A Critique of Amillennialism from a Historic Premillennialist

 Eschatology has been a pivotal aspect of Christian theology, with various interpretations shaping the Church's understanding of the end times. Among these, Historic Premillennialism and Amillennialism offer contrasting views on Christ’s return and the millennium. Historic Premillennialism, which was prevalent among the early Church Fathers, asserts a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth following His return. In contrast, Amillennialism, which gained prominence later, spiritualizes the millennium, viewing it as symbolic of the current church age. This essay critiques the weaknesses of Amillennialism, highlighting its divergence from early Christian teachings and its spiritualized interpretation of key biblical passages, while also acknowledging one of its commendable aspects.

The Early Church’s Endorsement of Historic Premillennialism

Historic Premillennialism was the dominant eschatological view among the early Church Fathers, who anticipated a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth following His second coming. Prominent figures such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian were strong proponents of this view. They interpreted Revelation 20:1-6 and related Old Testament prophecies as pointing to a future, tangible kingdom of Christ on earth.

• Revelation 20:1-6: "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."

Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-2nd century, clearly articulates the early Christian belief in a literal millennium. In his "Dialogue with Trypho," Justin states, "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare" (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 80).

This expectation of a future, earthly kingdom was central to the eschatological hope of the early Church, providing a tangible anticipation of Christ’s reign. In contrast, Amillennialism, which emerged later, primarily through the influence of Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries, introduced a spiritualized interpretation of the millennium that diverged from the early Church's teachings.

The Spiritualized Interpretation of the Millennium in Amillennialism

Amillennialism, popularized by Augustine and later adopted by theologians such as Louis Berkhof and Anthony Hoekema, teaches that the millennium described in Revelation 20 is not a future, literal reign of Christ on earth but a symbolic period representing the current church age. In this view, Christ’s reign is spiritual, occurring in the hearts of believers and in heaven, rather than being a physical, earthly rule.

• Revelation 20:2-3: "And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while."

Amillennialists argue that this binding of Satan is symbolic of the restraint placed on his power during the church age. However, this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the New Testament’s portrayal of Satan’s ongoing activity in the world. For example, Peter warns believers to "be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8, ESV). This and similar passages suggest that Satan is still actively deceiving and opposing the work of the gospel, which contradicts the idea that he is currently bound in the way described in Revelation 20.

The early Church Fathers’ expectation of a future, literal binding of Satan and a subsequent millennial reign of Christ stands in contrast to the later Amillennial view, which spiritualizes these concepts and thereby diminishes the physicality and concreteness of Christ’s promised kingdom.

Praise for Amillennialism’s View on the Tribulation

One commendable aspect of Amillennialism is its recognition that the Church must endure tribulation. Unlike the pre-tribulation rapture view, which suggests that Christians will be taken up before a period of intense suffering, Amillennialists, like Historic Premillennialists, affirm that believers will face trials and hardships as part of their faith journey.

• John 16:33: "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world."

This understanding aligns with Jesus’ own words, acknowledging the reality of suffering for His followers. However, Amillennialism diverges from Historic Premillennialism in its rejection of a literal seven-year tribulation period and the concept of the Antichrist as an individual figure who emerges during this time. While this divergence is significant, the shared belief that the Church will face tribulation is a point of agreement and strength within Amillennial thought.

The Denial of a Future, Earthly Kingdom

Amillennialism denies the existence of a future, earthly kingdom where Christ will reign physically on the earth. This denial is at odds with numerous Old Testament prophecies that speak of a Messiah who will rule over a restored Israel and the nations.

• Isaiah 2:2-4: "It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.' For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

This prophecy, among others, envisions a time when the Messiah will reign from Jerusalem, bringing peace and justice to the earth. By spiritualizing these prophecies, Amillennialism risks disconnecting them from their literal fulfillment and diminishing the hope of a future, tangible kingdom where Christ will reign on earth as the sovereign King.

Theological Implications and the Shift Away from Early Church Teachings

The theological implications of Amillennialism extend beyond its interpretation of the millennium. By spiritualizing the reign of Christ and denying a future earthly kingdom, Amillennialism can lead to a diminished expectation of Christ’s return and the fullness of His kingdom. It also obscures the continuity between God’s promises to Israel and their fulfillment in the Church.

• Acts 1:6-7: "So when they had come together, they asked him, 'Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' He said to them, 'It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.'"

Here, the disciples’ question reflects the expectation of a future restoration of Israel’s kingdom. While Jesus does not reject the idea of a restored kingdom, He simply indicates that the timing of this event is not for them to know. This response suggests that the restoration of Israel’s kingdom is still anticipated in the future, aligning with the Historic Premillennial view of a future millennial reign of Christ on earth.

The shift from the early Church’s premillennial hope to the later development of Amillennialism represents a significant change in eschatological thinking. The early Church Fathers’ belief in a future, literal kingdom provided a concrete and hopeful expectation of Christ’s return and reign. In contrast, Amillennialism’s spiritualized interpretation introduced a more abstract and less tangible eschatological vision.

Conclusion

Amillennialism, with its spiritualized interpretation of the millennium and its denial of a future, earthly kingdom, diverges from the eschatological views held by the early Church Fathers and fails to fully align with the broader biblical narrative. By reducing the millennium to a symbolic period and interpreting key prophetic passages in a non-literal way, Amillennialism risks diminishing the full scope of God’s promises and the tangible hope of Christ’s future reign on earth.

In contrast, Historic Premillennialism offers a more coherent and biblically grounded perspective, recognizing the need for a literal, future millennium where Christ will reign physically on the earth. This view preserves the continuity between God’s promises to Israel and their fulfillment in the Church, while maintaining a robust expectation of Christ’s return and the establishment of His kingdom in its fullness.