Wednesday, October 21, 2020

On The Millenium

The following citation from Dean Alford has often been cited. It gives my views exactly. Amillennialist interpretation of the two resurrections is not tenable. Both the first and second resurrections are literal resurrections of the physical bodies. 

The rest of the dead lived not (again, as above) until the thousand years be completed. This ( αὕτη is not the subject, as De Wette, but the predicate, as in all such cases: the reduction of the proposition to the logical form requiring its inversion) is the first resurrection (remarks on the interpretation of this passage will be found in the Prolegomena, § v. par. 33. It will have been long ago anticipated by the readers of this Commentary, that I cannot consent to distort words from their plain sense and chronological place in the prophecy, on account of any considerations of difficulty, or any risk of abuses which the doctrine of the millennium may bring with it. Those who lived next to the Apostles, and the whole Church for 300 years, understood them in the plain literal sense: and it is a strange sight in these days to see expositors who are among the first in reverence of antiquity, complacently casting aside the most cogent instance of consensus which primitive antiquity presents. As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain ψυχαὶ ἔζησαν at the first, and the rest of the νεκροὶ ἔζησαν only at the end of a specified period after that first,—if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave;—then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to any thing. If the first resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose none will be hardy enough to maintain: but if the second is literal, then so is the first, which in common with the whole primitive Church and many of the best modern expositors, I do maintain, and receive as an article of faith and hope). (see here)

No comments: