Premillennialism, the Scriptures and Convergent Issues
K. Neill Foster
A well-known seminary president has said that within ten years few evangelical organizations will retain their premillennial stance. That trend among evangelicals creates a powerful concern that in the abandonment of premillennialism much more may be surrendered than is immediately apparent. This essay reflects that concern.
To speak of premillennialism is to immediately identify oneself with traditional evangelicalism and with a fervent belief in the return of Jesus Christ. It is also to identify oneself with the Bible, particularly the book of Revelation, and implies a certain view of Scripture, in that the six biblical references to 1,000 years are all contained in Revelation chapter 20. (There are other biblical passages which support the concept of a 1,000-year reign of Jesus Christ, but the twentieth chapter of Revelation is the key.)
Related issues to be addressed in this paper include definitions, history, hermeneutics and biblical authority as it interfaces with a number of biblical concerns. Some attention will also be paid to the positions of the Reformers and the era in which premillennialism emerged anew in the evangelical context. And strategic biblical arguments for the premillennial belief will be brought forward. Finally, the potential impact of amillennialism on the missionary mandate will be examined, and the propensity of amillennialism toward liberalism and evolution will be explored.
A. Millennialism can be described as the belief that there will be righteous rule of 1,000 years on this earth: “Israel will be the center of that kingdom and Jerusalem will be the capital of it. All nations will come to worship at Mount Zion.”1 Implicit in the concept of millennialism is the idea that Christ the Ruler will return before the millennium as Revelation chapter 20 clearly indicates.
B. Premillennialism can therefore be described as the express belief that Jesus Christ will indeed return before the millennium described in Revelation chapter 20 and that He will rule and reign for 1,000 years.
C. Postmillennialism may be described as follows: “Those who believe Christ will not return until after the millennium are called post-millenarians.”2 The practical anticipation is that the Church through its activity and influence will so permeate society that the kingdom of God will be fashioned before the King appears. The prophecies of both Testaments are not literal but are spiritualized.
D. Amillennialism is the disbelief in the literal meaning of the millennial passages in Revelation 20 that ultimately can be traced to Origen. Whitby, as cited in Haldeman, following the hermeneutics of Origen, taught for example that “all the promises of the kingdom should be taken in a spiritual and allegorical sense.”3 The abandonment of the grammatical/historical “plain sense” hermeneutic is essential to the embrace of amillennialism.
II. History and Premillennialism
Historical patterns on any given subject have profound significance. Nowhere is this more true than in Church history. And in the case of premillennialism, the facts of history are of special impact.
The early church was premillennial, as Paul L. King well illustrates elsewhere in this book of essays. Thiessen flatly says that “the early church was premillennial”4 and Fisher (in a comment of interest to me since I have come to this conclusion on my own) blames the Montanistic heresy of the second century with its prophetic eccentricities for the overthrow of Chiliasm in the early Church.5 Unfortunately, in the early Church, millennialism (i.e., Chiliasm) was thought by some to be both sensual and “grossly materialistic.”6 After Origen, it is nearly impossible to overestimate Augustine’s formidable contribution in the intervening centuries. Through his influence and writings (including The City of God), amillennialism became the de facto theology of the Church. With the Reformation and the historic return of the Church to the Bible, belief in the soon coming of Christ reemerged. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin and Knox may all be cited as fervent believers in the return of Jesus Christ.7 Belief in the imminent return of Jesus Christ unfortunately did not extend to premillennialism among the Reformers. Their view of Scripture, however, made the re-emergence of premillennialism likely, if not inevitable.
Indeed, there was a tremendous surge in premillennial belief in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. And, predictably, the surge was built upon the sturdy view of Scripture embraced earlier by the Reformers. Evangelical leaders crowded the premillennial platform. A.B. Simpson was among them.8 Thiessen says, “. . . there has been a return to the position of the early Church. Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts, Bengel, Lange, Godet, Ellicott, Trench, Alford, the Bonar brothers and most of the outstanding evangelists of the past and present generations have espoused the premillennial position.”9 From Thiessen’s perspective in the mid-twentieth century, he remained optimistic: “During the last sixty years there has been a renewed emphasis upon this blessed hope.”10
Currently, as indicated earlier, premillennialism is under assault and is being repudiated on many sides.11 One possible factor in the decline of premillennialism is the ongoing controversies over pre- and post-tribulational views of the second coming of Jesus Christ. These controversies among dispensational premillennialists, along with present eccentricities in the charismatic/prophecy movements, may have combined to erode belief in premillennialism.
