At the time of the Reformation the doctrine of the millennium was rejected by the Protestant Churches, but revived in some of the sects, such as that of the more fanatical Anabaptists, and that of the Fifth Monarchy Men. Luther scornfully rejected “the dream” that there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ preceding the day of judgment. The Augsburg Confession condemns those “who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed.” Art. XVII. And the Second Helvetic Confession says: “Moreover, we condemn the Jewish dreams, that before the day of judgment there shall be a golden age in the earth, and the godly shall possess the kingdoms of the world, their wicked enemies being trodden under foot.” Chapter XI.
A certain form of Millenarianism made its appearance, however, in the seventeenth century. There were several Lutheran and Reformed theologians who, while rejecting the idea of a visible reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years, advocated a more spiritual conception of the millennium. Their view of the matter was that, before the end of the world and the return of Jesus Christ, there will be a period in which the spiritual presence of Christ in the Church will be experienced in an unusual measure and a universal religious awakening will ensue. The Kingdom of Jesus Christ will then stand out as a kingdom of peace and righteousness. This was the early form of Post- as distinguished from Premillennialism.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the doctrine of the millennium again met with great favor in some circles. It was advocated by the school of Bengel and more recently by that of Erlangen, and numbered among its adherents such men as Hofmann, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Rothe, Elliott, Cumming, Bickersteth, the Bonars, Alford, Zahn, and others. There is great diversity of opinion among these Premillenarians as to the order of the final events and the actual condition of things during the millennium. Repeated attempts have been made to fix the time of Christ’s return, which is with great assurance declared to be imminent, but up to the present all these calculations have failed. Though there is a widespread belief to-day, especially in our country, that the return of Christ will be followed by a temporary visible reign of Christ on earth, yet the weight of theological opinion is against it. In liberal circles a new form of Post-millennialism has made its appearance. The expected kingdom will consist of a new social order “in which the law of Christ shall prevail, and in which its prevalence shall result in peace, justice and a glorious blossoming of present spiritual forces.” This is what Rauschenbusch has in mind when he says, “We need a restoration of the millennial hope.” A Theology for the Social Gospel, p. 224. Up to the present time, however, the doctrine of the millennium has never yet been embodied in a single Confession, and therefore cannot be regarded as a dogma of the Church.
Louis Berkhof | The History of Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1937), 271–72
Resources
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button
- Post-Millennialism And The Promise Of “Victory”
- Free Audio: Horton and Godfrey on the “Last Days”
- Are We Living in the Last Days?
- A Brief Note On The History Of Amillennialism
- On Distinguishing The Jerusalem That Is Below From That Which Is Above
- Two Points On Left Behind And The Secret Rapture
- Cracking the Apocalypse Code
- All Over-Realized Eschatologies Are Attempts To Change The Rules Of The Game
- Heidelcast 179: As It Was In The Days Of Noah (22): How Eschatology Helps Us With Christ And Culture
Its reversion to types and shadows with a rebuilt temple, priesthood and atoning sacrifices is the fully realized apostasy from Christ back to Moses the writer to the book of Hebrews warned about.
Correction to my previous statement:
Both Premillenialism and Post millenialsim seem to err in mistaking the nature of the promises made to Israel. They interpret them in a literal, wooden fashion. They miss the fact the prophets were speaking of heavenly truths in terms they could understand.
Pre-millenialism’s error is a reversion to types and shadows with a rebuilt temple, priesthood and atoning sacrifices is the fully realized apostasy from Christ back to Moses the writer to the book of Hebrews warned about. They also do damage to clear texts about the end of sin and death which occur at the second coming.
Postmillenialism sees the progress of the church not only as a spiritual and soteriological progress as sinners are converted, but one that spreads Christendom’s rule and authority over all spheres of society, making earth heaven. Both fail to see the spiritual and heavenly nature of the OT prophecies and see their fulfillment in this temporal evil age rather than seeing them fulfilled in the coming heavenly home like Abraham did.
Thank you. A very helpful summation of the differences.
Berkhof demonstrates his usual clarity and even-handedness in the second paragraph quoted above, beginning “A certain form of Millenarianism made its appearance . . . ” Every phrase is carefully crafted.
Michial, you seem to misrepresent what may be called “orthodox/evangelical” postmillennialism, and conflate it with a more heterodox view. Biblically faithful postmillennialists certain do not believe that the millennial age entails “making earth heaven.” You may not like the postmill position, but please be careful with your language. Again, read Berkhof’s paragraph carefully, for a precise, accurate assessment.
Note also Berkhof’s sentence, “Up to the present time, however, the doctrine of the millennium has never yet been embodied in a single Confession, and therefore cannot be regarded as a dogma of the Church.” This statement does not declare “a certain form of Millenarianism” to be anti-confessional – at least with reference to the Westminster standards – only that it is not enshrined in the confessions as “dogma.” (In my opinion, though, premillennialism of any type is not compatible with Westminster Larger Catechism 87-90.)