Is Premillennialism the historic faith of the Church? (Overview of the Millennial Positions)

6th Semester / Week 2

Before dispensationalism crept up in 1830 AD, from the 4th century throughout the dark ages and through the Protestant Reformation, the predominant view regarding the millennium had been Amillennialism (or more appropriately called “Realized Millennialism,” meaning that we’re already living in the time when Christ reigns in the midst of His enemies, as was predicted in Psalm 110:2). Yet how prevalent was it in the first few centuries of the early Church? At Dallas Theological Seminary, Charles Ryrie, one of the major teachers of dispensationalism rather audaciously declared “Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church.”

(Most of the following information was originally found here)

Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary, began a challenging undertaking, writing a Masters thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. This Masters thesis was to determine whether or not early Christian authors (some of which had been in direct contact with Apostles) affirmed or were even aware of the dispensational premillennial perspective as advocated by Dallas Theological Seminary professors Charles Ryrie and John Walvoord, and Boyd stated the purpose of his work succinctly: “The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether Dr Ryrie’s ‘premillennialism’ is similar to, or dissimilar to, the premillennialism exhibited in some of the patristic writings under consideration.”

The title of his thesis was, “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post‐Apostolic Fathers (until the Death of Justin Martyr),” and he found that the idea of a millennium was about the only feature they had in common with today’s teaching. The early church fathers differed greatly from the teachings of John Darby, the Scofield Bible, and professors at the Dallas Theological Seminary such as the late John Walvoord and the late Charles Ryrie.

Contrary to one of the key pillars of dispensationalism, Boyd found that a distinction between Israel and the church was missing, and also that dispensationalism, as articulated by contemporary authors, was fully absent. He found they believed in prophecy, but used the New Testament writings to interpret Old Testament Scriptures. Boyd found that all the early authors expected the church to experience tribulation, and that they did not believe in a rapture before a time of tribulation. The church would be saved from the wrath of God, but not from a time of tribulation to test their faith [such as has been occurring during these last 2,000 years of Church history].

The early church fathers, whether millennialist or otherwise, believed that the church was the new Israel and that Christians, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, are now God’s chosen people (1 Peter 2:9). [Per the olive tree of Romans 11, those believing in Christ have been grafted in, and those denying Christ are no longer attached]. They certainly taught Jews could be saved, but only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and no other way. In other words, they did not see the church and Israel as distinct dispensations. Per 2nd century Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, “For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, … are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.”

 After a close examination of early Christian authors prior to Papias (including 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, Ignatius, and Hermas), Boyd discovered that the differences between them and the premillennial construct of Dr. Ryrie are “profound and disqualify any claim that pretribulation, dispensational premillennialism existed in any form in the period.” Ultimately, he concluded that, “The Majority of the writers/writings in this period (70-165 A.D.) completely identify Israel with the church.”

In fact, Boyd found Dr. Charles Ryrie’s statement was not true:

“It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie ‘s statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis.”

 “The reasons for this conclusion are as follows: 

1) the writers/writings surveyed did not generally adopt a consistently applied literal interpretation

2) they did not generally distinguish between the Church and Israel

3) there is no evidence that they generally held to a dispensational view of revealed history

4) although Papias and Justin Martyr did believe in a Millennial kingdom, the 1,000 years is the only basic similarity with the modern system (in fact, they and dispensational premillennialism radically differ on the basis for the Millennium)

5) they had no concept of an imminent rapture or of a pretribulation rapture of the Church

6) in general, their eschatological chronology is not synonymous with that of the modern system.”

Boyd’s study ended at the time period of Justin Martyr, therefore it should be noted this is what Justin declared in his dialogue, “I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place [a future millennium] as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that MANY who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” (“Dialogue with Trypho,” chapter LXXX. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985)

So then, it turns out that it’s amillennialism that shows up to some degree even in the early church, and Boyd suggests that “it would seem wise for the modern system [of dispensational premillennialism] to abandon the claim that it is the historic faith of the church.” He would appear to side with the evaluation of the amillennialist Louis Berkhof who wrote, “it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it (millennialism) was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number.” (Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1937] 1969, 262).

Rather than being perceived as being an iconoclast, this is how Boyd described himself and the purpose of his thesis: “Perhaps a word needs to be said about the eschatological position of the writer of this thesis. He is a dispensational premillennialist, and he does not consider this thesis to be a disproof of that system. He originally undertook the thesis to bolster the system by patristic research, but the evidence of the original sources simply disallowed this.” Clearly, Boyd was a dispensationalist trying to prove the validity of his system, but to his dismay, the leaders of the early church did not teach anything like what dispensationalism attempts to teach.

