The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views Review

The Meaning of the Millennium outlines four views about the coming of Christ and the millennium. Each of the four authors defends their viewpoint in a chapter, and at the end of each chapter, the other three authors challenge that view. The authors attempt to firmly establish their position, but leave the reader with a few additional unanswered questions.


Summary

George Ladd begins the work with his explanation of historic, nondispensational premillennialism. He explains that premillennialism is “the doctrine stating that after the Second Coming of Christ, he will reign for a thousand years over the earth before the final consummation of God’s redemptive purpose …” (17). He asserts that Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted by the New Testament, and also claims that the nondispensational view “forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament,” since a contemporary Christian cannot be sure how Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled (27). Ladd then presents a brief exegesis of the Book of Revelation where he concludes that the entire argument rests on the interpretation of Revelation 20:4-5. He affirms that there are two resurrections: one at the beginning and one at the end of the millennium (37). Finally, Ladd explains that the purpose of prophecy regarding the millennium is not to be a complete rendering of things to come, but rather to encourage believers to endure their present sufferings (39).

Hermann Hoyt makes similar conclusions albeit through a different method. He argues that the purpose of God from the beginning of time is to establish His kingdom, and that both Old Testament and New Testament prophecy should be interpreted as literally as possible (66). Where Ladd presents an uneasiness of interpreting Old Testament prophecy, Hoyt claims that if taken literally, many Old Testament prophecies have not been fulfilled yet, and must be applied to the End (67). Next, Hoyt examines the Scriptures with regard to the mediatorial kingdom. He concludes from the Old Testament that the mediatorial kingdom will be a literal, physical kingdom governed by a King (78-9). Hoyt asserts that Christ must have referred to that same kingdom in His teachings since the kingdom is always mentioned in conjunction with Old Testament prophecy and Christ never makes a distinction between two different kingdoms (85). Finally, he explains that the present time is a transition period for the mediatorial kingdom in which Christ will be literally present (91). When the mediatorial kingdom comes, Christ will place all His enemies under subjection, and once “this mission is accomplished, he will then voluntarily deliver the kingdom into the hands of the Father, and the mediatorial kingdom will be merged with the universal kingdom …” (92).

Loraine Boettner, a postmillennialist, takes a different approach to defending his view. Instead of using his chapter to examine many specific passages of Scripture, he simply explains her position, supports it with logic, and concludes with an exhortation. First, Boettner directly explains his postmillennial position, stating
Postmillennialism is a view … that holds that the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel … that the world eventually is to be Christianized, and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace… (117).
In contrast to premillennialists, postmillennialists understand that when the text warrants, prophecies must be taken figuratively instead of literally, and he supports this with scriptural examples (134). Finally, Boettner explains that all positions regarding the millennium agree that the Bible is authoritative and that Christ will return, and that there is only disagreement in an area of interpretation and should not be divisive (140-1).

Anthony A. Hoekema defends the last position, amillennialism, by an examination of applicable Scripture and then a description of the key points of the position. First, Hoekema asserts that the Book of Revelation should not be viewed as a chronological sequence of events, but rather “progressive parallelism,” where much of the events take place coincidentally (156). This directly affects the reading of Revelation 20:1-6, where Hoekema concludes that the millennial reign of Christ occurs before His return (160). He asserts that the millennium is nothing more than figurative language to describe a complete period of the reign of Christ from heaven, in which believers who have passed away also reign (169). Hoekema also claims that many prophecies used to describe the millennium should not be viewed as literal, future events, but rather should be read figuratively. (172). Finally, Hoekema briefly explains the amillennialist position, claiming that Christ’s return will be a “single event.” (182). At His return, both believers and unbelievers will be resurrected, and those who are still alive will be transformed into their new body (182). This is followed by the final judgment and the eternal state (183-4).

Strengths and Weaknesses

Each author presents an adequate defense of their positions, but there also remain a few weaknesses that must be addressed. First, Ladd demonstrates a deep understanding of his position, and very clearly indicates that the debate centers upon Revelation 20:1-6 (32). He spends a significant portion of his chapter explaining how he believes this Scripture should be interpreted and why he interprets it as such (36). He holds tightly to his hermeneutic of literal interpretation and claims that when interpreted properly, Scripture teaches that there are two resurrections of the dead (37). The strength of his argument is found in his regard for Scripture’s authority and his commitment to a literal interpretation of Scripture.

