What is amillennialism?

As to the resurrection and reign of the saints with Christ for a thousand years, Mr. W. judges "that the thousand years may be even now in progress, if not entirely past," p. 377. He does not venture to propound this view till he has occupied mote than half of Lecture 7, with an exposition of the spiritualist theory held by Whitby, Dr. Brown. Mr. Lyon, and many others. This theory he prefers to the pre-millennial view; but after stating certain objections to it, he proposes, as free from such objections, and as best entitled, in his judgment, to be adopted, his own view above stated. And though at first so modestly introduced as a question, whether "the thousand years may be even now in progress, if not entirely past," it grows, in the course of its development, into a theory of interpretation, in which the binding of Satan is reduced to his being "for that period forbidden to invent and propagate any new (!!) religious imposture among nominal Christians"; the resurrection and reign of the saints with Christ are resolved into their being, while yet on earth, "quickened together with Christ," and seated "with him in heavenly places;" and this spiritual reign and resurrection are represented as perfectly compatible with their suffering unto death at the very time they reign as risen with Christ! But hear Mr. W. himself:

It is well-known that the post-apostolic Fathers till Origen were millenarians. The remains of some and the writings of others, bear ample testimony to early and prevalent conviction of a literal resurrection of the saints, and their reign with Christ for a thousand years. But these ante-Nicene views were but partially true at best, to say nothing of Talmudical reveries that crept in here or there. They looked for a reign and living of the glorified on the earth. They never rose to the height of God's purpose for Christ's glory in the universe. They entered not into the N.T. light in 1 Cor. 15, Eph. 1 and Heb. 2, cast on Ps. 8: the risen Son of man at the head of all creation, not Palestine only nor yet the earth, but "all things that are in the Heavens and on earth"; and the saints till then changed into His glorious likeness at His coming, and associated with Him, the heavenly bride of the Bridegroom. Like their adversaries that followed, they mixed up the (heavenly) hope with the prophetic word; so that dreaded times or expected seasons intercepted the heart's waiting for Christ, and lowered their eyes from heaven to earth.

Then the ruin of the church's testimony grew apace. Origen spread widely his allegorizing system, Dionysius of Alexandria his dialectic, Eusebius of Caesarea his flattery of the powers that then were. At length the influence of Augustine established all but universally in Christendom the so-called spiritual theory, that the first resurrection means regeneration in virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, and that the baptized, if at least God's elect, are reigning with Christ ever since He ascended to heaven!! This truly "wild" interpretation not only prevailed before the Reformation, but keeps its ground since among Romanists, as among many of the Protestants who still hold it, save where the yet lower ecclesiastical theory of Grotius proved acceptable, till the Arian Dr. Whitby broached, early in the eighteenth century, his discovery — to spread like wild fire — of a future reign of Christ's cause on earth, gradually brought about by divine blessing on Christian agencies, but helped on by providential dealings also.

Of the Whitbyite hypothesis Virtringa, though striving to trace a foreign source, was the learned advocate, as Dr. Brown is the chief popularizer and warm special pleader in our day. More plausible in one respect than the Augustinian fancy, it undermines and supplants the revealed hope more fatally, falls in readily with the delusion of human progress, and thus corrupts the faith with an expectation essentially worldly and carnal. In particular, the Grotian idea of an ecclesiastical reign since Constantine left men free to conceive, as did the late Bp. Waldegrave and many other brethren, that the millennium is past, and the little space ebbing out; so that they could look for Christ's coming without one revealed event between. For all these speculators had alike fallen into the error of identifying His advent with "the end" or the judgment of the Great White Throne. So men like the admirable S. Rutherford or Bp. Hall might be dark indeed as to prophecy; but the hope for them was not so paralyzed, as it became half a century or more afterwards by Whitbyism, which suits perfectly the unbounded self-confidence of the revolutionary liberal movement, the characteristic of the last hundred years. Scripture, on the contrary, assures of declension and apostasy, the mystery of lawlessness, and the lawless one revealed, whom the Lord Jesus destroys at His appearing (2 Thess 2:8) — the distinct reversal of the Whitbyite expectation, which glorifies present instrumentalities and robs Christ personally of His honour, as it leaves Satan in possession, however reduced.

