Three Views on the Millennium

THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM


By

Jens Randolff


November 10, 2008





A Christian woman was once talking to a servant of Christ about the assurance of her safety in the Saviour and said, “I have taken a single ticket to Glory, and do not intend to come back.” Whereupon the man of God replied: “You are going to miss a lot. I have taken a return ticket, for I am not only going to meet Christ in Glory, but I am coming back with him in power and great glory to the earth.”

—Sunday School Times[1]




INTRODUCTION

Few issues have caused as much controversy and debate over the centuries as has the subject of the millennium, and it will unlikely be resolved in this life. Conservative theologians generally hold to one of the three major views with regard to eschatology: amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism. Those who use an allegorical method generally uphold an amillennial or postmillennial view, while those who apply a literal hermeneutic embrace a premillennial view.[2] Henceforth, the controversy surrounding the issue stems from one’s interpretation of Revelation 20:4, “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” and whether or not said statement should be understood literally or symbolically. The answer determines in part one’s doctrine of last things.[3]

With the closing of the apostolic age the early church fathers began to argue over the “chiliasm” (χιλιάς (chilias), άδος (ados), ἡ (hē): group of a thousand (Lk 14:31; Ac 4:4; 1Co 10:8; Rev 5:11; 11:13; 14:1)[4], the view of the literal “thousand–year” reign of Christ on earth.

That this issue would dominate much of the theological as well as doctrinal thought over the next three centuries is evidenced by the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. The literal or pre-millennial view, once dominant in the early church, was abandoned in favor of the amillennial view championed by the leaders of the Alexandrian school, including Clement (155–216) and Origen (around 185–254), who taught that the Bible is to be understood as an extended allegory.[5] However, it was not until Augustine standardized the amillennial view that the allegorical approach to interpretation of the scriptures was firmly established. It would be the generally accepted position for nearly twelve hundred years until the emergence of the postmillennial view in the 1700s.

It is the author’s intend to provide a general, unbiased overview of the definition, development, and scriptural support of these three positions. The author’s view will be expressed at the conclusion of this paper.



I. Amillennial View

A.‎ Basic Premises:‎
The amillennial interpretation has been the major eschatological view of the Catholic Church since the time of Augustine and likely is the majority view of today’s church. Amillennialists tend to discard the promise of a literal thousand year kingdom on earth with Christ reigning on the throne. However, proponents of an amillennial or non-millennial view do not all come to a consensus as to how to arrive at this conclusion.

i) Some feel, as did Augustine, that the entire present age is the millennial kingdom and that God is reigning in the hearts of men who put their trust in Him. This, of course, does not provide any literal fulfillment of the millennial kingdom.

ii) Some hold that the millennial kingdom is being fulfilled in heaven through Christ’s spiritual reign over the earth. Often they do not consider the period a literal 1,000 years, and they minimize the literal meaning of the prophecies relating to it.

iii) More recently, some now hold that the Millennium will be fulfilled in the new heaven and new earth in eternity. Therefore, it does not need to be fulfilled now.[6]


B.‎ Points of Strength:‎

Stanley Grenz, a premillennialist turned amillennialist writes:

“The kingdom of God is a transcendent reality that can be confused with no earthly kingdom prior to the final transformation of creation. No earthly city can ever hope to become the New Jerusalem, except through a radical transformation both of human nature itself and of the universe that through the Fall unwillingly participates in the human predicament.”[7]

Amillennialists are quick to point out that their position dates back to the early church, as evidenced in the epistle of Barnabas, who applied to the church the Old Testament promises given to Israel.[8]  Amillennialists also hint that their position was, at least in part, the position of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and in modern times G. C. Berkouwer, Floyd E. Hamilton, Stanley Grenz, Anthony Hoekema, Louis Berkhof, William E. Cog, Abraham Kuyper, Stephen Travis, Leon Morris, Michael Wilcock, G. K. Beale and Philip Hughes, as well as many other noted scholars.

According to amillennialists “the end of the ages” (cf. 1 Cor 10:11) is progressing right now. Christ has set up his kingdom in the “Body of Christ”--the church. The first resurrection has already occurred through the gift of faith, which constitutes a spiritual rising from death to life. In support of this position Amillennialists cite such verses as John 3:34–35; 5:24; Romans 6:4–5, 13; Ephesians 2:5–6; Colossians 2:13; 3:1.[9]

C.‎ Points of Weakness:‎

The problem with the amillennialism approach is that it does not provide an intelligent explanation of many passages in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, both of which teach a literal kingdom. This is true also of Revelation 20. Amillennialists claim that Revelation 20:1–6 applies to Christ’s first coming, not His second coming. Furthermore, they content that Satan is bound now and that Revelation 20:5 (those who ‘come to life’) does not refer to resurrected martyrs of the tribulation but rather to people in this age who are saved.

