Angus Harley

Some within NCT are strongly premillennial, but not Dispensational Theology (DT). They call themselves ‘historic premillennialists’ (hereafter ‘HP’), a term that goes back, I do believe, to the 1940s, although the position was present in theology well before. A notable (former?) NCTer Fred Zaspel wrote on HP. The figurehead of the movement is undoubtedly George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982).

As an NCTer myself, I have never been persuaded that any form of premillennialism (DT, HP, or some other) is compatible with NCT. This position I have shared in various NCT circles. My reasons for excluding all premillennial views from an NCT hermeneutic are based on the fact that Israel as to the flesh has been surpassed and put aside in the New Covenant. No more special blessings. They received salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, the blessing of a remnant and elect in Israel being secured via the Abrahamic promises alone. But this is not the article to pursue that argument.

I’m not the first to forward that an NCT hermeneutic would, logically, preclude any form of premillennialism. John G. Reisinger writes:

“At the risk of over-simplifying, the minimal requirement for premillennialism is one thousand years of Jewish rule in the physical Promised Land. If this is an accurate account of premillennialism, then I cannot be a Premil. I see no necessity for a millennium of earthly rule to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning an “everlasting kingdom.” It seems to me that the hermeneutic that produces this view is flawed. If we insist on a rigid literalism in this matter, then one thousand years of rule does not qualify as everlasting.”[1]

The reader will have noticed, here, that Reisinger commits all premillennial views to the position of giving to Israel the nation a privileged status for a thousand years. This is a bone of contention for some HPers. Some are supersensitive to aligning their premillennial position with Israel’s centrality and what seems like DT. I have received, on occasion, derisory slap-downs for supposedly suggesting this link. Thing is, I have never quite agreed with Reisinger’s blanket assessment, but it has great merit in it, nevertheless. DT is not HP. Both are different. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind that all HP views revive some elements of centrality for the nation of Israel. It is this latter point that I constantly state on Facebook, for example. And it is these Israel-centric elements– not model- that create a dilemma within HP.

Let me outline the problem that HP faces. As to its historical roots, it is not as thoroughly researched as other theological models, nor is it a very well-known position. This has led to gaps in the coherence of HP as a ‘movement’ or theology. It is assumed by some HPers that HP is, to all intents and purposes, non-Israel centric. Appeal is made to the figurehead, Ladd, and his theology. He was strongly against lifting Israel to a central position. In this ‘Laddite’ form of HP, the already-not yet formula of realized eschatology is fundamental, so much so, it dominates. And some HPers follow Ladd in his model. Zaspel seems to be one such theologian. He writes:

“There are many secondary issues that remain unanswered: the place of Israel, the land, the temple and its sacrifices, etc. But the broad strokes of NT prophecy are clear enough. At Christ’s return, He will raise to life those who are His. He will then proceed to bring His kingdom to glorious fruition. When all opposition is finally put down, He will present the perfected kingdom to the Father, and history then will give way to eternity.”[2]

Zaspel relegates ‘Israel issues’ to a subordinate, ‘not really that relevant’, place, to the point where he is sure there are currently (at that time) no answers for those secondary questions. However, Ladd’s approach to HP was an innovation developed in the stream of Biblical Theology derived from the likes of Geerhardus Vos (1886-1949). Before Ladd and his era, HP existed in its ‘vanilla’ form, which was mainly tied to the centrality of Jerusalem and Israel. In the book A Case for Historic Premillennialism, Donald Fairbairn notes how some early fathers, of a HP hue (and not of a DT disposition!), all believed in the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem.[3] This Israel-centric theology shocks some HPers; but it ought not to, for it was the standard position for centuries.

Indeed, from the outside looking in, the Israel-centric reading has long been the standard interpretation of HP. This is why a non-HPer, Cornelis P. Venema, writes of HP:

“When Christ returns and the millennium commences, national Israel will experience a corporate conversion and receive a place of special prominence in the millennial kingdom. Though historic premillennialists reject many of the tenets of Dispensationalism regarding the millennium — for example, that the sacrificial system will in some sense be reintroduced in Israel for the Jews — they do maintain that the majority of the Jewish people (though not every individual) will be converted and find many of the special promises of God’s Word for them fulfilled in this period of the millennium.”[4]

Venema was well aware of Ladd’s theology and leadership. Still, he wrote what he did!

