Comforting as the return of the Lord Jesus Christ is for the believer, it is not a subject regarding which all believers agree. The disagreement is over what is normally called the Millennium Since this millennium is central in understanding the scheme of things, we must now turn our attention to it.

The Word, Itself

The word millennium is composed of two Latin words mille and annus, meaning literally thousand years. The term, itself, is not found in Scripture but it has become the name for the thousand years which we read about in Revelation 20.

In only two other passages besides Revelation 20 do we read of a thousand years, Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. The principle taught in Psalm 90 is applied in 2 Peter. The principle is that God does not measure time as we do; nor is the Creator of time subject to it. The application of this is found in a passage dealing with the return of Christ. Peter’s argument here is substantially this: False teachers have argued that since Christ has not yet come—and it has been a long time since He departed He is not coming again. Undoubtedly these words have brought great grief to you, and I want you to know—FORGET NOT (i.e. don’t let this escape you) that a thousand years are as a day to the Lord, and a day as a thousand years. God is not bound by time. It may seem a long time, even interminable. However, God is longsuffering-Christ will not return until every one of the elect has come to repentance. It only seems as if God has forgotten His promise. In reality, He has not forgotten it at all.

Now, obviously, this use of the thousand years has nothing to do with a period of time as is expressed in Revelation 20. Thus, the only place where we read of the thousand years in relation to the events of Christ’s return is found in Revelation 20.

Because there are different ways of understanding the millennium, perhaps a general definition of it is in order.

The millennium is the period of time represented by the thousand years of Revelation 20, which is supposed to be characterized by a special prosperity and happiness for the church either on earth or in heaven, or both.

This definition is general enough so that what are usually called post-millennialists, pre-millennialists, dispensationalists and amillennialists can find themselves in it. Each one of these has a somewhat different scheme of the events connected with Christ’s return. Each of these views will be sketched for you. However, it ought to be remembered that within each of these basic positions there are variations, too. Obviously, to explain each position means that we cannot possibly look at all the variations. Attempting that would become too lengthy and quite confusing.

Certainly, we have a responsibility to take a position on the return of Christ, and we therefore must say that one understanding of the millennium is correct and the others are in error. This does not mean, however, that evangelicals who hold to other understandings of the millennium are outside of the Christian fold. Evangelicals, though they differ on the details, still believe the basic truths of the Christian Faith. With us, they believe that the Bible is God’s Word and therefore authoritative. Differences arise because of the distinctive methods used to interpret what God says. With us, they believe that the penal, substitutionary atonement of Christ fully satisfies for sin. With us, they believe that there will be a future, visible, personal coming of Jesus Christ. With us, they believe that each person who has ever lived will be given a resurrection body—some unto glory, some unto contempt—and will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. With us, they believe that those who are righteous in Christ will enjoy eternity with Him but those without that righteousness will know eternal condemnation in hell.

Postmillennialism

The first view of the millennium at which we look is called POSTMILLENNIALISM.

Simply put it is the idea that Christ will come after (post) the millennium. Loraine Boettner writes that Postmillennialism is that view of the last things which holds that the Kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the Gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit, that the world eventually will be Christianized, and that the return of Christ will occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the Millennium (The Millennium, p. 4).

It must be said, of course, that there is a humanistic, evolutionary, so-called, postmillennialism. This teaches that the world is getting better by natural process. Improved and reformed social institutions and culture will bring about the Kingdom of God. But for those who so believe there is no need nor room for the Gospel of Grace. From this view all evangelicals distance themselves, understandably. However, what is sometimes forgotten is that there is also an evangelical postmillennialism preset today.

Recent able presentations of this stance have been given by Loraine Boettner in his The Millennium and in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (edited by Robert Clouse), by Rousas J. Rushdoony in his very strongly worded God’s Plan for Victory and by Professor Norman Shepherd. Historically some rather able theologians have advocated this view of Christ’s return: the Presbyterian B. B. Warfield, W. G. T. Shedd, R. Dabney and the Princeton Hodges; the Baptist A. H. Strong; and J. Marcellus Kik of the Reformed Church in America in his Revelation 20 and Matthew 24, now published together as The Eschatology of Victory.

   

What precisely is the postmillennial scheme of things?