However, understanding Revelation 20:1–6 to refer to Christ’s first appearance lacks convincing scriptural support, because it ignores the sequence of events described in Revelation 19 and 20. Beginning in 19:11 a series of prophecies are given, which start with the Greek conjunction kai, translated “and.” The word “kai” occurs more than two dozen times in Revelation 19:11–20:15, which indicates a consecutive fulfillment of the prophesied events. There are many other examples, which will not be addressed here.[10]



II.‎ Post-millennial View

A.‎ Basic Premises:‎

i) Postmillennialism is the most recent of the three major millennial views. Although some elements of postmillennialism occurred earlier, Daniel Whitby (1638–1725) is usually considered the one who introduced postmillennialism. It became the predominant view of orthodoxy in the nineteenth century.

ii) Postmillennialism, like amillennialism, adopts a non-literal or figurative interpretation of prophecy. Postmillennialism has as its background the history of amillennialism, beginning in the third century, which established for many the concept that prophecy cannot be interpreted literally. Postmillennialism was influenced partly by the fact that the predictions of some amillennialists that Christ would come relatively soon did not materialize. Though it is not entirely clear, it seems that Augustine (A.D. 354) believed that Christ would return in A.D. 650, and that the Millennium had already begun before Christ was born. When Christ did not return in 650, some believed He would come in the year 1000, somewhat similar to the modern-day interest in the next millennium in the year 2000.

iii) Forerunners of Daniel Whitby included Joachim of Fiore (1132–1202), who thought that Christ would return shortly after a new age was established in 1260. However, as stated, Whitby gave the first comprehensive presentation of postmillennialism. Like amillennialists, he taught that Revelation 20:1–6 does not portray events following the Second Coming, but that the passage refers back to Jesus’ death in which He defeated Satan. The binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1–3), then, occurred at the first coming of Christ, and verse 4 refers not to the resurrection of Tribulation martyrs but to the salvation of individuals in the present age.[11]

B.‎ Points of Strength:‎

Postmillennial proponents see references to a “golden age” and the triumphant reign of Christ as being fulfilled before He returns. To support their position post-millennialists cite such passages as Psalms 2:8; 22:27; 47; 72; 86:9; Isaiah 2:2–4; 11:6–9; Jeremiah 31:34; Daniel 2:35, 44; and Micah 4:1–4.

Furthermore, those who adhere to a postmillennial view argue that since the Gospel is the power of God (Rom. 1:16), it is unfathomable how anyone could suggest that the world will not be converted. God wishes all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Therefore, to pray for these events to come about to pray in the will of God.[12]


C.‎ Points of Weakness:‎

To build the kingdom on the premise of the first coming of Christ produces a theological error with serious ramifications with regard to the rule of Christ on earth as promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–16). To claim that Christ established the Davidic kingdom at His first advent requires a non-literal approach to the promises made to David, resulting in confusion between the church and the kingdom, as well as the danger of promoting kingdom ethics ahead of church ethics. Thus Christians are urged to live the kingdom here and now.

That mistake was made by some during the earthly life of Christ (Luke 19:11). The truth is that the messianic kingdom will be inaugurated at the second coming of Christ. At that time the promise made to Abraham and his descendants will be fulfilled (Gen. 15:18–21). Then the promise made to David that his descendant (Messiah) will sit on the throne of the kingdom forever will be fulfilled. Without a Millennium in which all these promises can be fulfilled, the promises have to be canceled for some reason or be fulfilled in Israel’s past or in the present non-literally.[13]



III.‎ Pre-millennial View

A.‎ Basic Premises:
‎
There exist various interpretations with regard to a pre-millennial approach to eschatology. Among premillennialists who view the kingdom as following the second coming of Christ, there are three schools of thought: the historical, the dispensational and the soteriological view. However, for the purpose of this paper only the first two positions will be discussed:
i) Those who follow a historical fulfillment of the Book of Revelation, believe that some events of Revelation 6–18 are being fulfilled now. They hold that the Second Advent and the kingdom that follows are literal events and that the historic premillennialists see the church, rather than ethnic Israel, as prominent in the millennial period. However, according to this view, many of the events leading up to Revelation 6–18, have already been fulfilled.[14]

ii) The majority view among premillennialist, is that after the second coming of Christ the millennial kingdom will be the fulfillment of God’s theocratic program, as well as of the promise made to David that his kingdom and throne would continue forever over Israel. Furthermore, those who interpret the prophecies literally consider Christ to be the head of this theocracy, reigning supremely over the entire world for a literal one thousand years.