Instead of our modern dispensational premil system, the original system is called “historic premillennialism” which doesn’t believe in 2 separate returns of Jesus such as the dispensational “secret” rapture followed by tribulation then the real return of Jesus. The “historic premil” system instead simply sees Jesus return again after a period of tribulation and then rule for a thousand years. Yet all historic premils revive some elements of the centrality of the physical nation of Israel and many would also see Ezekiel’s Temple built to some degree in their millennium. The book “A Case for Historic Premillennialism” notes how Early Church theologians who were premillennial all believed in the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem and this Israel-centered theology might surprise some modern historic premils but it shouldn’t since it was the standard position for centuries.

However, what premillennialists typically have in mind for the Jewish people in the millennium is vastly inferior to what they presently have in Christ Jesus. This begs the question why would they want to send them back to the shadow when the reality has come. Arno Gaebelein, one of the major dispensational premillennialists of the early 20th century actually admits in his book “Unsearchable Riches” that the Jewish people will experience an inferior paradigm in the millenium than they currently possess in the Church. This is his admission on page 30 of that book, “Those mentioned here who ‘trusted beforehand in Christ,’ are Jews who have entered by faith into this blessed relationship and who possess now something infinitely higher and more glorious than the nation will possess when the Lord Jesus comes to restore His earthly people.” Dispensationalists over the years have made many startling statements, but few more surprising than this one. We know that through the Bible, God had always moved forward redemptively speaking and never moved back, yet that’s what Gaebelein is admitting when it comes to the Jewish people in the millennium. The irony is rich. Gaebelein, a converted Jew, made a statement that arguably is degrading to the Jewish people when he essentially taught they would only be receiving a partial Christ and a weakened status as opposed to the fullness of Christ we currently experience in the Church. Gaebelein’s statement shows the degree to which premillennialism doesn’t appreciate the totality of what Christ accomplished at Calvary. If they did, they wouldn’t wish for God to take us backwards towards something inferior.

Many Amillennialists have been quick to challenge the assertion that premillennialism has outright dominance in the early church. While few early Christians actually wrote anything about the millennium, the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas might be amillennial, while Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), Origen (184-254), Dionysius (190-265), Caius (3rd century Presbyter of Rome), and Cyprian (c. 200–258) were all amillennial (even though some of these employed an unhealthy form of “allegorical method”). All of these led up to the most significant as well as most reliable amillennial theologian, Augustine (354–430). In Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity, Charles Hill examines whether each early Church writer believed in a heavenly or subterranean intermediate state, and if this is a reliable criterion then he is able to conclude that even Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Athenagrous, and Meilto of Sardis also held to the amillennial position. Knowing this, it does seem that premillennialists need to abandon statements of early church exclusivity, and to again quote Justin Martyr, “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”

Amillenialism simply recognizes that the Bible tells us we’re already in the time when Jesus rules and reigns as King, ruling in the midst of His enemies. Matthew 28:18 lets us know that Jesus already has all authority in heaven and on earth, while Hebrews 2:18 explains that even though all has been placed in subjection to Him, we simply don’t yet see all that has already been placed under His authority. The phrase “thousand years” is simply figurative rather than a literal and precise length of time, just like how Scripture typically uses the word  “thousand.” For an obviously clear and simple example, we’re told that God “owns the cattle on a thousand hills,” (Psalm 50:10). Therefore, if it’s literal, then does God not own the cattle on the 1,001 and more hills? Of course not. He owns them all and the phrase is simply figurative for a large number. Therefore, Jesus has been ruling since His resurrection and will continue to reign in the midst of His enemies until He returns to conquer the final enemy, death, and then judge us all.

Furthermore, an interesting problem for premillennialists who insist that Revelation 20 takes place after chapter 19, is their supporting belief that the phrase “then I saw” must mean a chronological order, that what comes next must absolutely take place after the first statement. However, that becomes completely untenable and ignored by them when comparing Revelation 20 verses 1-3 to verse 4. Both passages use the phrase “then I saw” and both mention a thousand years, therefore, according to the premil hermeneutic, there must then be two millenniums, which absolutely no one dares to believe. Notice specifically verse 2 which declares, “bound him for a thousand years.” Past tense. That thousand year period would be over before seeing the word “then” in verse 4. Therefore “then” can’t necessarily imply chronological order.

For those who think there’s no way we might currently be in the age described as the “millennium” because our world is chaotic and filled with sinners, it’s important to realize that throughout the Bible we’re told Jesus would reign “in the midst of His enemies.” He reigns over those who’ve been brought into His Kingdom who are in submission to Him as King over our lives. Obviously there are still enemies, but only once the last enemy has been defeated (death), then the New Heaven and Earth will be created where there will only be those who are in His Kingdom. We’re currently living in “A Tale of Two Kingdoms” – those who are of this world versus those who have been brought into God’s Kingdom which is only a spiritual Kingdom. Rather than being a visible and earthly Kingdom, it’s only made of those who’ve been spiritually “born again:”

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” (John 3:3).

And like we’re taught in Hebrews 11:13-16, this current age isn’t our true home, we’re only “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” awaiting our “heavenly country.”

