Of course, Amillennialists aren't rejecting the millennium,
instead what is being rejected is a chiliastic millennium, whether represented
by a 1000 year premillennial Kingdom in which Christ reigns in Jerusalem over a
geopolitical dominion or in Postmillennialism which expects an indefinite
period of global Christianisation, a time in which Christendom triumphs and
dominates the globe.
Both forms of millennialism embrace a Chiliastic Golden Age paradigm in which a sort of pre-heaven is experienced on Earth
before the Final Judgment, before the actual consummation and manifestation of
the true, final or what we might call 'ultimate' heaven.
This is what Amillennialism rejects, insisting that the
Scriptures do not teach of a Golden Age period that takes place between now and
the Eschaton, the end point, the final and eternal stage of reality and
history. Amillennialists teach that This Age will end and that all that remains
is what the New Testament describes as The Age to Come, essentially heaven
itself. The clear unambiguous didactic passages teach this and thus help to elucidate
and define the prophetic and apocalyptic passages from the Old Testament as
well as the book of Revelation in the New.
What I realised many years ago is that regardless of one's
exact timeline or how one's paradigm is structured there are real and practical
considerations and outworkings related to the question of eschatology. Many
consider eschatology some kind of speculative almost irrelevant category of
theology, one that engenders unnecessary division and distracts from more
prominent and relevant doctrinal questions. There are some cases in which this
accusation has merit. The Dispensational camp has all too often fallen into
misguided and unhealthy obsessions when it comes to their End Times schema and
how it relates to current geopolitical and cultural events. It ends up
devolving into something of a puzzle or parlour game in which everyone tries to
guess what the mark of the beast will be, who's the antichrist and what nations
will represent the ten toes? Sadly these questions are largely moot as the system
is flawed at its very core and thus their 'newspaper in hand' inquiries are
indeed a waste of time.
And yet there are very basic and fundamental ways in which eschatology
is not only important but central to the Christian life. Eschatology determines
and defines the Kingdom of God. Is it something wholly future? Is the Kingdom
something defined in spatial, cultural and political terms? Is it something both
metaphysical and transcendent experienced only through life in the Spirit? Amillennialists
don't agree on some of these questions (as well as some others) and this also
creates confusion.
Premillennialists for the most part believe 'The Kingdom' to
be equated with the Millennium which they place after Christ's return. Thus it
is future and is not part of what some would call the Church Age. There are
some variants of the premillennial school, particularly those associated with
the thought of GE Ladd which allow for the Kingdom to be experienced in part by
those living between the First and Second Coming.
Postmillennialists believe the Kingdom exists now but is at
best in seed form and it has not reached maturity or serious fruition. They
look for the world to become Christianised prior to Christ's return and in
their case the Kingdom is defined in ways similar to premillennialism as a
global political and cultural dominion. Some take this further and believe that
much of the curse will be undone reflected in extended life expectancy and the
like. They would base this on Isaiah 65.*
Rather than define eschatological positions in terms of one's
read of Revelation 20 and thus one's millennial position I think the question
should be framed differently. Depending on one's understanding of the Kingdom,
there are Amillennialists (like myself) who find more common cause with
Premillennialists, at least in terms of how we are to think of this present age
and how to live.
There are adherents across the millennial spectrum that may
differ as to their understanding of Revelation 20. Yet they can share a common
understanding of the Kingdom that more or less leads them to the same outlook
in terms of how to live in This Age and what the Church and individual
Christians should be doing and striving for.
The term I propose is a familiar one but one that provides a
different emphasis. Apocalypticism
points to a mindset focused on the passing of This Age, the temporary nature of
this world and the revelation of Jesus Christ. Revelation in this sense means
the uncovering or unveiling of our Lord at His return. That's what the Greek
term apokalypsis means and hence our
term apocalypse or revelation as it is translated in the title of the final
book of the New Testament.
We are to live as if Jesus is coming soon and this shapes and
affects the entirety of our mindset about this world which Paul describes as
temporal and passing away.
This is not to say we fall into a 'prediction' trap of the
kind that has so often plagued the history of the Church. We cannot know the
hour and indeed Christ may not return for generations but the New Testament
teaches we are to live in a mindset guided and governed by imminency.
We must therefore reject the arguments of those (both liberal
and conservative) who suggest the ethos of the New Testament is functionally obsolete
because it was based on a misguided expectation of Christ's immediate return.
Thus, we're told the Church had to 'move on' and establish normative structures
in which the Church could learn to function in the world on a long term basis.
These arguments were elaborated upon in the wake of the
Constantinian Shift and continue to dominate the thinking of most theologians
if not most Christians themselves and yet the position is mistaken. The Church
didn't need to move on. The spirit of expectation and imminency reflect that
very eschatological focus at the heart of New Testament Christian life.
2 Peter is probably the most salient passage in this regard
as he addresses the scoffers and explains the seeming disparity between
Christ's own words, the testimony of the Apostles and the realities of the
decades and eventual centuries slipping by without Him returning.
While I wouldn't want to classify those who have abandoned
the ethos as 'scoffers' they have nevertheless failed to take proper note of
Peter's word. It is this reality of His coming and what it will mean for the
world that drives Peter to exhort his readers to live not as those who live as
if the world just goes on as it always has, but as those who know this world is
marked for destruction and it and all its works will perish in the fire. That
reality should shape how we think and live and it should certainly shape what
we value, treasure and put stock in.