In addition, it is presumed that Israel is given a special role in the redemptive work of God in the end times, resulting in a restored millennial temple in Jerusalem complete with Levitical priests and animal sacrifices. This viewpoint is often referred to as the dispensational pre-millennial view, a literal kingdom on earth. The proponents of this view take into consideration the fact that Christ literally fulfills prophesies in Scripture concerning the kingdom on earth.[15]


B.‎ Points of Strength:‎

The biblical, theological, and historical basis of premillennialism stands firm. Premillennialism is rooted in the knowledge that the Bible is based in God’s unconditional covenants with Abraham and David, thus pointing to a literal, political, earthly messianic kingdom. Jesus offered this kingdom to the Jews, but they rejected it; Jesus set up a spiritual kingdom of which the church is a part, anticipating the day when He will restore the political kingdom to Israel as promised. At His Second Coming (Rev. 19), Christ will establish a thousand-year reign (20), after which God will reign for all eternity in the new heaven and new earth (21–22). Denying this view fails any consistent application of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Consequently, the allegorical method, when applied to other Scripture, would undermine the whole of evangelical Christianity.[16]

C.‎ Points of Weakness:
‎
Opponents of the premillennial view claim that the major weakness of premillennialism is its lack of a firm biblical basis. They further state that while the second coming of Christ is certainly part of the gospel, the millennial reign of Christ is only hinted at in a few places. Thus, the need for interpreting Revelation 20 in the light of the wider Scriptures is preferred over interpreting the Scriptures through the lens of Revelation 20, as do most premillennialists.

In addition some opponents such as reformed theologian Adrio König content that premillennialism can be rightly criticized for entertaining an overly pessimistic view of world history, sometimes bordering on fatalism. König states:

“Chiliasts simply write off the world as incorrigible, painting a one–sided picture of total decay spreading over the entire world. Little room is left in their view for a gospel that includes the promise of victory—even in this life. So it is not strange that they fail to do justice to the coming of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus.”[17]


CONCLUSION

The author holds to the dispensational pre-millennial view for the following reasons:

The basic disagreement among the three proponents previously discussed is founded on whether one’s method of biblical interpretation is literal and allegorical. The author, upon comparing the different methods, finds the allegorical approach used by amillennialists and post-millennialists to be foundationally flawed.

The allegorical method of interpretation is based on an invalid hermeneutic for all true meaning is literal meaning, Henceforth, any allegorical (non-literal) method of interpretation presupposes a literal meaning; one cannot know what is non-literal without first establishing what is literal. For that reason alone an allegorical hermeneutic is self-defeating, lacks objective criteria, defies common sense, and is inconsistent as well as unbiblical.

On the other hand, the literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpretation is supported by several factors:

First, “the renewal of all things” (Matt. 19:28) indicates it will be in the end times, not during Jesus’ years on earth.

Second, the word “tribes” (ibid.) with regard to Israel, is never used in any context other than a reference to literal tribes of people.

Third, sitting on a throne and judging Israel, which Jesus said He would do (John 12:48–49) is a prophetic (messianic) fulfillment.

Fourth, the prophecies in Daniel, when seen in a literal political context, foretells of a time when “the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever” (7:18; cf. v. 22).[18]

Furthermore, regarding the messianic kingdom, the following should be noted:

First, from Genesis to Revelation there are promises of a literal, political kingdom in which the Ruler (Messiah) will reign on earth.

Second, this kingdom was (1) promised in the Old Testament, (2) was presented by John the Baptist, and offered by Jesus, and His disciples to the Jews in the Gospels, (3) was rejected by the Jewish authorities, (4) was, in accord with God’s eternal plan, purposely delayed while bringing Gentiles into the new body (the church), (5) will be offered again by Jesus at His Second Coming, and (6) will be accepted by the Jewish nation and fulfilled in the Millennium (Rev. 20:1–6). To allegorize away these yet unfulfilled prophecies violates the literal, historical-grammatical biblical interpretation; if the same allegorical hermeneutic were applied to the rest of Scripture, it would undermine the foundation of the historic Christian faith.[19]




END NOTES

1. Paul Lee Ten, Encyclopaedia of 7700 Illustrations: A Treasury of Illustrations, Anecdotes, Facts and Quotations for Pastors, Teachers and Christian Workers (Garland TX: Bible Communications, 1996, c1979).

2. Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2005), 547.

3. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1989), 380.

4. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997), DBLG 5942.

5. Charles R. Swindoll, and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 1352.

6. Ibid.

7. John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, Includes Indexes (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 624.

8. Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 214.

9. D. H. Kromminga, The Millennium in The Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1945), 30-40.

10. Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 99.

11. Swindoll and Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology, 1352.

12. Charles R. Swindoll, and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 1351.

13. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999), 513.

14. Ibid, 591.

15. Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN.: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Rev 19:11-21.

16. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 623.

17. Ibid, 595.

18. Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory, 93.

19. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things, 480.




BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bloesch, Donald G. The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Charles Caldwell Ryrie. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2005.

Gregg, Steve, ed. Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997.

Grenz, Stanley J. The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Kromminga, D. H. The Millennium in The Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systemic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.

________. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995, c1972.

Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997.

Swindoll, Charles R., and Roy B. Zuck. Understanding Christian Theology. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003.

Ten, Paul Lee. Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: A Treasury of Illustrations, Anecdotes, Facts and Quotations for Pastors, Teachers and Christian Workers. Garland TX: Bible Communications, 1996, c1979.

Walvoord, John F. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Includes Indexes. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990.