Finally, a new interest in Reformed theology sometimes also carries with it a casual disdain for the tenets of premillennialism. In seeking to be Calvin-like and Luther-like, the new “reformers” have not extended their passion for the full authority of Scripture to eschatology. And the long shadow of Augustine’s amillennialism has lingered too. These caveats notwithstanding, the biblical arguments for premillennialism are several and strong.
III. Scripture and Premillennialism
Many sections of the Bible can be summoned to advance premillennialism. I include six of these passages here:
1) Revelation 20:1-6 affirms the concept of one thousand years six times, and it also affirms the rule and reign of a king, specifically Christ’s rule. To overthrow or abandon premillennialism, Revelation chapter twenty must be attacked.
2) First Corinthians 15:23-28 references the coming of Jesus Christ and associates it with His rule and reign. This is a strong premillennial passage in that Jesus Christ is portrayed as the conquering monarch, clearly ruling and reigning. Amillennialism and postmillennialism do not fit this passage.
3) Daniel 7:13-14 describes the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds and His subsequent rule. All people, languages and people will serve Him. It sounds very much like Revelation 20:1-7. Premillennialism fits like a glove.
4) Isaiah 11:2-10 describes the wolf and the lamb dwelling together and a ruler’s ensign which “the Gentiles [shall] seek.” The ruler here is from “the root of Jesse” and again this scene from the prophet synchronizes with the New Testament passages on the millennium, Revelation 20 and First Corinthians 15.
5) Psalm 2:6-9 gives the description of a king on the holy hill of Zion. The uttermost parts are included, along with the heathen. He rules with a rod of iron. Again, a king ruling in a millennium-like ambiance is in view.
6) Other Scriptures which could be summoned to the premillennialist cause but upon which I will not comment include Isaiah 65:20, 25; Psalm 45:4; Ezekiel 37:27-28; Ezekiel chapters 40-48 (especially 43:19-27, 45:20-21), and Zechariah 14:16-21.
These and yet other Scriptures describe the rule and reign of the Lord Jesus Christ in terms that best fit the premillennial view.
IV. Systematic Theology and Premillennialism
The biblical text is carefully ordered, and God’s workmen are to go about correctly dissecting and dividing the sacred Word. Moreover, and it can be done rightly (2 Timothy 2:15).
Biblical truth is lineal in nature. History is directional. It is going somewhere. It is finally eschatological and apocalyptic: “In the beginning, God . . .” (Genesis 1:1). And a grand climax is coming: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20). The ordering of biblical doctrines is essential to biblical understanding. Paul’s admonition to Timothy was to divide the Word of God rightly (2 Timothy 2:15).
Premillennialism is part of a serious systematic theology which Professor John Frame has described as follows: “. . . any study that answers the question, ‘What does the whole Bible teach us today?’ about any given topic.”12 If one takes both the Old Testament anticipation of the kingdom, the inauguration of the kingdom in the life of Jesus Christ, along with the New Testament’s description of the millennial kingdom rule of Jesus Christ, one tends to become both millennial, i.e., believing in the millennium, and premillennial, i.e., believing that Jesus Christ will set up His kingdom before the millennium and will rule for 1,000 years. Systematic theology frames the path to premillennialism. The doctrine of last things is inevitably a part of systematic theology.13
V. Biblical Interpretation and Premillennialism
The interpretation of Scripture is always a significant issue when dealing with the Bible. The application of hermeneutics is an honorable occupation for all who wish to understand what the Bible says. It has been called “the science which teaches the principles of interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics in particular is the science which determines the principles of the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.”14 An emphasis on the clarity or perspicuity of Scripture reemerged at the time of the Reformation, and we have the Reformers to thank for the contemporary encouragement to read and seek to understand Scripture and to be ruled by it. Plain people should be able to read plain Scripture and plainly understand.