And as to Cerinthus or the like, one abhors their heterodoxy yet more than Montanist enthusiasm (p. 17). What matters the opinion of a worldly-minded semi-Arian like Eusebius about Papias? Neither (pp. 18, 19) is an authority, any more than the Romanist expositor who falsely attributes the decline of faith in the Apocalypse to millenarian teaching. None love, understand, or enjoy that blessed book so much as those who believe what it teaches of that kingdom (p. 20). The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse clashed with men's will, and hence were unjustly questioned by men of shallow faith, like Caius the early Roman presbyter (p. 20). Origen, learned and clever indeed, was but a sorry defender of the faith. Did not the Bp. know that he was unreliable and wild, even to the ungodliness of universalism? Surely also Dionysius of Alexandria (p. 23), an able man without doubt, cannot be acquitted of strange doctrine on Christ's person in opposing the Sabellians. Nor was Jerome (pp. 24, 25) a model of orthodoxy any more than of temper, though an erudite and laborious translator. Augustine of Hippo was one of greater weight; but we have to bear in mind that the Millennial views he opposed (pp. 26, 27) were not sound, those which were rejected by the Reformers and the Puritans (pp. 28-31). Only it is certain that some of the best instructed and most pious men in the Anglican body found no such incompatibility in its formularies with their faith in Christ's millennial reign as the Bp. argues, who himself narrows "the last day" unscripturally (p. 22). The prayer in page 33 is on the contrary consistent. "The end of the world" is the mistake repeated from the A. V. of Matt. 13:39, 49. We all value the Apocalypse at least as much as the Bp. (pp. 33, 36) and do not share in daily use the slight which the Book of Common Prayer puts on that divine book, while it honours the Apocrypha for its lessons in Oct. and Nov. and more.

The second Lecture calls for fewer words. How strange the doctrine that Christ through His death bound Satan! — that this is the true interpretation of Rev. 20:1-3 (pp. 37-44)! and that the first resurrection of vv. 4-6 is not bodily but spiritual by baptism! Hence they live with Christ and are made unto God Kings and Priests in Him (p. 52), and even now judge the world and angels by the precepts of the Law, etc. represented by the 24 elders, as the four cherubim typify the Gospels! This Bp. Wordsworth will have to be the authorized interpretation of the church, attested for more than a thousand years by such as Origen, Dionysius, Jerome, Augustine, etc.

It is no wonder that these teachers concentrate so much on this earth and this world, since they have lost sight of the heavenly nature of the church's calling. According to them the millennium (1000 year reign) has already been here for 1923 years! Of course, the believer has obligations and responsibilities as to his walk through this world. However, when we teach that we are already in the millennium, we forget that the church has a very special position and relationship with Christ in the glory (see Eph. 1:23), enjoying with Him all spiritual blessings, during the time of His rejection in this scene.

That solemn event of the cross is the judgment of this world: by it all the power of Satan, the prince of this world, has been annulled. The Lord announced it as “now” (v. 31). The world is therefore no longer under probation, but under sentence of judgment. The cross has ended the world's trial: it has been there manifested as criminally guilty; and by the cross of Christ, the strong man (Satan) has been bound, the blessed Lord triumphing over him in the very thing in which Satan thought to have destroyed Christ.

Now, speaking from the divine standpoint, the Son sees the ruler of the world cast out of it. Historically, Satan was not then expelled. But as the death of Christ was the hour of the world's judgment, so that death nullified the power of Satan and ended his dominion in the world (Heb. 2:14). The basis for delivering the world from the presence and power of the devil for a thousand years was laid at the cross when the Son of man was "lifted up."

There are two interpretations of this passage which respectively number among their adherents so vast a proportion of those who pay any serious attention to prophecy, that the question may be said to lie between these two — other explanations of the prophecy being unimportant and not requiring notice. One view — that which has till lately generally prevailed for the last century or two — is, that "the first resurrection" is not a real, but a figurative resurrection — that it denotes the universal triumph and prevalence of true Christianity during the Millennium — exhibiting this prevalence and triumph under the figure of the resurrection of those who have been martyred in Christ's cause. This view denies that there will be any actual resurrection of the saints until, as is alleged, all the dead, both righteous and wicked, are raised to stand before the great white throne. The other interpretation, which for nearly the whole of the first three centuries was universally entertained, and which has been greatly revived among Christians during the last thirty years, is, that "the first resurrection" is a literal resurrection of the bodies of the saints, and that it takes place at the commencement of that period of universal blessing under the joint reign of Christ and His saints, which all Scripture teaches us to anticipate. The question, which of these two views exhibits the real meaning of the passage, must, under the teaching of God's Spirit, be determined by the internal evidence which the passage itself affords, and by its harmony with other parts of God's word.

