Millennial Studies Part 3; The Major Flaws in the Amillennial System

Introduction

In advancing the reasons why I have become convinced of a Postmillennial interpretation of Biblical prophecy I am outlining my problems with the alternative renderings. In the previous two articles I have discussed my problems and questions regarding with Premillennialism, in its Pre and Post-Tribulation variants.

https://hopeinthevalley.co.uk/category/millennial-studies/

This article will move onto the territory of Amillennialism , which is the most common and widely held interpretation of the Church and of Revelation 20, throughout history. While Augustine of Hippo is normally credited with crystallising this interpretation many have followed in his wake. Cox quotes Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli as well as modern reformed exegetes such as Hendricksen and Berkhof as being proponents of Amillennialism. Dr Louis Berkhof in “Systematic Theology” argues:

The name is indeed new, but the view to which it is applied is as old as Christianity…It is the only view that is either expressed or implied in the great historical confessions of the Church, and has always been the prevalent view in reformed circles.

The Terminology

I will begin by defining what Amillennialism actually is. The prefix “A” means “non”. W.J. Grier in “The Momentous Event” where, in a fair and gracious manner, he sets forth the alternative millennial views while advancing his own Amillennial perspective embraces the “non” as an accurate definition:

The non-millennialist sees no ground in Scripture for a millennium before the Lord’s coming, and he holds that the possibility of a millennium after his coming is excluded by New Testament teaching.

William E. Cox in “Amillennial Today” resists the Amillennial label, however, on the basis that it has become libellous with some accusing those of this school of not believing Revelation 20. While admitting that a better term has not been yet found Cox advances a personal preference – “Biblical Millennialism”:

It’s most general character is that of denial of a literal reign of Christ on earth. Satan is conceived as being bound at the first coming of Christ. The present age between the first and second comings of Christ is the fulfilment of the millennium.

Therefore some have used the term “Realised Millennium” as a more positive alternative to Amillennialism. The Millennium was realised with the resurrection of Christ and is descriptive of the present age. W.J. Grier and Cox both admit, however, that the A or Non-Millennium label is appropriate in that, unlike Pre and Post-Millennialism, this view does not conceive of a future period of unparalleled blessedness on Earth either before or after Christ’s return.

Interpretive Frameworks

Amillennialism adopts an interpretation of Revelation known as Historicism.

There are three ways by which Revelation is interpreted:

Preterism. The Preterist teaches that the entire Book of Revelation was fulfilled within the time frame of the Roman Empire.
Futurism. The Futurist conversely advocates the view that virtually all of Revelation is yet future. All of the visions and symbols must be interpreted in the light of future events.
Historicism. The Historicist in the words of WJ Grier takes in “the grand sweep of the history of that Kingdom from the First Advent to the Consummation”.

Premillennialism is almost exclusively Futurist in outlook. Amillennialism and Postmillennialism are strongly Historicist. Historicists though, do not deny that elements of Revelation are yet future because all has not yet been fulfilled. A and Post-Millennialists diverge sharply on the binding of Satan in Revelation 20. Where Postmillennialism sees the binding of Satan to be yet future, Amillennialists regard this having already happened since Calvary.

While I find Preterism unconvincing for several reasons, particularly regarding the future hope in Revelation 21–22., It is difficult to conceive how this remarkable passage could have found fulfilment in the ancient age of the Roman Empire.

As one who has come a settled Postmillennial position, there is much with which I can identify within Amillennialism. Nevertheless there are fatal fault lines within this perspective, which I struggle with.

Major Critique 1: The Binding of Satan

Let’s start with Revelation 20. At the heart of the Millennium is the binding of Satan.

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Amillennialism claims Satan was bound at Calvary, citing Hebrews 2:14.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

They claim that this binding does not render Satan helpless. He cannot, however, deceive the nations in the same way after Calvary. Therefore the Church was given a mandate to go into all the world with the gospel. The power of Satan over hearts, as in the Old Testament, no longer features, therefore the world was ripe for the gospel.

This interpretation raises significant difficulties, particularly when compared with New Testament descriptions of Satan’s ongoing influence.