However, hermeneutics has been abused. Chiliasm, or as we prefer, premillennialism took a jolt early in Church history when Origen, a universalist of sorts, came up with a new hypothesis, suggesting that the biblical “promises of the kingdom should be taken in a spiritual and allegorical sense.”15 That was a hermeneutical shift from the way the early Church believed. Indeed, Thiessen calls Origen “the father of modern post-millennialism.”16
The spiritualization of the millennial passages continued under Augustine, though he himself hints that at one time he had been a millennialist.17 As history moved toward the modern era, the Church became increasingly less attached to government, less ready to believe that secular power along with the Christian message would usher in the millennial kingdom. Augustine, though tempted with the millennial view, persisted also in allegorical hermeneutics. The Reformers basically rescued the Church from Augustine’s hermeneutical prison, restored the authority and clarity of Scripture and endorsed the priesthood of all believers. In such an atmosphere, millennialism in its “pre-” form could once again emerge. Not surprisingly, two centuries after Luther, premillennialism was back. Believing Revelation 20 literally was back in style.
Today’s hermeneutical adventurers have not exactly returned to the allegorical method, which tossed out premillennialism, but have established new ways, modern ways to circumvent the plain statements of Scripture. A sometimes appropriate cultural hermeneutic, for example, can be a Corban-like way to get around Scriptures one may not like (Mark 7:11). Casuistry it is called. Evangelicals are tempted in the twenty-first century by agenda hermeneutics from the twentieth century.
· Homosexuals who wish to be Christian ministers must first invent a permissive hermeneutic for the Bible before they can convince themselves or others of their legitimacy.
· Egalitarian/feminist views of the Bible require Scripture-twisting which even Clark Pinnock, no biblicist himself these days, called “hermeneutical ventriloquism.”18
· Those who wish to advance universalism (or its little sister, inclusivism) must have an agenda hermeneutic to negate John 14:6 in which Jesus claims that He is the way, the truth and life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him.
· Dampening down hell’s eternal fire also requires a certain agenda hermeneutic. If one begins with the a priori argument that hell simply could not be eternal, one must then get around texts like Matthew 25:46, where eternal life and eternal fire are locked together with the same Greek words in the same verse.
Modern examples of agenda hermeneutics could be enlarged far beyond this section, but time and space do not allow. My estimation is that evangelicals are presently being tempted with about 100 kinds of interpretation, nearly all of them suspect and agenda-driven.
What kind of hermeneutic, then, overturns premillennialism? The “problem” passageif one is interested in abandoning premillennialismis Revelation chapter 20. John, by the Holy Spirit, had the audacity to mention 1,000 years six times. Further, Revelation 21 describes heaven, which no one wants to abandon or explain away. What is needed for the abandonment of premillennialism is a judicious application of the “spiritualize-all-prophecy” hermeneutic to Revelation 20, taking care not to disturb Revelation 21 (and the reality of heaven) with the interpretation. The evidence is clear: in current evangelicalism this hermeneutical dance is underway, the elimination of premillennialism pending in some parts.
It would be possible to reserve the arguments just made for millennialism alone. However, Revelation 20 has Jesus Christ the King on the scene. Believers are to rule and reign with a present, ruling, reigning Christ. That is a premillennial implication.
VI. Inerrancy and Premillennialism
The very words of Scripture are important. “Inerrancy” and “plenary” are words which describe a view of Scripture which focuses on the actual words of the ancient text. Jesus talked about “jots” and “tittles” never passing away (Matthew 5:18). Paul made profound arguments on the singular and plural forms of a single word in the Old Testament (Galatians 3:16). Is the Bible to be trusted when it says, “they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Revelation 20:6)? Some of the newer translations shy away from John’s declaration that believers will be “kings and priests” (Revelation 1:6). The Greek word is plainly “kings.” Reigning with Christ in a literal way during the millennium requires a perspective of Christ as the ruling King of kings. Plain statements of Scripture have to be overturned or set aside in order to avoid belief in Christ as King in the millennium.
“It could not be said that all amillennialists deny the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures . . . [yet] it seems to be the first step in that direction. The system of spiritualizing Scripture is a tacit erosion of the doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures . . .”19
Some amillennialists do tend toward eroded views of Scripture. This is an exceptionally worrisome tendency, but it is not a rule; some amillennialists are anything but weak on Scripture.
From the amillennial view, the fundamental error of premillennialism is the view of Scripture that tends to be embraced by us as Chiliasts.20 If that “fundamental error” is the verbal and plenary view of inspiration, we plead joyfully guilty! In formal terms, premillennialism is a natural outgrowth of the grammatical/historical pattern of interpretation.
