(Deuteronomy 26:1-4) Bringing the firstfruits to the priest.
And it shall be, when you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and you possess it and dwell in it, that you shall take some of the first of all the produce of the ground, which you shall bring from your land that the LORD your God is giving you, and put it in a basket and go to the place where the LORD your God chooses to make His name abide. And you shall go to the one who is priest in those days, and say to him, “I declare today to the LORD your God that I have come to the country which the LORD swore to our fathers to give us.” Then the priest shall take the basket out of your hand and set it down before the altar of the LORD your God.
a. When you come into the land: The Promised Land lay just across the Jordan River, and though there were formidable obstacles (such as a Jordan River swollen by Spring floods and the mighty armies of Canaanites), God still assured them that they will come into the land.
b. Some of the first of all the produce of the ground: Numbers 18:12 speaks of the firstfruits that must be regularly brought to the priests, but the firstfruits described here in Deuteronomy 26 seem to be a special offering of firstfruits, from the first of the harvest they gain in the Promised Land.
c. Set it down before the altar of the LORD your God: Firstfruit giving obviously honored the LORD, because it gave the LORD His portion off the top before any was used for one’s self.
(Deuteronomy 26:5-10) The words of thanks and praise at the giving of firstfruits.
And you shall answer and say before the LORD your God: “My father was a Syrian, about to perish, and he went down to Egypt and dwelt there, few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous. But the Egyptians mistreated us, afflicted us, and laid hard bondage on us. Then we cried out to the LORD God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and looked on our affliction and our labor and our oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm, with great terror and with signs and wonders. He has brought us to this place and has given us this land, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’; and now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land which you, O LORD, have given me.” Then you shall set it before the LORD your God, and worship before the LORD your God.
a. And you shall answer and say before the LORD your God: This wonderful confession of thanks remembered the history of Israel from the time of Jacob and his family in the land of Canaan, to the family’s going down into Egypt, and to the eventual deliverance and Exodus into the Promised Land.
b. He went down to Egypt and sojourned there: Israel spent some 400 years in Egypt. Yet in the course of God’s eternal plan, it was nothing more than a sojourn. We can often focus so much on our own time of trial or misery that we think that it defines our whole life; God saw Israel’s experience in Egypt as a sojourn.
c. Few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous: This was the major reason God had for sending Jacob and his family on their sojourn in Egypt. When they lived in Canaan, there was great risk of the family just assimilating with the wicked, pagan peoples around them. To prevent this, and to allow the nation to grow, God sent them down to Egypt, which was a very racist society, and who would not intermarry with Israel. Therefore, they could go down there few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous.
d. And now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land: This initial giving of firstfruits when Israel came into the Promised Land was an appropriate way to say “thank you” to the LORD. This giving, and all giving done with the right heart, is a proper way to worship before the LORD your God.
(Deuteronomy 26:11) So you shall rejoice.
So you shall rejoice in every good thing which the LORD your God has given to you and your house, you and the Levite and the stranger who is among you.
a. Rejoice in every good thing which the LORD your God has given to you: When we receive from the LORD, and give back to Him, it makes us rejoice. It is the proper response of a creature to his Creator, who has supplied him with all good things.
(Deuteronomy 26:12-15) The prayer for the giving of the tithe.
When you have finished laying aside all the tithe of your increase in the third year; the year of tithing; and have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, so that they may eat within your gates and be filled, then you shall say before the LORD your God: “I have removed the holy tithe from my house, and also have given them to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed Your commandments, nor have I forgotten them. I have not eaten any of it when in mourning, nor have I removed any of it for an unclean use, nor given any of it for the dead. I have obeyed the voice of the LORD my God, and have done according to all that You have commanded me. Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel and the land which You have given us, just as You swore to our fathers, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey.’”
a. When you have finished laying aside all the tithe: The tithe was required of Israel every year, but every third year, the tithe was given not only to the Levites for their support (as was instructed in Numbers 18:21-24), but was to be shared by the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, so they may eat within your gates and be filled.
b. Then you shall say: The prayer described here shows that the giving was done with the right kind of heart. God not only wants us to give, but to give with the right heart.
i. Right giving is done according to God’s Word: According to all Your commandments which you have commanded me.
ii. Right giving is done within the context of a whole life of obedience: I have not transgressed Your commandments, nor have I forgotten them.
iii. I have not eaten any of it… nor have I removed any of it: Right giving genuinely sets aside what is to be given unto the LORD.
iv. Nor given any of it for the dead: Right giving is not done superstitiously; “Putting food in a grave with a dead body was a common Egyptian and Canaanite practice, which is most likely what the Israelites were not to emulate.” (Kalland)
v. Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people: Right giving is done with the expectation of blessing.