The continued global deception described in 2 Corinthians 4:4 suggests that Satan’s binding cannot yet be complete. Paul wrote of the Ephesian Christians being children of wrath prior to their conversion, dominated by the Prince of the power of the air. Again in Romans 8 our conflict with Satan is an ever present reality . Using the rhetorical question technique the apostle asks “Who is he that condemneth?”, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” This has echoes of Satan standing beside Joshua the high priest in Zechariah 3. He was there to accuse and hinder the Lord’s servant. This work of accusing is ongoing as the deceiver still works. This does not represent a bound Satan. Neither does the wrestling against the powers of darkness in Ephesians 6, as the Christian is exhorted to stand his ground and quench the fiery darts of the wicked one. All of this points to an unbound Satan. He is more than a gangland leader directing his operation from a prison cell using what contacts he can muster with the outside world. He is roaming and seeking whom he may destroy! (1 Peter 5:8).

Furthermore is it possible to believe that Satan was bound during the first three centuries after Christ when the Roman Empire repeatedly tortured and murdered thousands of Christians? Can we really believe that Satan was bound as Mohammad launched his religion which would overrun the old Christian lands of East with followers that repress God’s people to the present? Is Satan bound in the secular atheistic western world today in all of its decadence? These are real questions which challenge the A Millennial perspective on Satan’s binding.

I agree that Satan’s operation pre and post Calvary are different by virtue of the fact that he failed to thwart the redemptive work of Messiah. Even in the Old Testament, however, the Devil’s power was restricted by the sovereignty God. The Book of Job aptly demonstrates this. From that perspective Satan only does as much as he is permitted by God; this was always the case.

Postmillennialism takes a literalist and expansionist view of the binding of Satan. The power of the evil one will be broken for one prolonged season when the gospel will triumph in the every nation and among all the languages of the world.

Major Critique 2: Israel and Romans 11

Let’s now consider the Jewish people, Paul’s brethren according to the flesh. For many Amillennialists the New Testament Church replaces Israel. This is true inasmuch as the Church brings Jew and Gentile in one new man. The Church is God’s ultimate plan for the redemption of this broken world. Does this mean, however, that God’s promises for the literal sons and daughters of Abraham are voided? Those promises are fulfilled now within the Church, and the Jew are simply one of many peoples.

If this is the case, how do we regard Romans 11 where all Israel will be saved and the reconciling of the Jew with God will bring blessings upon all the world? This is where Amillennialism struggles. WJ Grier highlights the tensions among Amillennialists on this issue. William Hendricksen taught that all Israel in 11 are the complete number of God’s covenant people. On the other hand Charles Hodge saw in Romans 11 a national conversion of the Jews to God.

Postmillennialism has no such tension on this issue. The restoration of the Jew will be the herald of the golden age as humanity is brought to a place of spiritual resurrection from pole to pole and from east to west. We will return to the importance of Romans 11 in a later study.

Major Critique 3: A Question of Outlook – Hope or Pessimism

My final consideration for Amillennialists is the negativity of their system. While their timeline is simple it anticipates nothing for the world but apostasy and judgment. There is no promise of widespread revival and there is little to inspire the fulfilment of The Great Commission. The binding of Satan is drawing closer and he will be released from his prison to caused even more havoc than he has already caused in his bound state.

At least, this is how Amillennialism feels to me. I do admit, however, that there are shades of opinion with the Amillennialist Christian community. Some are more optimistic than others with respect to the future progress of the Church. Also, while Amillennialism does not emphasise a future golden age, its proponents still affirm the ongoing mission of the Church.

Postmillennialism, however, sees a progressing and expanding Kingdom which will eventually be drawn into a millennium of gospel promise as the woman’s leaven permeated the entire barrel of meal in our Lord’s parable.

Final Thoughts

For these reasons, I find Amillennialism ultimately unpersuasive. While it rightly emphasises the present reign of Christ, it does not adequately explain the ongoing power of evil, the future restoration of Israel spoken of in Romans 11, or the global scope of the Kingdom promises. Postmillennialism, on the other hand, provides a more compelling argument — one that anticipates not merely survival, but victory; not retreat, but expansion; not decline, but the triumph of the gospel in history before the return of Christ.