Loraine Boettner makes a remarkable admission, speaking to a premillennialist as an amillennialist, when he flatly says, “It is generally agreed that if prophecies are taken literally, they do foretell a restoration of the nation Israel in the land of Palestine with the Jews having a prominent place in that kingdom and ruling over the other nations.”21
VII. Christology and Premillennialism
Christ is the King in the premillennial view of eschatology. Indeed, He is the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:6). His kingdom has been anticipated (Psalm 2:6-12; Matthew 3:2), has arrived (Zechariah 9:9-10; Luke 4:18) and is still coming (Matthew 24:14). And we are to pray for it as the Lord’s prayer makes clear (6:10). All of those statements amplify the broadly based biblical and Christological teaching about the King and the kingdom of God. Gerhard Kittel says, “In the general linguistic usage, it is to be noted that the word basileia, which we usually translate realm, designated first of all the existence, the character, the position of the king. Since it concerns a king, we would best speak of his majesty, his authority.”22
To abandon the concept of a literal millennium presents the necessity of belief in a King without a literal kingdom. If there is no millennium, one has to wonder about the plain statements of Scripture and the hundreds of biblical references about the kingdom of God which are disenfranchised. Millennialism is implicit if there is a soon-coming King.
Ultimately the kingship of Jesus Christ is an unalterable, non-negotiable Christological reality. Ladd sums it up: “. . . the millennial reign of Christ will be the [Christological] manifestation in history of the lordship and sovereignty which is his already.”23
Alliance evangelist Joel Van Hoogen refers to premillennialism in a Christological context as well. “The Alliance teaching on the centrality of Christ in the history of the world is evidenced by its unwillingness to be sidetracked into focusing upon God’s dealing with the nation Israel as the primary key for understanding eschatology. Rather, the focus remained on Christ . . .”24
VIII. Biblical Holiness and Premillennialism
Two Scriptures are very emphatic here: “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3:3); “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). If the millennium is not real, then is the Lord really coming, and is there anything to get ready for and be pure about? Or if the millennial dawn arrives after the whole world abandons sin and gradually converts to Christianity, how does present-tense holiness connect to an event that may be a thousand years hence? (An important caveat here: It is a stretch to blame amillennial thought for the pervasive carnality of weak believers.)
A.B. Simpson saw premillennialism as a great and powerful instrument in the life of a believer. “This is an intensely practical trutha great lever that will uplift the world into a fitness to receive Him. It is intimately associated with holiness. ‘He that hath this hope purifieth himself even as He is pure’ (1 John 3:3).”25
The apostle Paul yearned for his coming crown, but also believed there would be a crown for those that “love his appearing” (1 Timothy 4:8). The author of Hebrews wrote, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14).
This is not the place to present a thorough exposition of the doctrine of holiness in the New Testament, but simply to say that this soundly biblical doctrine is there, and it is unavoidable. It is part of the authentic Christian message and is biblically linked to the return of Jesus Christ. Premillennialism is a theological option which stimulates a vibrant personal faith and encourages, even demands, an ardent pursuit of holiness. (I admit, however, that some Reformed amillennialists do take injunctions to holiness very seriously.)
IX. Imminence and Premillennialism
“Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Matthew 24:42). There is a thread of imminence about Christ’s return winding all the way through the New Testament. “Strange it is,” says A.J. Gordon, “that we have reached an age where it is counted an eccentricity to love His appearance and a theological error to cry with the best-loved apostle, ‘Even so come, Lord Jesus!’<|>”26 For A.B. Simpson, a strong factor in his turn to premillennialism was the element of watchfulness admonished in Scripture. “Another reason firmly impressed on my mind was the use of the word watch. If a thing is not imminent, why watch for it? If the millennium was to come first, that and not His coming, would be the event to watch for. If that word [watch] means anything, it means that He might come anytime.”27
X. The Missiological Mandate and Premillennialism
The “end” was connected to the Great Commission by the Lord Jesus Christ. “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matthew 24:14). A.B. Simpson was focused resolutely on this biblical mandate. Simpson preached “that our Lord’s return was imminent; it awaited no future event, and was dependent only on the completion of world evangelism.”28
For a more current view of the connection between the missionary mandate and premillennialism, Keith Bailey once summarized the views of The Christian and Missionary Alliance as follows:
The return of Jesus Christ is premillennial. The literal manifestation of Christ’s rule over the nations of the world and His reign over Israel will not come about until His Second Coming. For now, the Church here on earth persists in the task of world evangelism while she waits for the coming of her Lord (Matt. 24:14). From the perspective of the Bible, the soon coming of Jesus Christ is a strong motivation for world missions.29
Dispensational premillennialism, which is traced back to Darbyism30 in the current era, suggests that Israel will finish the missionary mandate during the tribulation days.31 That dispensational view, while generally missionary in perspective, can tend to erode missionary passion by suggesting that someone else will finish the task. You will find, however, that the vast majority of premillennialists, including dispensational premillennialists, believe that the King is coming and that the missionary mandate must be relentlessly pursued.
