In Proposition 129, George Peters states:
“The Jewish view of a Pre-Mill. resurrection requisite for the introduction of the Messianic Kingdom is fully sustained by the grammatical sense of the New Test.”
Peters continues a bit further his propositions regarding the consistent message regarding the biblical view of the Pre-Millennial resurrectoin, specifically here the grammatical sense of what is provided in Scripture. The “Jewish view” which refers to what we find in the Old Testament, is revealed and further sustained in the New Testament. There is no confict in the message and the plain grammatical sense of how one should understand this issue is quite plain throughout both testaments.
The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 129 is the following:
“Again, there is no question concerning the grammatical sense, for that is admitted even by our opponents, many of whom we have quoted. But we are assured that that sense is not the one intended; that a typical or spiritual meaning is the one to be received. Hence the doctrine of a literal Pre-Mill. res. is derided as “antiquated,” “Jewish,” etc., and utterly unfitted for the advanced thought of the age. A question, however, arises, which we will do well to ponder, viz., which is the safest to accept of, a God-given sense, or of one which is at the option of the interpreter? If a Pre-Mill. res. is an error, then it is one contained in the letter of the Word, and given by inspired men under the guidance of God Himself, and we are justifiable in entertaining it; but, on the other hand, if it be a truth, thus plainly declared, we are inexcusable in its rejection.”
Since even the opponents of this proposition admit the consistency of the grammatical sense of the Pre-Millennial resurrection throughout Scripture, the only means by which they can attack and try to prove as invalid this proposition is to attach terms they believe are aptly submissive, terms such as “Jewish” or “antiquated.” They do so failing to realize the utter fallacy of such an argument and the sheer folly of trying to deride a position that in itself is Jewish given Scripture is written by Jews and we have a Jewish savior. Additionally, to call something antiquated as if to say its age equates to its irrelevancy is an odd approach at best. Truth, in particular biblical truth, is timeless and appicable to all ages. As Peters rightly notes, since this proposition is rooted in Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is after all the Word of God, we are left with no choice but to ignore these silly attempts at derision and to believe what the biblical text plainly states on this matter.