B. Moses’ exhortation to Israel.
(Deuteronomy 26:16) A call to complete obedience.
This day the LORD your God commands you to observe these statutes and judgments; therefore you shall be careful to observe them with all your heart and with all your soul.
a. This day the LORD your God commands you to observe these statutes and judgments: Deuteronomy 4:1 began this long section with the words Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe. From Deuteronomy chapter 4 through chapter 26, Moses has reminded Israel of God’s commands. Now he exhorted them to keep the commands.
b. therefore you shall be careful to observe them: Sometimes we need to be instructed regarding the law of God; sometimes we need to be reminded regarding the law of God. But most often, we need to be exhorted regarding the law of God. We know what to do, but we need to be encouraged to actually do it.
(Deuteronomy 26:17) Israel’s proclamation.
Today you have proclaimed the LORD to be your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His commandments, and His judgments, and that you will obey His voice.
a. Today you have proclaimed the LORD to be your God: Israel was to proclaim two things. First, that the LORD to be their God. Second, that they will walk in His ways and keep His statutes. The two go together, because the identity of our God is always demonstrated by the direction of our obedience.
(Deuteronomy 26:18-19) God’s proclamation.
Also today the LORD has proclaimed you to be His special people, just as He promised you, that you should keep all His commandments, and that He will set you high above all nations which He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor, and that you may be a holy people to the LORD your God, just as He has spoken.
a. The LORD has proclaimed you to be His special people: Israel’s obedience to the LORD would be more than rewarded. God promised that He exalt an obedient Israel, to set them high above all nations which He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor.
Kalland, Earl S. “Deuteronomy: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary” Volume 3 (Deuteronomy-2 Samuel) (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992) Updated: August 2022
SIX MECHANISM FOR MAINTAINING A JUST SOCIETY
Primary Socialization – Deuteronomy 6
Herem – Deut. 7
Endogamous Marriage – Deut. 8
Worship at the place where I shall put my name – Deut. 12
Cleanliness – Deut. 14
Tithing, Annual and Third-Year – Deut. 14:22-27
Deuteronomy 26 is a testament to the deep bond between God and His chosen people. It teaches us the importance of gratitude, historical remembrance, and unwavering obedience. As we look into our own lives, we are reminded of the blessings we receive daily and the significance of sharing, acknowledging our past, and reaffirming our commitments for the future.
Offering the Firstfruits (Verses 1-11)
When the Israelites enter the Promised Land and reap its harvest, they are commanded to take the firstfruits to the place God chooses for His Name to dwell. Accompanying this offering, they recall their ancestors’ humble origins and the Exodus from Egypt, concluding the ritual by celebrating with the Levites and foreigners among them.
The Tithe and Its Purpose (Verses 12-15)
Every third year, the Israelites are commanded to give a tithe of their produce, ensuring that the Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows can eat and be satisfied. This act confirms that they have followed God’s commands and not neglected any of them.
Affirmation of the Covenant (Verses 16-19)
God commands the Israelites to obey His statutes with all their heart and soul. The Israelites, in turn, declare God as their God and promise to walk in His ways. God reaffirms them as His treasured possession and promises to elevate them above all nations in praise, name, and honor.
Deuteronomy 26 paints a vivid picture of the Israelites’ responsibility once they inhabit the Promised Land. Through rituals of offering and reminders of their shared history, this chapter accentuates the value of gratitude, obedience, and the importance of maintaining a special relationship with God.
Bible chronology shows that there were approximately two thousand years from Adam’s creation until the time of Abraham (Genesis 5; 11), two thousand years more from Abraham until Jesus Christ (the period in which the bulk of biblical history is contained), and, of course, there have been an additional two thousand years since the time of Jesus Christ until the present. This totals up to six thousand years of human history falling into three neat divisions, each approximately two thousand years in length, with the vast majority of biblical history contained in the second, or middle division. From Adam to Abraham: 2,000 years From Abraham to Christ: 2,000 years From Christ to our time: 2,000 years Total: 6,000 years
SEVEN DISPENSATIONS
The first dispensation is called the Dispensation of Innocence (Genesis 1:28-30 and 2:15-17). This dispensation covered the period of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In this dispensation God’s commands were to
(1) fill the earth with children,
(2) subdue the earth,
(3) have dominion over the animals,
(4) care for the garden, and
(5) abstain from eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
God warned of the punishment of physical and spiritual death for disobedience. This dispensation came to an end when Adam and Eve disobeyed in eating the forbidden fruit and were expelled from the garden.