It’s clear that both premillennialism and amillennialism existed side by side in the early church, however, in the 4th century, Augustine became the primary theologian to firmly establish the doctrines of amillennialism. His viewpoints then became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Church which carried on as the dominant teaching all the way up to and including the Protestant reformers who also were all amillennial in their teachings, and their confessions of faith further documented their amillennial beliefs. John Calvin had even gone so far as to declare that premillennialism with its earthly Kingdom rather than spiritual Kingdom is a “fiction” that is “too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation.”

“At the time of the Reformation the doctrine of the millennium was rejected by the Protestant Churches… Luther scornfully rejected ‘the dream’ that there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ preceding the day of judgment. The Augsburg Confession condemns those ‘who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed.’ And the Second Helvetic Confession says: ‘Moreover, we condemn the Jewish dreams, that before the day of judgment there shall be a golden age in the earth, and the godly shall possess the kingdoms of the world, their wicked enemies being trodden under foot’ … Up to the present time, the doctrine of the millennium has never yet been embodied in a single Confession, and therefore cannot be regarded as a dogma of the Church,” (LOUIS BERKHOF, The History of Christian Doctrines, pages 271–72).

Postmillennialism is the other orthodox view of the millennium, and expects that there will come a time when the vast majority of people will be saved by the success of the gospel which would produce a time prior to Christ’s return when faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the nations. After an era of those conditions Jesus would return to end history with the general resurrection and the final judgment.

Many of today’s postmillennialists are actually Preterists (which will be contradicted here), and it would be easier to be postmill if the vast majority of Revelation had been fulfilled in the first century. It’s good for us to be optimistic as opposed to the dour pessimism of Futurism, however, postmillennialism is a system that seems to be too optimistic, believing that the world is becoming a Christianized world which is typically to be placed back under the Mosaic Law. While it’s admirable to see the good in this world, one flaw in postmillennialism would be their typical desire to enforce the Mosaic Law through local governments. Yet we know that the unredeemed were never able to keep the Law (which was referred to as “the ministry of death” and “condemnation,” per 2 Corinthians 3:7-8), and Paul explained in Romans 7 that the Law only aroused desire to sin. It’s a Law that’s already been replaced by the greater ministry of the Holy Spirit (per passages such as 2 Corinthians 3:8-11) who actually empowers us to do God’s will, and the Holy Spirit is our “Helper” and “Advocate” who helps us fulfill the greater and higher standard “Law of Christ.” Also, as we’ve seen, the Kingdom is spiritual rather than earthly, therefore we shouldn’t focus on earthly fulfillments. In recognizing the human nature of the unredeemed, the overly optimistic postmillennial system is bound to fail, although opposed to what’s taught by dispensational Futurists, fortunately it’s true that the Gospel is still gaining ground worldwide, because the light still shines the brightest in the darkest places.

1 Corinthians 15:25, “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet,” is often championed as the verse that convinces people of a postmillennial position, expecting before the resurrection Jesus will visibly and powerfully put all rulers and authorities under his feet for all to witness while He rules. However, pastor Chris Gordon shared this on Abounding Grace Radio, “Dr. Steve Baugh is one of the most helpful and accomplished NT scholars that I know. In his book, ‘Majesty on High,’ Baugh gives extensive exegetical treatment to this verse… Paul is engaging in a common practice among New Testament authors when he quotes or paraphrases only a small portion of a familiar OT passage. Paul expects us to know and consider the whole teaching of the Psalm. Herewith, then, is more crucial detail from Psalm 110: ‘The Lord says to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter, rule in the midst of your enemies.’ This is what is conveniently missed by postmills in their use of 1 Cor. 15:25. To be frank, its sloppy exegesis. Baugh again, ‘Christ rules in their midst. But they are still active.’ Christ, in putting them under his feet today, rules in the midst of his existing and present enemies. This is precisely why Paul says Christ must rule until all of his enemies are destroyed, which is to take place at the Parousia [the Second Coming of Jesus]. Again, 1 Cor. 15:25 is speaking of this as happening in consummate fulfillment and in tandem with the destruction of the last enemy [death] at the Parousia. Enemies are all certainly under Christ’s feet today, but the bowing of their knees and the confessing of their mouth, in the way postmills expect to see this develop in the current age, will happen together with the destruction of the ultimate enemy of death on THE LAST DAY.”

Unfortunately, amillennialism declined in Protestant circles with the increased popularity of postmillennialism in the 18th century as well as the rise of dispensational premillennialism in the 19th century, yet we should remember that amillennialism has always been embraced by many of our modern denominations (such as Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Anglican, Amish, Mennonite, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, as well as Messianic Jews and Eastern Orthodox), and it is regaining its prominence now that dispensationalism is being proven to be a faulty system.

To conclude and answer our question, to the dismay of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, we can now boldly declare that premillennialism is NOT the historic faith of the Church, but rather, for the majority of these last 2,000 years, the dominant historic faith of the Church has been amillennialism (aka – Realized Millennialism).