However, he fails to use Old Testament prophecy about the coming of Christ because he believes only the New Testament may interpret the Old Testament. This weakens his argument because he ignores the rich wealth of information in over half of the Bible (27). More solid conclusions may be drawn, as Hoyt argues, if a believer interprets the New Testament in light of the Old Testament (43).

Hoyt succeeds where Ladd fell short, claiming that “all the biblical material must be surveyed …” (71). He examines a large amount of Scripture from both Old and New Testaments and from there makes his conclusions. Hoyt claims throughout his essay that he has chosen the “biblical” interpretation, and this appears to be very accurate due to the large amount of Scriptural interpretation and proof-texts (84). On the other hand, claiming to have the “biblical” interpretation inaccurately assumes that the other views are not biblical. The problem is not that the other views are unbiblical, but that there are differences in the interpretation of the biblical data. Obviously, there is only one possible correct view, but since we do not have the complete answers recorded in Scripture, proponents on all sides may claim their view is the biblical one.

Boettner’s essay defending postmillennialism explains the position very simply and adequately. While some of the other authors wait until the end of their respective chapters to state their position, he begins his essay by succinctly defining his interpretation which allows the reader to easily understand her position. Also, Boettner demonstrates a genuine concern for the Church by reminding proponents of all positions that they “agree [Christ] will return personally, visibly and in great glory.” (119). He rightly understands that the issue of the millennium should not be divisive among believers because it is not an essential issue with regard to salvation.

However, Boettner does not use much Scripture to make his position. In fact, most of the Scripture he uses is to demonstrate that Scripture cannot and should not always be interpreted literally. His argument would be stronger if he supported it with more Scripture. Also, attempting to prove that the millennium will be brought about gradually by forces already present in the world, Boettner claims that “Today the world at large is on a far higher plane. Christian principles are the accepted standards in many nations even though they are not consistently practiced.” (126). He claims that the world is moving toward righteousness, prosperity, and the return of Christ (132). In reality, the world seems to be heading in the opposite direction. Crimes and other atrocities seem to be on the rise, while Christian perspective appears to be constantly questioned due to the onset of postmodernism.

Hoekema thoroughly explains why he interprets Revelation 20:1-6 differently by demonstrating his overall interpretation of the Book of Revelation. He makes an intriguing case showing how Revelation can be separated into divisions, and “these seven sections are parallel to each other [revealing] a certain amount of eschatological progress.” (158). Through this framework, his interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 that begins at the end of the New Testament time period and continues to the Second Coming of Christ flows logically (168). Also, since Revelation uses much figurative language, Hoekema finds strength in his argument that the millennium indicates a completeness of time, and not necessarily a literal millennium (161). By shifting the understanding of the Book of Revelation and also by appealing to the symbolic nature of the book, Hoekema argues compellingly for amillennialism.

However, Hoekema tends to treat Revelation as if it is all symbolism and mostly about events that have already happened. He dismisses the notion that some of the events in Revelation could be literal or future. Also, as Ladd discusses, some of Hoekema’s interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 is derived from assumptions that may be faulty (189). For example, Hoekema claims that the binding of Satan mentioned in the Gospels is the same as that mentioned in Revelation 20, but this is not an obvious conclusion. Ladd contests that the binding of Satan described in the Gospels refers to his defeat on the cross and Revelation expresses something different (189).

Remaining Questions

After reading and critiquing these essays, a few questions about each position remain. First, how do nondispensational premillennialists apply unfulfilled Old Testament prophecy? Do they assume that all Old Testament prophecy that is not mentioned specifically in the New Testament has been fulfilled? Second, dispensational premillennialists seem quick to apply Old Testament prophecy to the future, but how can they be sure that they apply these Scriptures appropriately? Nondispensationlists stand on one side fearing to apply any Old Testament prophecy without New Testament interpretation, but dispensationalists must be careful in this endeavor. Where do they draw the line? Third, postmillennialists argue that the world is improving and Christian values are becoming standards. How do they support their assertion with reality where the world appears more hostile to Christian values? Fourth, while ammillennialists hold to progressive parallelism in Revelation, are there many other notable theologians who support this interpretation of Revelation? Is it wise to base an entire millennial position from one small passage of Scripture?