The second dispensation is called the Dispensation of Conscience, and it lasted about 1,656 years from the time of Adam and Eve’s eviction from the garden until the flood (Genesis 3:8–8:22). This dispensation demonstrates what mankind will do if left to his own will and conscience, which have been tainted by the inherited sin nature. The five major aspects of this dispensation are
1) a curse on the serpent,
2) a change in womanhood and childbearing,
3) a curse on nature,
4) the imposing of difficult work on mankind to produce food, and
5) the promise of Christ as the seed who will bruise the serpent’s head (Satan).
The third dispensation is the Dispensation of Human Government, which began in Genesis 8. God had destroyed life on earth with a flood, saving just one family to restart the human race. God made the following promises and commands to Noah and his family:
God will not curse the earth again.
Noah and family are to replenish the earth with people.
They shall have dominion over the animal creation.
They are allowed to eat meat.
The law of capital punishment is established.
There never will be another worldwide flood.
The sign of God’s promise will be the rainbow.
Noah’s descendants did not scatter and fill the earth as God had commanded, thus failing in their responsibility in this dispensation. About 325 years after the flood, the earth’s inhabitants began building a tower, a great monument to their solidarity and pride (Genesis 11:7-9). God brought the construction to a halt, creating different languages and enforcing His command to fill the earth. The result was the rise of different nations and cultures. From that point on, human governments have been a reality.
The fourth dispensation, called the Dispensation of Promise, started with the call of Abraham, continued through the lives of the patriarchs, and ended with the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt, a period of about 430 years. During this dispensation God developed a great nation that He had chosen as His people (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25).
The basic promise during the Dispensation of Promise was the Abrahamic Covenant. Here are some of the key points of that unconditional covenant:
From Abraham would come a great nation that God would bless with natural and spiritual prosperity.
God would make Abraham’s name great.
God would bless those that blessed Abraham’s descendants and curse those that cursed them.
In Abraham all the families of the earth will be blessed. This is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His work of salvation.
The sign of the covenant is circumcision.
This covenant, which was repeated to Isaac and Jacob, is confined to the Hebrew people and the 12 tribes of Israel.
The fifth dispensation is called the Dispensation of Law. It lasted almost 1,500 years, from the Exodus until it was suspended after Jesus Christ’s death. This dispensation will continue during the Millennium, with some modifications. During the Dispensation of Law, God dealt specifically with the Jewish nation through the Mosaic Covenant, or the Law, found in Exodus 19–23. The dispensation involved temple worship directed by priests, with further direction spoken through God’s mouthpieces, the prophets. Eventually, due to the people’s disobedience to the covenant, the tribes of Israel lost the Promised Land and were subjected to bondage.
The sixth dispensation, the one in which we now live, is the Dispensation of Grace. It began with the New Covenant in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20). This “Age of Grace” or “Church Age” occurs between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9:24. It starts with the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and ends with the Rapture of the church (1 Thessalonians 4). This dispensation is worldwide and includes both Jews and the Gentiles. Man’s responsibility during the Dispensation of Grace is to believe in Jesus, the Son of God (John 3:18). In this dispensation the Holy Spirit indwells believers as the Comforter (John 14:16-26). This dispensation has lasted for almost 2,000 years, and no one knows when it will end. We do know that it will end with the Rapture of all born-again believers from the earth to go to heaven with Christ. Following the Rapture will be the judgments of God lasting for seven years.
The seventh dispensation is called the Millennial Kingdom of Christ and will last for 1,000 years as Christ Himself rules on earth. This Kingdom will fulfill the prophecy to the Jewish nation that Christ will return and be their King. The only people allowed to enter the Kingdom are the born-again believers from the Age of Grace, righteous survivors of the seven years of tribulation, and the resurrected Old Testament saints. No unsaved person is allowed access into this kingdom. Satan is bound during the 1,000 years. This period ends with the final judgment (Revelation 20:11-14). The old world is destroyed by fire, and the New Heaven and New Earth of Revelation 21 and 22 will begin.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Augustine in the history of theology. Not only did his thinking crystallize the theology which preceded him, but to a large extent he laid the foundations for both Catholic and Protestant doctrine.
B. B. Warfield, quoting Harnack, refers to Augustine as “incomparably the greatest man whom, ‘between Paul the Apostle and Luther the Reformer, the Christian Church has possessed.’“1 While the contribution of Augustine is principally noted in the areas of the doctrine of the church, hamartiology, the doctrine of grace, and predestination, he is also the greatest landmark in the early history of amillennialism.
The importance of Augustine to the history of amillennialism is derived from two reasons. First, there are no acceptable exponents of amillennialism before Augustine, as has been previously discussed. Prior to Augustine, amillennialism was associated with the heresies produced by the allegorizing and spiritualizing school of theology at Alexandria which not only opposed premillennialism but subverted any literal exegesis of Scripture whatever. Few modern theologians even of liberal schools of thought would care to build upon the theology of such men as Clement of Alexandria, Origen or Dionysius. Augustine is, then, the first theologian of solid influence who adopted amillennialism.
