izzy
Member
- Jan 5, 2010
- 52
- 0
I noticed that most of the posts on this forum are on interpreting Revelation in terms of the time of the rapture, the millennium, the specifics of the beast and the Antichrist, and all mostly from either a premillennial or postmillennial view. Has anyone heard of the amillennial view? (it is underlined in red by my spelling checker, so obviously my dictionary has not heard of it). I would suggest it as the best interpretation of Scripture, but I should probably lay it out and see what you all think.
Historical Background
Amillennialism was probably best formulated by Augustine and is currently still held by the Roman Catholic church, but it was also the interpretation of most of the Reformers (though forms of millennialism were not discussed much back then, because, let’s face it, this is not a doctrine essential to salvation - in fact, modern churches spend way too much time on this subject while the essential doctrines are ignored). Dispensationalism was only invented in the nineteenth century and was championed by Scofield, who wrote an entire Bible commentary highlighting this interpretation, though, to be fair, there was a kind of millennialism throughout church history. Postmillennialism started in the 1700’s and was popular during the time of the Great Awakening, but fell out of favour when the world wars occurred and things did not seem to improve.
Amillenialism
Amillennialists do not believe in a literal, thousand year, materialistic reign of Christ and his saints on earth. In John 18:36, Jesus states, “My kingdom is not of this world.†This and other passages would support a non-literal, spiritual millennium or kingdom. In this view, the millennium, instead, was ushered in by Christ at his death and resurrection and is symbolic of the fact that salvation has been made available to all peoples of the earth and that the Holy Spirit now dwells in the hearts of all believers. Whereas all other forms of millennialism would interpret Revelation 20:1-6 as a literal thousand year reign, the amillennialist would say that we are currently in this reign of Christ on earth and Satan has already been bound in the sense that he can no longer lead entire “nations astrayâ€. This is because Christians and God’s influence through them is now spread through all nations across the globe.
The tribulation, too, is not a literal seven year period. In fact, the amillennialist would say that we are currently in the tribulation and that it will steadily get worse until the time of completion (seven is often used in the Bible to signify completion and perfection). Satan being let loose would represent the state of the world becoming more hostile to Christianity till it is like the days of Noah. In this sense, the amillennialist shares some ground with the premillennialist.
Finally, there will be the second coming of Christ - no second second coming, just a singular, cataclysmic event (the rapture) in which every dead person will be raised and every eye will behold Christ as the glorious victor. Judgement will follow immediately after and Satan and all his angels will be thrown into the lake of fire. There will be a new heaven and a new earth and all sin and death will be destroyed from it. Christians will live forever with Christ in this perfect state.
The problem I see with premillennialism and postmillennialism is that it relies too heavily on a single passage in Revelation to make the case for an earthly millennium, while the rest of the New Testament talks about the resurrection, the rapture, tribulation in a prolonged sense, judgement of the wicked, the perfection of heaven, and the desolation and despair of hell. These are all things that the amillennialist holds as essential to their view of eschatology, so they are by no means contradicting Scripture. When it comes to interpreting Scripture, the conservative, and I might say, amillennial, view is to interpret things “literal if possible.†This means that if the grammar and the historical context of the passage holds up to a literal interpretation, than a literal one it is. If not, then it is a question of what is trying to be communicated. For instance, the parables of Christ were not literally true stories, but were still intended to teach the Truth.
Historical Background
Amillennialism was probably best formulated by Augustine and is currently still held by the Roman Catholic church, but it was also the interpretation of most of the Reformers (though forms of millennialism were not discussed much back then, because, let’s face it, this is not a doctrine essential to salvation - in fact, modern churches spend way too much time on this subject while the essential doctrines are ignored). Dispensationalism was only invented in the nineteenth century and was championed by Scofield, who wrote an entire Bible commentary highlighting this interpretation, though, to be fair, there was a kind of millennialism throughout church history. Postmillennialism started in the 1700’s and was popular during the time of the Great Awakening, but fell out of favour when the world wars occurred and things did not seem to improve.
Amillenialism
Amillennialists do not believe in a literal, thousand year, materialistic reign of Christ and his saints on earth. In John 18:36, Jesus states, “My kingdom is not of this world.†This and other passages would support a non-literal, spiritual millennium or kingdom. In this view, the millennium, instead, was ushered in by Christ at his death and resurrection and is symbolic of the fact that salvation has been made available to all peoples of the earth and that the Holy Spirit now dwells in the hearts of all believers. Whereas all other forms of millennialism would interpret Revelation 20:1-6 as a literal thousand year reign, the amillennialist would say that we are currently in this reign of Christ on earth and Satan has already been bound in the sense that he can no longer lead entire “nations astrayâ€. This is because Christians and God’s influence through them is now spread through all nations across the globe.
The tribulation, too, is not a literal seven year period. In fact, the amillennialist would say that we are currently in the tribulation and that it will steadily get worse until the time of completion (seven is often used in the Bible to signify completion and perfection). Satan being let loose would represent the state of the world becoming more hostile to Christianity till it is like the days of Noah. In this sense, the amillennialist shares some ground with the premillennialist.
Finally, there will be the second coming of Christ - no second second coming, just a singular, cataclysmic event (the rapture) in which every dead person will be raised and every eye will behold Christ as the glorious victor. Judgement will follow immediately after and Satan and all his angels will be thrown into the lake of fire. There will be a new heaven and a new earth and all sin and death will be destroyed from it. Christians will live forever with Christ in this perfect state.
The problem I see with premillennialism and postmillennialism is that it relies too heavily on a single passage in Revelation to make the case for an earthly millennium, while the rest of the New Testament talks about the resurrection, the rapture, tribulation in a prolonged sense, judgement of the wicked, the perfection of heaven, and the desolation and despair of hell. These are all things that the amillennialist holds as essential to their view of eschatology, so they are by no means contradicting Scripture. When it comes to interpreting Scripture, the conservative, and I might say, amillennial, view is to interpret things “literal if possible.†This means that if the grammar and the historical context of the passage holds up to a literal interpretation, than a literal one it is. If not, then it is a question of what is trying to be communicated. For instance, the parables of Christ were not literally true stories, but were still intended to teach the Truth.