Where are we at, then? Are the Laddites the true face of modern HP? Is the old, vanilla model, of Israeli-centricity surpassed? It seems certain that there are two faces to modern HP: the Laddite, and the vanilla, or traditional. Robert D. Culver again and again asserts that Israel is at the center:

“Modern amillenarians (Kuyper, Allis, Hamilton, Murray, Hendriksen, Warfield, Milligan, and others)….have theories concerning the future of the Church and Israel which do not fit well into the picture of a Millennium in which saints reign on earth with Christ and Israel blossoms again. So the Millennium must go.”[5]

James Hamilton, in an interview, comments:

“The end of Ezekiel 37 speaks of David reigning over the people who have experienced the new exodus and return from exile, and then Ezekiel 38:8 and 11 describe Gog of Magog going against “the land that is restored from war, the land whose people were gathered from many peoples . . . the land of unwalled villages.” I would suggest that this is exactly what John is describing in the reign of Christ in Revelation 20:4–6. The land is restored after the new exodus and return from exile. The villages are unwalled because Christ reigns and there are no threats.

“When Ezekiel describes the Lord putting a hook in the jaws of Gog of Magog in Ezekiel 38:4, I think Ezekiel means his audience to recall the way the Lord put hooks in the jaws of Leviathan in Job 41:2, and I think Leviathan is a symbol of Satan (cf. Job 1–2). So in Revelation 20:7-10 John depicts the fulfillment of the Ezekiel 38 attack by Gog of Magog on those who have been raised from the dead (Ezek 37:1–14; Rev 20:4–6) and experienced the fulfillment of the new exodus and return from exile to the land in which David’s seed reigns (Ezek 37:24; Rev 20:4–6).”[6]

Hamilton again:

“ “What (if any) future role does the nation of Israel have to play in God’s plan?”

I think Romans 11:25–27 indicates that on the day that Christ returns there will be a mass conversion of ethnic Jews.

“ “What is the purpose of the future Millennium?”

Michael Svigel, a DTS prof, suggests– if I understand him correctly– that the millennium is the beginning of the new creation. I like this suggestion.”[7]

In hands-down the best HP book-to-date I have read, A Case for Historic Premillennialism, Richard S. Hess declares:

“If the words of the prophet [Ezekiel] are to be realistically fulfilled, as the early generations of readers of, and listeners to, the prophet certainly expected, then in its canonical context, it must take place sometime in the future but before the final appearance of the new heavens and the new earth. For various reasons, it seems best to describe the time of the restored temple as millennial or as the millennium. It will be an ideal time in which many of the prophecies that occur elsewhere in the Old Testament will find their fulfillment.

“Now, this may raise many questions regarding Jesus and his own claims to be the temple (John 2:19–21) and the manner in which other New Testament writers emphasized the important role of the church as the new Israel (Rom. 9–11; Gal. 6:16). And indeed I cannot easily harmonize the two streams of teaching in the New Testament. But both are found already in the Old Testament. Thus Stephen quotes Isaiah 66:1 in his speech in Acts (7:49): “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?” (7:49). The writer of Kings describes Solomon as declaring a similar sentiment at the dedication of the first temple: “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27). Yet as Ezekiel was aware, there was an understanding in which the glory of God did indeed inhabit the temple. These two aspects were present to the people of God in the Old Testament, and the writers of the New Testament did not deny them. If we cannot completely flatten out all the bumps in this picture, I will not worry. The future is a long time, and there is plenty of opportunity for God to demonstrate his presence in a purified and magnificent temple on this earth as well as in the expected glorious presence of the Father and the Son in the life of the world to come.

“Were I to look at the Old Testament and hear it as the prophets and their first audiences seem to have understood it, I would be forced to conclude that many elements specific to the restoration of Israel are yet awaiting fulfillment. A future temple is just one of these. Nevertheless, it is not only the promise of future restoration that awaits the people of God, according to the Old Testament.”[8]