The second reason for the importance of Augustinian amillennialism is that his viewpoint became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Church, and it was adopted with variations by most of the Protestant Reformers along with many other teachings of Augustine. The writings of Augustine, in fact, occasioned the shelving of premillennialism by most of the organized church. The study of Augustine on the millennial question is a necessary introduction to the doctrine as a whole.
In the current discussion of the millennial question the restudy of Augustine is especially apropos. Here we have one of the first great theologians of the Roman Church recognized by both Catholic and Protestant as an original thinker and solid contributor to the doctrine of Christendom. The fact that Augustine was amillennial in his viewpoint is noted with pride by modern amillennialists to show that their position is historic and a part of the central teaching of the church. Allis, for instance, loses no time in his attack on premillennialism to point out in the second page of his volume that Augustinian amillennialism was the norm for the church of the middle ages.2 While the significance of much of the material relating to the millennium in writers before Augustine is hotly debated, Augustine is perfectly clear in his position—the general facts of his position are not disputed. We have then concrete teaching which can be treated objectively.
In the previous study in postmillennialism, the current decline of postmillennialism was traced to certain specific factors:
(1) its principle of spiritualizing the meaning of Scripture;
(2) its trend toward liberalism;
(3) its failure to fit the facts of history;
(4) a trend toward realism in philosophy;
(5) the present trend toward amillennialism.
As postmillennialism is suitable for a test case for the principles of the millennial issue as a whole, so Augustinian amillennialism is suitable as a test case for amillennialism. In other words,
Does the viewpoint of Augustine demonstrate a proper method of interpreting Scripture?
Does it provide a basis for liberalism?
Does it fit the facts of history?
Does it fit the trend of modern thought?
While all of these questions are not decisive, it is clear that the question of method of interpreting Scripture, relation to liberalism and fulfillment in history are important bases for judgment of Augustine’s views on the millennium. It is proposed to take his doctrine, which is considered normative amillennialism, and make it a test for the doctrine as a whole.
Augustine on the Millennium
Augustine’s concept of the millennium is not difficult to grasp nor are the major facts subject to dispute, Augustine conceived of the present age as a conflict between the City of God and the City of Satan, or the conflict between the church and the world. This was viewed as moving on to the ultimate triumph of the church to be climaxed by a tremendous struggle in which the church would be apparently defeated, only to consummate in a tremendous triumph in the second coming of Christ to the earth.
Augustine held that the present age of conflict is the millennium. Following as he did the chronology of the LXX which is somewhat longer than Ussher’s chronology in the Old Testament, he found that the Christian era is the sixth millennium from creation.
This age apparently began somewhat before Christ, according to chronology, but Satan in any case was bound, as Allis states, during the lifetime of Christ on earth (Luke 10:18).3
Augustine puts it, “This binding of Satan began when the church began to spread from Judaea into other regions, and lasts yet, and shall do until his time be expired.”4
Augustine considered the progress of the millennium in his day (400 A.D.) well advanced and predicted the consummation would occur in the year 650.5
Augustine, however, qualifled his datesetting. He states: “In vain therefore do we try to reckon the remainder of the world’s years…. Some say that, it shall last four hundred, some five hundred, some a thousand years after the ascension. Everyone has his view, it were vain to try to show on what grounds.”6
Augustine’s interpretation of Revelation 20 is not very specific. As in his entire discussion of this doctrine, the treatment is cursory and brief. He discusses Revelation 20 in three or four pages and dismisses without any real argument the literal view.
In fact, Augustine, like many others, does not seem to grasp the principles involved. His reason for avoiding the literal view is reduced to one reason—some had made the millennium a time of carnal enjoyment, a view which Augustine rightly opposed. As Augustine himself put it: “This opinion [a future literal millenium after the resurrection] might be allowed, if it proposed only spiritual delight unto the saints during this space (and we were once of the same opinion ourselves); but seeing the avouchers hereof affirm that the saints after this resurrection shall do nothing but revel in fleshly banquets, where the cheer shall exceed both modesty and measure, this is gross and fit for none but carnal men to believe. But they that are really and truly spiritual do call those of this opinion Chiliasts.”7 Thus on trivial grounds Augustine abandons the literal interpretation of Revelation 20. Somehow, for all his genius, he did not see that he could abandon this false teaching without abandoning the doctrine of a literal millennium.
In spite of adopting a spiritualized interpretation of Revelation 20, Augustine hews closely to a literal interpretation of the time element—it would be a literal 1000 years. Instead of a future millennium however, he considered it already present. Revelation 20 was, then, a recapitulation of the present age which Augustine held was portrayed in the earlier chapters of Revelation. The present age, for Augustine, is the millennium promised in Revelation 20. Augustine, however, also held to a future millennium, to round out the seven millenniums from Adam which he held comprised the history of man. This future millennium, he held, was not literal but is synonymous with eternity—a use of the number in a symbolic sense only.