Apocalypticism encompasses an ethos and ethic concerning this
present age. Now whether the kingdom exists now in earnest or is viewed in
future terms, the end result is a call to view this world as condemned and
passing away and to live in light of Parousia. Apocalypticism focuses on
Christ's coming and the end of all things. Apocalypticism permits the
Amillennialist and Premillennialist to share in a common mindset and what we
might call Kingdom spiritually and ethics.
The focus on Imminency and an eschatological kingdom-focus in
terms of power, culture and the world completely eliminates chiliastic concerns
(at the very least for the present) along with the motives and even the ethics
that drive them. Apocalypticism will not place stock in so-called Christian
culture, Christendom or the nations of the world, their currencies, armies,
accolades or the prestige they can offer.
While it's certainly better and more Biblical to understand the
Kingdom in an Already-Not Yet sense, even premillennialism's understanding of
the Church in this present age (the church vis-à-vis the world) demands the
same kind of separatism Apocalyptic Amillennialism calls for.
Apocalypticism certainly understands and acknowledges Christ's
reign over the universe as Creator
and in that sense as King and Judge and yet we as Christians are part of the Holy Realm of Christ which must be
distinct from the world. Christ is Head of the Church in a way that is distinct
from His Lordship over creation. The holy realm we speak of is the province of
the Holy Spirit, wherein He works, regenerates and reconciles. The world is not
part of the New Covenant or Holy Realm which survives (or perhaps even
transcends) the fires of the eschaton. As Christ said, His Kingdom is not of
this world and thus escapes its perishing. At the Parousia and only at the
Parousia will reign and realm become one, because at that point we will be in
the New Heavens and New Earth.
The Apocalyptic view accords with the mindset of the Early
Church. While many if not the majority of Early Church Fathers were
premillennial chiliasts they all shared the apocalyptic ethos being described
here. And clearly there were other accepted views. Justin Martyr hints at this
and the evidence bears it out. Alexandrian Christianity was and is often
criticised and for some good reasons and yet their Kingdom and Eschatological
views were certainly viewed as orthodox.
This view of the Kingdom avoids being defined by Revelation
20 and allows for differences in the larger schema. Additionally Amillennialism
is a confused term not only because it denotatively denies a millennium which
is (as mentioned) technically untrue but also because it is chronologically
speaking a postmillennial view. Christ comes (post) after the millennium. Both
A- and Post- understand the millennium as something that takes place between
the first and second Advents of Christ.
But the Postmillennialists believe it is something that
happens for a distinct period here on earth, a period that may or may not be
1000 literal years. But it's defined in terms of earthly markers, the
Christianisation of the world and according to some advocates a large-scale
move towards reducing the effects of the Edenic curse.
To the contrary, Amillennialists while technically
Post-millennial in their chronology believe the Kingdom that's present now is
Heaven itself in earnest, experienced through the Spirit, through Union with
Christ and outwardly in space and time through the Church and the sacraments.
One must be regenerate to see it and it does not come with observation.
Amillennialism is often presented as the majority position of
Church History. While a form of it existed in the Early Church, it became
firmly established by Augustine and continues to be embraced by many
Protestants and even Rome itself. To many this is a positive vindicating statement
and to others it largely discredits the view and many consider it to be a 4th
or 5th century innovation.
And yet this again is misleading and this is where
Apocalypticism accentuates the divide. While Rome and many Protestants may hold
to an Amillennial schema they also hold to some form or variant of Dominionism
in which The Kingdom is defined in overlapping terms with the culture at large.
These Dominionist varieties expressly reject that the Kingdom is essentially
one with the Covenantal Realm of Christ in the Church and instead insist that
the Kingdom includes the various facets of civilisation, all in the process of
being reconciled and redeemed. This point, not a rejection of premillennialism
was the innovative aspect to be found in 4th and 5th
century eschatology. Non-chiliastic eschatology was not new but rather it is
the explicit rejection of Apocalypticism in the name of Cultural Dominion and
Christendom that represents the change or shift.
Though there's not even a hint of the doctrine to be found in
the New Testament, and it requires a redefinition and expansion of the term
'Christian', Dominionism (broadly speaking) believes the Kingdom is built
through politics, the arts, philosophy and culture in general, not 'merely'
through the ministry and martyrdom of the Church. Both camps would rightly
argue the Kingdom is built by the Holy Spirit but Apocalypticism insists the
Spirit works primarily if not exclusively through the Church. Dominionism
believes the Spirit is working in the culture and forging a Kingdom through the
collaborative efforts of believers and unbelievers.
This teaching has gone through various manifestations since
it arose in the wake of Constantine but presently the most popular varieties
appeared in light of secularisation and as a means to combat it. In Protestant
circles the thought of Abraham Kuyper looms large and through his mediation the
agenda of the Magisterial Reformers finds a voice and gains traction in the
industrial and technological ages. Through teachers such as Francis Schaeffer
and others this doctrine has now expanded to encompass significant majorities
in all millennial camps and has effectively become the new orthodoxy.