, then we are logically constrained to acknowledge that the truth is with the amillennialists. (ppg 32-33)

The 3rd point is the most interesting to me, as I’ve heard so many complaints against Millennialism based on the supposed argument: “But the Bible never teaches it…there’s only one small spot in Revelation 20 & you’re basing a massive doctrine upon it!” Dr. Feinberg deftly and effectively blows this falsehood away as he brings the chapter to a close.

In the first place, by way of reply we can say that if God would choose, which in this case He did not, to give us a doctrine in one passage, He could easily do so. One portion of His Word is just as worthy of our faith as another. In the second place, the groundlessness of the statement made so often by amillennialists is easily brought to light, because it is well known that the Jews had a fully developed doctrine of the millennial age long before the book of Revelation, or any portion of the New Testament for that matter, was written. (ppg. 34-35)

I think I’m going to really like this book.

I don’t know how long the wait will be till Chapter 2, but I hope to get to it later this week.

Book Review – Millennialism

I don’t normally do book reviews for a few reasons:
(1) The books I typically make time to read aren’t very new. Book reviews are generally reserved for titles that are new-releases.
(2) The time I do have to read these not-so-new books is not nearly as plentiful as necessary to make a review series comprehensible.

However, I’m going to put those objections aside to tackle a book that was highly recommended to me by a very Godly & knowledgeable pastor that I’m privileged to have ‘met’ online. It’s definitely not new – the original copyright is 1936. It’s also very comprehensive & I’m not sure how much time I’ll have to blog about it. But because I think it is such an important book to read & understand, I figured blogging an ongoing review/synopsis of the chapters will help motivate me to dig into it a bit better.

The book is simply entitled “Millennialism,” authored by the late Dr. Charles L. Feinberg. Dr. Feinberg was raised in an orthodox Jewish home and had trained to be a rabbi. After converting to Christianity, he became a respected scholar, professor, and conference speaker. From the original foreword (written by LS Chafer), it appears that this particular book was originally written as a thesis for one of Dr. Feinberg’s degrees at Dallas Seminary…it has since gone on to be a classic work on the distinction between Premillennialism and Amillennialism.

Why bother writing a review/synopsis of the book?

Because it’s one thing to know WHAT we believe; it’s still another to know WHY we believe it.

For all the raucous debate that takes place about the end-times, it generally ends up in chest-thumping & flag-waving contests among people who (under normal circumstances) would share a cup of coffee together, pray for one another, and dig deep into the riches of Scripture together.

My personal thought is that the better we know our own position, the less likely we’ll be one of those who has to raise the volume of our voice in order to ensure we’ve made our point.

Feinberg’s book is an excellent place to begin. And so, with many thanks (and apologies) to the late Dr. Feinberg, we’ll begin shortly.