In Augustine, then, we have specific and concrete teaching on the millennium.8 There is no future millennium in the ordinary meaning of the term. The present age is the millennium; Satan is bound now; when Christ returns the present millennium will close, the future millennium or eternity will begin. It remains, now, to test this teaching in its principles, implications, and fulfillment.
The Principle of Spiritualized Interpretation
It is clear that in arriving at his conclusion regarding the millennium Augustine used the principle of spiritualizing Scripture freely. While he did not use this principle in interpreting Scripture relating to predestination, hamartiology, salvation, or grace, he found it suitable for interpreting prophecy.
A candid examination of his interpretation leaves the examiner with the impression that Augustine did not give a reasonable exegesis of Scripture involved.
Augustine’s doctrine that Satan is bound in this age—an essential of his system of interpretation—is a notable illustration of spiritualized and strained exegesis (cf. Luke 10:18 and Revelation 20:2-3).
Nothing is clearer from Scripture, the history of the church, and Christian experience than that Satan is exceedingly active in this present age against both Christians and unbelievers. Ananias is declared to have his heart filled with Satan (Acts 5:3). The one to be disciplined in the Corinthian church is delivered unto Satan (1 Cor 5:5; cf. 1 Tim 1:20). The Christian is constantly warned against Satan’s temptations (1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14 ; etc.). Paul declares that he is sorely tried by the buffeting of the messenger of Satan (2 Cor 12:7).
While the Christian can have victory over Satan, there is no evidence whatever that Satan is inactive or bound. It is no wonder that Warfield, though a disciple of Augustine, completely abandons this idea of Augustine as far as earth is concerned and limits it to the idea that “saints described are removed from the sphere of Satan’s assaults,”9 i.e., Satan is bound in respect to heaven only. While Warfield’s explanation is no more sensible than Augustine’s as far as an exegesis of the Scriptures is concerned, it at least accords with the facts of church history. It can be stated flatly that Augustine’s exegesis is an outright error as far as the binding of Satan is concerned.
The exegesis of Augustine on Revelation 20 as a whole fares no better. After concluding that the binding of Satan is synonymous with the victory of Christ in His first advent, he draws the strained conclusion that the “first resurrection” of Revelation 20:5 is the spiritual birth of believers. The context in Revelation 20:4 makes it perfectly clear that as far as this passage goes those who are “raised” are those who “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.” The subject of the passage is not the living but the dead; not the church as a whole, but the martyrs only. To spiritualize this portion of Scripture to make it conform to the course of the present age is to destroy all its plain literary meaning. Augustine’s view required also, of course, the spiritualization of the many Old Testament passages bearing on the future righteous kingdom on earth, and this he does in his treatment of the Old Testament.
Augustine’s Concept of the Present Age
It is central to Augustine’s theology that he regards the church as ultimately triumphant. While his viewpoint varies somewhat from postmillennial theology, the similarities are so marked that some have taken Augustine to be postmillennial.
Like the postmillennialist, Augustine regarded the present age as a progressive triumph culminating in the second advent and the final judgment of men. He differed from the postmillennialists only in matter of the degree of that triumph. As Augustine held the millennium was already three-fourths past when he lived, he found it necessary to account for the widespread evidence of sin in his day and the comparative inadequacy of the church to bring in a golden age of righteousness. He accordingly did not claim that the present age was a literal fulfillment of the promised age of righteousness, but was rather a time of conflict in which evil often seemed to have the upper hand. Like the postmillenarians, however, he did not doubt that ultimately righteousness would triumph.
While Augustine’s predictions of continued struggle and conflict have been abundantly fulfilled to the present day, there is little evidence that there has been any progress toward the ultimate goal. It is significant that many present-day amillennialists have further retreated from the predictions of triumph and are content to leave a golden age to eternity future or limited to heaven. Premillennialists will not necessarily disagree with Augustine’s basic idea of conflict in the present age nor with the idea that the second atdvent will signal the coming of righteousness to the earth, but they will attach a different meaning to both the present age and the second advent.
The Failure of Fulfillment The test of any system of interpretation is its correspondence to the facts of history. This is especially true in interpretation of prophecy. The question may fairly be asked whether the history of the church and the world since Augustine has given any confirmation of the essentials of his interpretation.
The Augustinian concept of the binding of Satan has already been shown to be without Scriptural or historical warrant. Certainly there has been no real change in the working of Satan in the world and plainly no lack of activity of Satanic forces. The concept of progress and a triumphant church, while not stressed by Augustine in the postmillennial way, falls far short of fulfillment or even significant attainment. The Christian era has been no golden age of righteousness nor has the church conquered the world. It is more accurate to recognize that the world has to a large degree possessed the church.