Now back to Simpson. In an essay entitled, “The Missionary Eschatology of A.B. Simpson,” Franklin Pyles says of Simpson, “Every single point of his end-time thinking had a definite impact on his plan to preach the gospel across the world. And, at the same time, his missionary theology guided his eschatology, for if a point of prophecy had no impact on missionary strategy, he had little concern for it.”32 At the end of his essay, Pyles observes, “The current divorce between our missionary practice and our eschatology can be overcome by again asserting the strengths of premillennialism: A real kingdom will soon be inaugurated on this earth by the personal presence of Jesus Christ.”33
The authority of the Scriptures is integrally related to premillennialism. An eroded view of Scripture may facilitate both amillennialism and postmillennialism while not necessarily being unique to them. The debate should never rest on the varieties of eschatological interpretations. It should rest rather and always on the full authority of Scripture and the hermeneutic to be applied to prophecy. Donald Wiggins cautions, “I believe the fundamental problem [with the amillennial view] is a blindness to a literal approach to prophecy carried over in the historical Reformed tradition.”34
A. B. Simpson seems to have “muddled through” with many of his changing views on prophecy, but there never was any doubt about his resolute view of Scripture. For many years, until 1992, his “Christ in the Bible Series” commentary on the book of Revelation was not kept in print by Christian Publications, the publishing house he founded. In that same year, the series was renamed The Christ in the Bible Commentary and reissued with these comments placed at the beginning of Revelation. “As you read this final volume of the series you may understand why it was not kept current. It was not simply that Simpson’s view of a partial rapture ran counter to the prevailing evangelical opinion in the first half of the century. . . . Simpson was unashamedly in love with Jesus Christ, and he longed for His return. Simpson was concerned for a lost world of people, and he worked night and day for their evangelization. He was persuaded [biblically] that world evangelization must precede the end-time events portrayed in Revelation.”35
A Church historian might further observe that the first three centuries of the Church, along with the last two centuries, have been the most predominantly missionary centuries in the entire history of the Church. Is it coincidental that premillennialism is connected with the grand expansion of the Christian Church? I think not. Do theological dalliances with amillennialism and postmillennialism have a frightful missiological cost? Do they tend to impede obedience to the missionary mandate? If so, they must be resistedfor the sake of the still-lost world. Groups like The Christian and Missionary Alliance play with amillennialism or postmillennialism at their profound peril.
For the Alliance, at stake ultimately is the “Missionary” in their name.
Warnings from the Elders
Wendell Grout, long-time pastor of the First Alliance Church in Calgary, Alberta, put it this way: “Have you ever seen a premillennial liberal?”36 The answer is self-evident. And one more warning from yet another elder: Harold O.J. Brown, of academic fame among evangelicals, recently cited37 a friend as saying that noting a person’s stand on an issue is only one part of the equation. One needs as well to see which way the person is leaning.
To abandon premillennialism as some have done, “leans.”
Does it “lean” finally toward the denial of inerrancy and authority of Scripture? Possibly. It would be better in my view never to have been premillennial than to have been premillennial and then to have abandoned it.
1. Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952), 282-283.
2. Jesse Forrest Silver, The Lord’s Return (New York: Revell, 1914), 37.
3. M. I. Haldeman, History of the Doctrine of Our Lord’s Return (Philadelphia: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1914), 26.