Now, I wish to return to Ladd’s rendition. I have already stated it is not Israel-centric as a model. Was Venema entirely wrong, then, about Ladd? Many Laddites would say yes, no doubt. But it’s not just a non-HPer like Venema. It is rather remarkable that the most that the writers of A Case for Historic Premillennialism could muster concerning Ladd’s view of Israel was that in the NT there was a “blurring of the clear distinction…between Israel and the church.”[9] This is hardly a ringing commendation for being non-Israel centric. Why the tepid assessment? I think the reason for it is the type of comment by Ladd in The Meaning of the Millennium. Yes, he almost entirely avoids any Israel/Jerusalem-centric language. Yet, Ladd does in this book say that a mass conversion of Israel will take place in the future. Ladd speculates that this might happen during the millennial reign, but he concludes that we don’t know. Although many of the promises of the OT are fulfilled in the assembly, not all of them, for some apply directly to Israel of the flesh.[10] Ladd expands on this position in The Gospel of the Kingdom of God.  In Chapter 8 of the book, he goes into fuller detail about Israel of the flesh’s privileged status, and that it will receive a mass conversion at some point in the future. At the heart of that blessing will be Jerusalem:

“This future salvation of Israel is reflected in a few sayings of our Lord. As he was weeping over Jerusalem not long before His death, He cried, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matt. 23: 37-39). Jerusalem, symbolic of Israel, had rejected the prophets whom God had sent, until finally, God sent His Son. Jesus longed to gather Israel into the blessings of God’s Kingdom but Israel would not hear; the Son was rejected. Therefore judgment rests upon Israel and the Holy City is to be destroyed. The judgments of God’s Kingdom have often been manifested in history. However, this desolation of Jerusalem which was historically accomplished in A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed and the city ravaged by the Romans is not to be the final word. It will be the last visitation of God to Israel until that day comes when Israel will recognize Christ as her Messiah and will say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Israel is yet to be saved.

Again, in Luke’s account of the Olivet Discourse which forecast both the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age, we read that Jesus said of the Holy City, “Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21: 24). The divine judgment is to rest upon Jerusalem and upon the Jewish nation until the “times of the Gentiles,” i.e., the divine visitation of the Gentiles is accomplished. When God’s purpose for the Gentiles is fulfilled, so this verse implies, Jerusalem will no longer be trodden down. There will be a restoration of Israel; “all Israel will be saved.”[11]

Ladd’s position clearly has strong elements of Israel-centricity. Indeed, as to the general nature of these comments, the only difference that I can see between the traditional view of HP and Ladd’s is that Ladd is a more accurate exegete who does not force Revelation 20 or Romans 11 to say that these Israel-centric blessings will happen for sure during the millennium.

So, although I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ladd and his followers are not Israel-centric in their methodology, they still retain the residue of it, elements, the same way that the Reformed view of the Law is not Roman Catholic but retains certain elements of it. It is this theology I oppose in Ladd, and not only his exegesis of Revelation 20. Indeed, Ladd’s hermeneutic is at points more ‘literal’ than he would like to think. But that’s an argument for another day. NCT clearly states that the Old Covenant and an Israelite focus is over. To the extent that Ladd reintroduces these Israel-centric elements, he reintroduces the Old Covenant and its order.  

[1] John G. Reisinger, New Covenant Theology & Prophecy (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2012): Kindle.

[2] Fred Zaspel, The Kingdom, the Millennium, & the Eschaton: A Brief Overview of New Testament Prophecy, (1995), 9.

[3] Donald Fairbairn, “Contemporary Millennial/Tributlational Debates”, in A Case for Historic Premillennialism, eds. Craig L. Blomberg, Sung Wook Chung (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009): Kindle.

[4] Cornelis P. Venema, The Promise of the Future (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 200-201.

[5] Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody Press, 1954). PDF document, p.13, file:///C:/Users/trici/Downloads/Robert%20Duncan%20Culver%20-%20Daniel%20and%20the%20Latter%20Days%20,%20A%20Study%20in%20Millennialism%20(1954,%20Moody%20Press)%20-%20libgen.li.pdf. For the same theology, see pages 66, -69.

[6] Jim Hamilton, My Digital Seminary, “Historic Premillennialism: An Interview with Jim Hamilton” (Aug 1, 2013), http://mydigitalseminary.com/historic-premillennialism-james-hamilton/.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Richard S. Hess, “The Future Written in the Past. The Old Testament and the Millennium”, in Case for Historic Premillennialism, Kindle.

[9] Don J. Payne, “The Theological Method of Premillennialism”, in Case for Historic Premillennialism, Kindle.

[10] George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism”, in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1977): Kindle

[11] George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), Kindle.