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." Observe these last words, my brethren "This is the first resurrection." There may have been figures employed in the passage; no one questions it. But when the Holy Ghost is pleased to interpret the figurative language He has employed — when He is pleased to tell us what it means — are we to evade the force of all He says, by making His interpretation figurative also? "This is the first resurrection," is the Holy Ghost's explanation of the figures or symbols by which it had been set forth. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years." Nothing can be more evident than what the simple, definite impression of this language would be on any mind not prepossessed with thoughts of another character. The way in which it is commonly sought to evade the plain, obvious meaning of the passage is by explaining it thus: that the resurrection of the martyrs, which John beheld, denotes a revival of the principles for which they suffered; that, having suffered death for Christian principles, the revival, and universal spread and ascendency of these principles, is set forth by the symbol of those who had been beheaded living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. Such is the popular interpretation of this passage. But it breaks down at every point. Those who have been beheaded are those who reign. Are they principles or persons that have been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God? Then again, supposing that the reign of principles might be set forth by the resurrection and reign of those who had been martyrs for them, how are we to account for their priesthood? "They shall be priests of God and of Christ." As one has said, in substance, somewhere, "You may speak of the reign of principles; but can you make principles into priests as well?" Then again, "on such the second death hath no power." What is the second death? It is explained in verse 14 to be "the lake of fire." And could there be any question of the second death, the lake of fire, having power over Christian principles? The lake of fire is for the punishment of evil persons; and it is one element in the blessedness of those who have part in the first resurrection that "on such the second death hath no power." Then further, the first resurrection is so linked in this chapter with what all admit to be a literal resurrection of dead bodies at the end of the thousand years, that you cannot explain away the one without explaining away the other. When John has witnessed the vision in verse 4, which is explained to him in verse 5 to be "the first resurrection," we are told of certain who have no part in it; "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." In the verses which ensue we have a rapid glance at the events which occur when the thousand years are expired — Satan is loosed — the nations are again deceived — fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys them — the devil who had deceived them is cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet are (having been cast there alive a thousand years before, see chapter 19:20); and then what follows? "And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Is this figurative too, my brethren? If so, where is there Scripture authority for the doctrine of the resurrection at all? And if this be not figurative, why should the account of "the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter be set aside as figurative? If it be allowed, which it must be, that the resurrection of the wicked dead at the close of the chapter is a literal, actual resurrection of dead bodies, on what principle can it be maintained that the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter is figurative, and denotes the revival of dead or dying principles? What says the Holy Spirit? "This is the first resurrection." "But the rest of the dead lived not again," etc. The rest of the dead what? — principles? — or persons? Surely the "rest" must bear some relation to those from whom they are distinguished.

This chapter, then, demonstrates that there is an interval of at least a thousand years between the resurrection of life and the resurrection of judgment. "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment." That "hour" lasts a thousand years; the "hour" in which Christ quickens dead souls has already lasted more than eighteen hundred years. The "hour" in which He shall raise dead bodies commences with His coming to change His living, and raise His sleeping, saints; it closes with the resurrection of the wicked dead, and their judgment before the great white throne — "the resurrection of judgment." I commend the whole chapter (Rev. 20) to your patient, attentive, and prayerful perusal in your closets before God.

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

Let it be supposed by the reader that these words had now for the first time passed under his eye — that, ignorant of the existence of such a passage, and therefore entirely free from bias towards this or that theory of interpreting it, he had now read it for the first time in his life, what impression would it naturally make upon his mind? Could any one thus reading it question for a moment that it predicts an actual resurrection of saints and martyrs, and that these risen ones as priests and kings are to reign with Christ for a thousand years — the rest of the dead remaining in their graves till the thousand years have expired? We are persuaded that such is, beyond doubt, the sense in which any intelligent person, unacquainted with systems and theories of prophetic interpretation, and therefore necessarily unbiassed by them, would, on a first perusal, understand the passage. It was thus understood by the universal Church for almost the whole of the first three centuries; and it was not until Christians began to mistake the world's patronage of a corrupted Christianity for the commencement of the Millennium, that they adopted those spiritualizing theories of interpretation by which such a passage could be adapted to such views.

How do people meet this distinct testimony of God? On the plea that, as the fall of Satan in Rev. 12 meant paganism losing its influence in the Roman empire under Constantine, so the binding of Satan in the abyss for a thousand years meant the cause of Christ carrying it everywhere, and the Church never permitting the devil to gain an inch of ground over the world for that time (Brown, pp. 379-386). The grand mistake which vitiates the popular theory is that the work of grace is made everything, and thus the Scriptures that speak of the divine government of the world in the millennium are confounded with those that relate to the salvation of souls — the coming age, with this age. It is not meant that God will cease to save man by grace on earth during the millennium; but the distinctive character and prime object of that age will be, not the gathering God's children into one by the Spirit sent down from heaven, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, but divine power displayed in the Son of man's putting down Satan, and reigning over the earth till all be subjected to Him, after which He surrenders the kingdom, that God may be all in all throughout eternity.