I just read that as part of the counter reformation, a Jesuit priest Alcasar devised a theory which is now known as amillennialism / preterism. Opposite to this is by another Jesuit, Ribera, premillennialism. Apparently this was done to take the focus off the papacy as the antichrist which Luther etc started to identify as and shift the focus of the Bible reading Christians elsewhere so that people either believed that everything is past (prophecy) before the Pope, OR there will be a future non Christian anti Christ who is NOT part of the established religion. Won’t you fall into this teaching by the Catholics if you believe in amillennialism? Thanks, Bis
Millennialism, whether one opts for it or rejects it, has to do with biblical interpretation of Revelation 20. “MILLENNIUM This term signifies a period of a thousand years, and in its religious use is applied to the prophetic era mentioned in Rev 20:1-7” (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia). Essentially, there are three approaches to biblical interpretation of this passage, and common sense mandates that these three contradictory perceptions cannot all be correct.
Three common millennial views are held: postmillennialism, amillennialism, and premillennialism. Postmillennialism. This interpretation maintains that present gospel agencies will root out evils until Christ will have a spiritual reign over the earth, which will continue for 1,000 years. … Amillennialism. Advocates of this view maintain that no Millennium is to be looked for except that which, it is claimed, is in progress now in this gospel age. … Premillennialism. This interpretation teaches that the age will end in judgment at the second coming of Christ, who will restore the kingdom to Israel and reign for at least 1,000 years. (New Unger’s)
Postmillennialism has grown unpopular owing to the discernible fact that society is not becoming more righteous, leading up to a near state of utopia ushering in the return of Jesus Christ and the commencement of a thousand year reign on earth. If anything, common perception tells us that with each new generation unrighteousness is becoming more widespread.
The doctrine of Premillennialism has many flaws, any one of which is sufficient to disembowel it. Commenting on John 5:28-29, one commentator easily shows how premillennialism cannot be true.
The words of our Lord in these verses preclude the possibility of two literal resurrections with an interval of a thousand years between them. The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves (not just the righteous) shall come forth to judgment and the words, “unto the resurrection of life” for the good, and “the resurrection of judgment” for the evil conclusively show a general resurrection and a general judgment embracing all men thus demonstrating the falsity of the doctrine of premillennialism to which some today adhere. (Woods)
Throughout the centuries, various sincere and honest persons have espoused respectively postmillennialism, premillennialism and amillennialism. The Methodist commentator, Adam Clarke, commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:23, observed:
Some think that by them that are Christ’s at his coming, “we are to understand Christ’s coming to reign on earth a thousand years with his saints, previously to the general judgment;” but I must confess I find nothing in the sacred writings distinctly enough marked to support this opinion of the millennium, or thousand years’ reign; nor can I conceive any important end that can be answered by this procedure.
With Clarke we concur wholeheartedly. The prefix “a” attached to “millennialist” simply means “not millennialist” (i.e., amillennialists do not look for a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth).
Where postmillennialists and premillennialists on one hand differ from amillennialists on the other hand has all to do with one’s perception of the nature of the kingdom of Christ, and when the kingdom of Christ will come into existence or came into existence. Postmillennialists and premillennialists suppose that the kingdom of Christ is a literal, physical and earthly kingdom. Amillennialists understand Jesus Christ to teach clearly that his kingdom is not literal, physical and earthly, but spiritual. “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). Subsequently, though Jesus was taken to Governor Pilate and accused of treason against the Roman Empire, Pilate said, “I find in him no fault at all” (John 18:38). Pilate understood, correctly, that Jesus did not come to establish a physical kingdom, and that the kingdom over which Jesus purported to be king was no threat to the Roman Empire.
Consequently, the following New Testament teachings about the kingdom harmonize with themselves, as well with Old Testament prophecies about the kingdom of God and New Testament prophecies about a “heavenly kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:18) or an “everlasting kingdom” (2 Peter 1:11).
- Jesus Christ used the words “church” and “kingdom” interchangeably (Matthew 16:18-19).
- Jesus Christ promised to establish the kingdom with power during the lifetimes of those to whom he spoke in his first century, earthly ministry (Mark 9:1).
- The apostle Peter used the “keys of the kingdom” that Jesus Christ gave him to open the doors of the church in Acts Chapter Two.
- The apostle Paul referred to Christian membership in the kingdom already in the first century (Colossians 1:13).
- The apostle John referred to Christian membership in the kingdom already in the first century (Revelation 1:9).
- Jesus Christ is reigning as King over his kingdom now, but he will stop reigning after the Second Coming and present the kingdom to God the Father in heaven (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
The kingdom is spiritual, not literal, physical and earthly. The kingdom exists now and will be transported to heaven at the end of time.
Works Cited and Consulted
Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the New Testament. CD-ROM. Austin: Wordsearch, 2004.
Cooke, Ronald. “The Unmitigated Twaddle of Jesuit-Romanist Preterism.” European Institute of Protestant Studies. 3 Aug. 2001. 25 Apr. 2006. < https://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=twaddle>.
McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Seattle: Biblesoft, 2000.
New Unger’s Bible Dictionary. CD-ROM. Chicago: Moody P., 1988.
Woods, Guy N. A Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Gospel Advocate Commentaries. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1989. CD-ROM. Austin: Wordsearch, 2005.