One feature of Augustinian millennialism has notably failed. Augustine, as has been previously brought out, considered the coming of Christ within one thousand years after the ascension an essential of his system. So impressed was Augustine with the necessity of interpreting literally the six references to the one thousand years in Revelation 20 that he departed from his otherwise spiritualization of the passage to assert it. Because of his involvement with the theory that the entire history of man would be finished within seven millenniums, he considered it entirely possible that the sixth millennium, the last in ordinary world history, had already begun when Christ was born. Based on calculations from chronology of the LXX, Augustine concluded that the second advent would occur in the year 650 A.D.10 This would seem the most flagrant date-setting one could imagine. In fairness to Augustine, however, it should be said that he is not arbitrary and recognized the possibility of error in the system of chronology which he followed. At the outside, nevertheless, the second advent would certainly occur within one thousand years of the ascension.11 Augustine was positive that in any case the millennium was started no later than the ascension and would last no longer than one thousand years.
The year 650 came and went with no notable events to fulfill the promise in Augustine’s teaching. Attention was soon fastened on the year 1000 A.D. The belief was widespread that the second advent would occur on this date. As Kromminga points out, not only at the year 1000, but also in the year 1044, and again in 1065, when Good Friday happened to concide with the Day of Annunciation, there was hope that the second advent would occur on Good Friday.12 The expectation of the church based on Augustinian eschatology was not fulfilled, and it became evident that by no stretch of the imagination was the Augustinian teaching to be considered fulfilled. For a time they could hope they were in the “little season” (Rev 20:3), but as the years wore away this became increasingly untenable. Both of Augustine’s suggestions—the year 650 and the year 1000 or thereafter—were obsolete.
Two major viewpoints eventuated out of the welter of speculation which continued to regard the coming of Christ as an imminent event. The postmillennial idea that the millennium was literal but would begin someday after the time of Christ had many adherents. All sorts of starting points were suggested. Even to modern times postmillennialists were wont to start the millennium at such time as to bring its consummation in their lifetime. Hengstenberg, for instance, began the millennium in the ninth century, which would bring the second advent in his lifetime. Others began the millennium in more recent times. Allis cites Durham as dating its beginning in 1560.13 Normal postmillennialism follows Whitby, however, in finding the entire millennium or golden age still future. Both Roman Catholic and Reformed scholars were in total confusion as far as arriving at an agreed teaching on this matter. A popular and more tenable position was adopted by some who spiritualized the time element of the millennium along with the teachings which relate to it. Undoubtedly this is a more consistent position even if it leaves the passage indefinite. In any case the outstanding feature of Augustinian amillennialism which captured the church and caused the eclipse of premillennialism proved to be a total failure in the history of the church. There was absolutely nothing to confirm the Augustinian view of the millennium in the centuries which followed him. If the law of fulfillment is essential to establish an interpretation, the Augustinian view is tried and found wanting.
The Amillennialism of the Protestant Reformation The Roman Church did not make any significant advance in the doctrine after Augustine, and Protestant teachings did not fare much better. Without attempting within the limited discussion possible here an analysis of the whole Protestant Reformation, it is safe to conclude that the early years of Protestantism saw little if any advance over the Augustinian view. It is clear that the great Protestant leaders such as Calvin, Luther, and Melanchthon are properly classed as amillennial. As far as millennial teaching was concerned, they were content to follow the Roman Church in a weakened Augustinian viewpoint. Calvin’s discussion of the millennium is a fair sample of the attitude of the Reformers. They treated the doctrine superficially and arbitrarily, making the view ridiculous by misrepresentation. Calvin, for instance, has this to say: “…not long after arose the Millenarians, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Their fiction is too puerile to require or deserve refutation. Nor does the Revelation, which they quote in favour of their error, afford them any support; for the term of a thousand years, there mentioned, refers not to the eternal blessedness of the Church, but to the various agitations which awaited the Church in its militant state upon earth. But the whole Scripture proclaims that there will be no end of the happiness of the elect, or the punishment of the reprobate…. Those who assign the children of God a thousand years to enjoy the inheritance of the future life, little think what dishonour they cast on Christ and his kingdom.”14 While Augustine discarded premillennialism because he took a carnal interpretation of the millennium as essential to the view, Calvin commits a greater error in assigning to the premillennial view a limited eternity of one millennium. Neither view would be claimed by any thinking premillennialist of our day. One can wonder what Augustine and Calvin would do with the complete system of premillennial teaching available in modern times.