4. Thiessen, 470.
5. George P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribners and Sons, 1902), 84ff.
6. Charles L. Feinburg, Millennialism (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1982), 42.
7. Haldeman, 23ff.
8. A.B. Simpson, “How I Was Led to Believe in Premillennialism,” Communicate, June 2000.
9. Thiessen, 471.
11. K. Neill Foster, “Calgary Assembly 2000,” Alliance Life, October 2000, 31-32.
12. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 21.
13. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 23.
14. Charles C. Ryrie, The Premillennial Faith (New York: Loizeau Brothers, 1953), 34.
15. Haldeman, 26.
16. Thiessen, 471.
17. Harold P. Shelley, Essays on Premillennialism (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 2002), page 4 of the manuscript, actual page of this book to be ascertained.
18. Clark H. Pinnock, “Biblical Authority and the Issues in Question” in Women, Authority and the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 57-58.
19. Ryrie, 34-35.
20. Ibid., 36.
21. Robert G. Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 95.
22. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Freidrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 579.
23. Clouse, 32.
24. Joel Van Hoogen (2000, www.christianpublications.com/periodicals/communicate/no1page2.htm).
25. Albert Benjamin Simpson, “How I was Led to Believe in Premillennialism,” The Christian and Missionary Alliance Weekly, November 13, 1891.
26. William Bell Riley, “The Historical Ministry of Premillenarianism,” The Biblical Evangelist, November-December 2000.
27. Simpson, 298-299.
28. Lindsay Reynolds, Rebirth, the Redevelopment of the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada (Toronto, ON: The Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada, 1992), 10.
29. Keith M. Bailey, Bringing Back the King (Colorado Springs, CO: The Christian and Missionary Alliance, 1992), 84.
30. Millard J. Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977), 132.
31. William R. Goetz, Apocalypse Next (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1996), 362.
32. Franklin Pyles, “The Missionary Eschatology of A.B. Simpson,” Birth of a Vision (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1994), 32.
33. Pyles, 44.
34. Donald Wiggins, written comments on an early manuscript of this paper, March 2002.
35. K. Neill Foster, editorial comments in The Christ in the Bible Commentary (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1992), volume 6, 407.
36. Telephone conversation with Wendell Grout, March 2001.
37. Conversation with Harold O.J. Brown, Fall 2001.
Bailey, Keith M. Bringing Back the King. Colorado Springs: The Christian and Missionary Alliance, 1992.
Boettner, Loraine. “Postmillennialism,” The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977.
Brown, H. O. J. Conversation with the author, March 2001.
Clouse, Robert G., ed. The Meaning of the Millennium. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977.
Draper, Kenneth L. “Simpson and Alliance Eschatology” (1998). Available online at http://online.cbccts.ca/alliancestudies/draper/112_esch.html
Erickson, Millard, J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983
_______________. Contemporary Options in Eschatology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977.
Feinburg, Charles L. Millennialism. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1982.
Fisher, George P. History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribners and Sons, 1888.
K. Neill Foster. “Discernment, the Powers and Spirit-speaking.” Pasadena, CA: Fuller Seminary unpublished dissertation, 1988.
____________. “Publisher’s Foreword.” Christ in the Bible Commentary. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1992.
____________. “Calgary Assembly 2000.” The Alliance Life. October, 2000.
Goetz, William R. Apocalypse Next. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1996.
Grenz, Stanley J. The Millennial Maze. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.
Grout, Wendell. Conversation with the author, March 2001.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Haldeman, M. I. History of the Doctrine of Our Lord’s Return. Philadelphia: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1914.
Hartzfeld, David F. and Charles Nienkirchen, eds. Birth of a Vision. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1994.
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. and Moises Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Pinnock, Clark H. “Biblical Authority and the Issues in Question” in Women, Authority and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986.
Pyles, Franklin. “The Missionary Eschatology of A. B. Simpson.” Birth of a Vision. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1994.
Reynolds, Lindsay. Rebirth, The Redevelopment of The Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada. Toronto: The Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada, 1992.
Riley, William Bell. “The Historical Ministry of Premillenarianism.” The Biblical Evangelist. November-December 2000.
Ryrie, Charles C. The Premillennial Faith. New York: Loizeau Brothers, 1953.
Silver, Jesse Forrest. The Lord’s Return. New York: Revell, 1914.
Simpson, A.B. “How I Was Led to Believe in Premillennialism.” Communicate. June 2000.
Thiessen, Henry C. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952.
Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1959.