Presently, they say, we are in the age of the preaching of the Gospel, as Christ commanded (Matt. 28:19). Gradually and imperceptibly this age will move into the Millennium, which will be a golden age of progress. And so Boettner writes:

Trying to pinpoint the date on which the Millennium begins is like trying to distinguish the day or year when Medieval history ended and Modern history began . . . . The coming of the Millennium is like the coming of the summer, although ever so much more slowly and on a much grander scale. In the struggle between the seasons there are many advances and many apparent setbacks. Time and again the first harbingers of spring appear, only to be overcome by the winter winds. It often seems that the struggle has been lost and that the cold of winter will never be broken. But gradually the moderate spring breezes take over, and after a time we find ourselves in the glorious summer season (The Millennium, p. 58).

This merging of the two ages will take place as the world’s population is converted. But this Golden Age will not be completely perfect. However: “Sin . . . will be reduced to a minimum as the moral and spiritual environment of the earth becomes predominantly Christian (Boettner in R. G. Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium, 120f.). During the Millennium the effect of the Gospel in the lives of believers will grow in intensity. Christianity will be triumphant over the world. Thus, Boettner writes that the Millennium will mean

the elimination of the great majority of the evil influences that still are so prominent throughout the world, and a correspondingly higher moral and spiritual tone in the lives of the people. Thus, figuratively, the wolf and the lamb shall lie down together, things formerly antagonistic and hateful to each other will work together in one harmonious purpose . . . . moral and spiritual conditions are improved (The Millennium, p. 56).

Since the Millennium begins, according to Revelation 20, with the binding of Satan, we are not to think of that binding as one that entirely limits his power.

Just exactly when does this “binding of Satan” take place? Some postmils connect it with Christ’s work; others say it is yet in the future. For all postmils the thousand years are symbolic, not to be taken literally.

As to the end of the Millennium, Boettner admits some difficulty understanding Revelation 20:3, 7–10. However, he admits that possibly “a limited manifestation of evil” will come just before the end to show clearly how terrible sin is and that God will, indeed, punish sin. This might be necessary especially for those who have lived during the brightest and most glowing portion of the Millennium and who would thus find it very difficult to believe that Satan is really so bad. “That he is able to gain some followers should not be thought strange, for even during the Millennium there remain some who are not Christians” (Boettner, The Millennium, p. 69).

Then Christ shall come.

Summarizing all of this R. J. Rushdoony writes: The postmillennial view, while seeing rises and falls in history, sees it moving to the triumph of the people of Christ, the church triumphant from pole to pole, the government of the whole world by the law of God, and then, after a long and glorious reign of peace, the Second Coming and the end of the world (God’s Plan for Victory, p. 14).

Evaluation

In some ways, this understanding of the Millennium sounds good. This is the Gospel Age and it is our obligation to serve the Lord confidently during this age because His is the victory.

Nevertheless, there are real problems with this view.

First, the Bible does not indicate that there will be an overpowering development of good during the age preceeding Christ’s return. Nor does the Bible teach that the world will be Christianized before the end comes. There will be apostasy; there will be tribulation. Dr. A. Hoekema reminds us that

In the Parable of the Tares (or Weeds) found in Matthew 13:36–43 Jesus taught that evil people will continue to exist alongside of God’s redeemed people until the time of harvest. The clear implication of this parable is that Satan’s Kingdom, if we may call it that, will continue to exist and grow as long as God’s kingdom grows, until Christ comes again (The Bible and the Future, p. 180).

Second, with this understanding of the Millennium there is no need for the tremendous change to the world taught in 2 Peter 3:10–13. Though there would still be a small element of sin left in the world, things will have improved so much that there will be little need for a radical cleansing.

Third, it does not adequately deal with Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2. These passages connot be understood as referring only to t he past. There will be a falling away immediately before the return of Jesus Christ. Matthew 24:21 and 29 along with 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and 3 make this rather clear.

Fourth, postmillennialism has a problem with all of the aspects of this period as revealed in Revelation 20:1–6. For instance, are the two events taught here simultaneous or successive? Some postmils will adopt some of the amillennialists’ understandings in order to solve their difficulties. Others will come up with very novel ways of understanding the chapter.

Indeed, no millennia! view is free from problems, but this one, in spite of its outstanding advocates, certainly does not satisfy.