Modern Amillennialism Because of the analytic treatment of amillennialism from a modern viewpoint, which will follow, it will be sufficient here to observe the broad trend of amillennialism in modern times. For the most part amillennialists of today such as Allis and Berkhof claim to follow in the hallowed tradition of Augustine while admitting the need for adjustment of his view to the actual modern situation. A new type of amillennialism has arisen, however, of which Warfield can be taken as an example which is actually a totally new type of amillennialism. Allis traces this view to Duesterdieck (1859) and Kliefoth (1874)15 and analyzes it as a reversal of the fundamental Augustinian theory that Revelation 20 was a recapitulation of the church age. The new view instead follows the line of teaching that the millennium is distinct from the church age though it precedes the second advent. To solve the problem of correlation of this interpretation with the hard facts of a world of unbelief and sin, they interpreted the millennium as a picture not of a time-period but of a state of blessedness of the saints in heaven.16 Warfield, with the acknowledged help of Kliefoth,17 defines the millennium in these words: “The vision, in one word, is a vision of the peace of those who have died in the Lord; and its message to us is embodied in the words of XIV.13: ‘Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth’—of which passage the present is indeed only an expansion. The picture that is brought before us here is, in fine, the picture of the ‘intermediate state’—of the saints of God gathered in heaven away from the confused noise and garments bathed in blood that characterize the war upon earth, in order that they may securely await the end.”18
Among amillennialists who are classified as conservative, there are, then, two principal viewpoints: (1) which finds fulfillment in the present age on earth in the church; (2) which finds fulfillment in heaven in the saints. The second more than the first requires spiritualization not only of Revelation 20 but of all the many Old Testament passages dealing with a golden age of a righteous kingdom on earth.
Such are the antecedents of modern amillennialism. It remains, now, to analyze this historic doctrine in its modern setting in the light of the Holy Scriptures. Both premillennialism and amillennialism have many honored and historic exponents. The question remains which view provides the best interpretation of the entire Word of God. Obviously the Scriptures do not teach both viewpoints; obviously this is not a trivial matter. The contemporary serious trend of studies in this direction while not always pure in motive finds justification in the significance of the question. What, after all, is the answer of amillennialism to the main issues of Christian doctrine? This is the question which is now to come before us.
Dallas, Texas
(Series to be continued in the January-March Number, 1950)
This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.
1 B. B. Warfield, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine, p. 114, citing in part Harnack, Monasticism and the Confessions of St. Augustine, p. 123.
2 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, pp. 2-5.
3 Allis, ibid., p. 3, “He held that the binding of Satan took place during the earthly ministry of our Lord (Lk. x.18 ).”
4 Augustine, City of God, XX, 8.
5 Cf. Allis, op. cit., p. 3.
6 Augustine, op. cit., XVIII, 53.
7 Augustine, ibid., XX, 7.
8 Cf. Augustine, ibid., XX; Allis, op. cit., pp. 3-5; D. H. Kromminga, The Millennium in the Church, pp. 108-113.
9 B. B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, p. 651.
10 Cf. Allis, op. cit., p. 3.
11 Augustine, op. cit., XVIII, 53.
12 Kromminga, op. cit., p. 117, citing Glaber, Erdmann, etc.
13 Allis, op. cit., p. 4.
14 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936), II, 250-51 (Book III, 25).
What is God doing in history? How a preacher answers this question will impact the content of preaching. Is the preacher seeking a great spiritual awakening in history or just trying to get a few souls into heaven as an escape from the downward spiral of Christian culture in this world?
John Wesley looked for a period of great revival in history before God consummates the kingdom on this earth. Though eschatology was not in the forefront of Wesley’s preaching, it was always in the background of his preaching because of what he believed to be the possible, even probable, extent of God’s soteriological work in this world.
Ideas about the so-called millennium or millennial reign of Christ on earth is usually part of the discussion of “end things.” While the millennial reign of Christ on earth is not usually a major discussion point in Wesleyan theology, John Wesley’s speculation about a millennium did occur in some of his later sermons. As we shall see in this article, John Wesley participated in speculation about the coming millennium. What was that speculation and how did it impact Wesley’s preaching?
The Greek word translated “millennium” occurs six times in Revelation 20 and it means a thousand-year period. The concept usually refers to a long reign of the Messiah on earth. The concept of an earthly millennium also harkens back to the dreams of the Hebrew prophets for a period of peace and prosperity on earth. Such an example is Isaiah who wrote,
The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den. They will not hurt or destroy on my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (11:6-9).
With an equally exciting vision of earthly hope, the prophet Micah promised,
In the days to come the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains . . . . Peoples shall stream to it, and many nations shall come . . . . For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. . . . [T]hey shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (4:1-4).
These are just two passages from many in the Hebrew prophets that have fueled dreams of an earthly Messianic rule. The Hebrew Bible is filled with a yearning for God’s perfect rule that blesses the whole earth.
