The Historical Development of Millennial Views

The early Church was “premillennial.” That is to say, they believed that Christ would come and personally set up His kingdom on earth (the first part of which is called “the millennium”). That being the case, they believed His coming would be pre-millennial (i.e., before the millennium). This belief was simply the result of taking Scripture at face value (using normal/literal interpretation), since numerous passages clearly picture the second coming as occurring immediately prior to the commencement of the millennial kingdom (Isa. 35:4-10; Zech. 2:10-11; 14:1-11; Matt. 24:29-25:46, esp. 25:31-34; Rev. 19:11-20:6).

It was not until later that the method known as “spiritualization” (the seeking of a “higher,” more “spiritual” or “mystical” meaning of Scripture) became popular. We first encounter this formally with Origen (A.D. 185-254). For Origen the “spiritual” sense of a passage represented its highest meaning. Unfortunately, Origen’s method of interpretation resulted in nothing more than a highly subjective assessment of the meaning of Scripture (usually viewing it as an allegory to be unraveled). This jeopardized even the most fundamental teachings of the Bible, all of which rest upon the normal/literal sense of the text. Origen himself came to hold many unorthodox views, including universalism (the view that everyone will somehow be saved and spared from eternal damnation). His system is hardly worthy of emulation, yet many today follow in Origen’s footsteps, and are ultimately lead away from the truth, into the morass of subjective interpretation.

The second through the fifth centuries saw an increasing rejection of premillennialism. There were many reasons for this, in addition to the increased popularity of “spiritualized” interpretation. In the Eastern branch of the Church, Greek philosophy, mysticism, and the threat of persecution from the government all played a part. For a while, the Eastern Church even rejected the canonicity of the Book of Revelation in an effort to eliminate premillennialism. Meanwhile, in the Western branch of the Church, premillennial belief continued to be the orthodox position well into the fourth century. It was not until the time of Augustine (A.D. 354-430) that premillennialism came under severe attack in the West.

Augustine lived through a transition period in church history. Whereas previously Rome had persecuted the church, they now formed an alliance. Indeed, it seemed to Augustine that the church was being manifested as the kingdom of God in the world (though in a non-literal, “spiritual” sense). This state of affairs, along with the influence of Greek philosophy (specifically, neoplatonism), prompted Augustine to discard his earlier premillennial beliefs. Augustine’s new belief, which would eventually become “amillennialism” (signifying no literal millennium), held that the kingdom promised to Israel was being fulfilled through the church. Obviously, such a belief could not be derived from a normal/literal, grammatical and historical interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, it was necessary for Augustine to develop a system of interpretation that would support his theological ideas concerning the nature of the kingdom. Thus, Augustine developed what today is referred to as the dual interpretive system (or, “dual hermeneutic”), wherein all of the Bible—except future prophecy—is to be understood normally, but future prophecy (i.e., prophecy not yet fulfilled) is to be “spiritualized” so as to make it conform to this predetermined view of the Church as the fulfillment of the kingdom promises made to Israel. Augustine essentially applied Origen’s system of “spiritualization” in a highly selective manner in order to ensure biblical support for his view of the millennium. Augustine’s view elevated the status of the church in the political realm and soon became the dominant view in the West. Premillennialism never regained its position throughout the middle ages.

At the time of the reformation, the amillennialism of the Roman Catholic Church (with some minor modification) was simply carried over into the reformed churches. However, the intellectual and scientific revolution that followed opened the door to question Augustine’s view of the kingdom; in fact a new view of the kingdom was needed anyway, since protestants were not happy viewing the Roman Catholic Church as the expression of Christ’s kingdom on earth. This not only afforded the opportunity for the re-emergence of premillennialism (Joseph Mede, 1586-1638, seems to be the first post-reformation scholar to embrace premillennialism), but also an opportunity for the emergence of a new millennial view known as “postmillennialism.”

Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) is generally credited with the development of postmillennialism—the belief that there will be a progressing kingdom on earth that will be brought about not by the personal presence of Christ, but through the agency of the church. Postmillennialism, quickly took two distinct forms. One form, held by theological conservatives, maintained that the spread of the gospel would bring about a golden age on the earth to be culminated at the personal appearing of Christ at the end of the age. The other form of postmillennialism, held by theological liberals (who did not accept inspiration), took the position that the kingdom of God would be brought about on earth through the combined efforts of Christian morality, science and technology, and education. Since liberal theologians did not accept the deity of Christ or the reality of His resurrection, they did not expect the millennium to be followed by the personal return of Christ. Postmillennial thinking was very widely accepted in different forms in both conservative and liberal circles in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and even into the early part of the twentieth century. However, the events of two World Wars dealt the optimism of postmillennial thinking a savage blow as it became apparent that man could also employ his scientific and technological accomplishments to serve his own fallen nature. Before the conclusion of World War II postmillennialism was effectively dead. Since the collapse of postmillennialism, few postmillennial institutions (churches, seminaries, or other societies) have converted to premillennialism; most were simply reabsorbed back into amillennialism from whence they came.

There were many similarities between classic postmillennialism and amillennialism. In their more conservative forms, both held that the return of Christ would not occur until the end of the millennium. Both views also held to a general resurrection at the end of the age, and both views allegorized the tribulation prophecies. In short, both views employed essentially the same methods of biblical interpretation (selective non-normal/non-literal interpretation of future prophecy). Seen in this light, it is not surprising that postmillennialism sprang from amillennialism only to be reabsorbed when its theological conclusions failed the test of reality. Since the 1970s a new form of postmillennialism has emerged, called “theonomic postmillennialism.” The term “theonomy” is derived from the Greek words theos (”God”) and nomos (”law”). Theonomic postmillennialism (also called “reconstructionism”) is the belief that the millennium will be brought about by world evangelism and the establishment of biblical law (principally the Mosaic Law) as the absolute standard of conduct, both personal and civil; thus making obedience to the Old Testament Law obligatory on pain of criminal prosecution. Obviously, such a view leads to highly legalistic thinking. (For a discussion of theonomy, see the author’s work: What’s Wrong With Theonomic Postmillennialism, at www.biblicalreader.com.)

Meanwhile, the revival of premillennialism was slow. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the major church movements and their schools were dominated either by amillennial or postmillennial interpretation. Nevertheless, premillennial teachings were popularized by the Plymouth Brethren in England and through the ministries of influential revivalists in America, such as D.L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, and Billy Sunday. The latter part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century in America saw the establishment of numerous premillennial Bible institutes, colleges, and seminaries, as well as a number of premillennial mission boards and other Christian societies. Today, while amillennialism is by far the dominant view, since liberal and conservative hold it alike, premillennialism is again a major view among theological conservatives.

Published at: http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com

Adapted from What the Bible Says About the Future

Page-Formatted PDF version available at:

www.biblicalreader.com/books/future/future.html

See full copyright notice posted at:

http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com/copyright_info.htm

All Scripture taken from the New International Version (NIV)

of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.