The prevailing view among many early Christians like Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus was that history would end with a Messianic rule centered in Jerusalem that followed the return of Christ (i.e., premillennialism).
After the Roman empire embraced Christianity, it became more common to spiritualize the concept of the millennium as the reign of Christ in the hearts of his people and the reign of the Christian dead in heaven. So the millennium and church history became coterminous in this theological view of history.
Augustine promoted this view that has since become titled amillennialism which technically means no millennium. There actually is a millennium in this theology, but it is just the span of church history. Christians live, then die, then go to heaven. That is the end of the story. This eradication of a paradisiacal earthly kingdom in favor of a spiritualized kingdom only in hearts and heaven was the view that prevailed through the Reformation.
During the 17th century, particularly in Puritan circles, a new view emerged that saw the church age ending with a near-paradisiacal millennial reign of Christ created through the preaching of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit. This age of gospel prominence and mass conversions would culminate with the return of Christ. Since the millennium occurs before the return of Christ, this theology is termed postmillennialism. This was the view that inspired the First and Second Great Awakenings in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century America. Because of a focus on God’s work in this earth, the revivals of this period were accompanied by great social reform. Postmillennial thought fell out of popularity in American and British Christianity in the last quarter of the nineteenth century with the resurgence of premillennial thought. At the same time, the developing Protestant liberalism did not deal much with eschatology. Many evangelicals embraced the premillennialism that gained popularity in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Much of this modern premillennialism followed the leading of the British preacher, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), who added the concept of a rapture of the saints seven years before the return of Christ. Darby’s form of premillennialism is referred to as dispensational premillennialism because a strict time barrier is drawn between God’s dealings with Israel and God’s dealings with the Church. After a while, the early Church’s version of premillennialism began to be called historic premillennialism to differentiate it from more modern dispensational premillennialism.
How does John Wesley fit into a discussion of eschatological thought? Was Wesley a premillennialist or postmillennialist, and does it matter? Is this just an esoteric theological discussion that has no bearing on practical Christian living? I think that this is an important question and the answer is important. Wesley’s eschatological considerations greatly impacted his preaching and the same can be true for Wesley’s heirs. What Wesley believed about God’s intended work in history and the coming millennium helps explain some of the motivation and power behind his preaching and the success of the early Methodist movement. In several sermons, Wesley mentioned that a new creation was coming to this earth. His sermons “The General Deliverance” (1781) and “The New Creation” (1785) certainly point to a paradisiacal age on this earth that cannot be spiritualized away or made coterminous with the church age. Because of his view that the earth would be redeemed, Wesley was obviously not an amillennialist, so he parted company with Augustine at this point.
It is difficult to categorize Wesley as either a premillennialist or a postmillennialist. Wesley was not a systematic theologian, especially regarding eschatology. Wesley seemed to create his own eschatological niche that is difficult to categorize. Different eschatological schools have claimed Wesley. The Methodist theologian Harris Franklin Rall declared in Modern Premillennialism and the Christian Hope(1920) that Wesley was not a premillennialist. But on the other hand, an early proponent of the modern resurgence of premillennialism, Presbyterian Nathaniel West claimed enthusiastically that Wesley was a premillennialist in his John Wesley and Premillennialism (1894). (This book was reprinted in 2018 by First Fruits, the academic open press of Asbury Seminary.) I think that both authors are partially right.
What did Wesley preach concerning a future earthly reign of Christ on the earth and how did he think it would be established? Wesley’s Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (1755) makes abundant use of the writings of Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752). Wesley acknowledged his indebtedness to Bengel in his Preface to the Notes when he referred to him as “that great light of the Christian world.” Bengel was known in his day as a biblical scholar who rather uniquely believed in a dual millennial reign of Christ on earth. Even though Bengel never claimed to have originated this concept, he is remembered for the innovation. According to Bengel, the first millennium will be after the binding of Satan which then will allow for a dramatic spread of the Gospel throughout the world. This first millennium looks like the classic postmillennial hope. Bengel’s second millennium was to be the earthly reign of Christ and the rejuvenation of creation akin to a return to Paradise. This allowed Bengel to be claimed by premillennial thinkers. Bengel saw both millenniums mentioned in Revelation 20.
Drawing on the work of Bengel, Wesley wrote of Revelation 20 in his Notes that it “must be observed, that two distinct thousand years are mentioned throughout this whole passage.” While Wesley did not spend time elaborating on this concept, it appears he accepted Bengel’s view. The concept of a dual millennium would allow for both the postmillennialist hope of a great advancement of the gospel, including the conversion of the Jews as dreamed by Puritan postmillennialists, and an earthly reign of Christ centered in Jerusalem as dreamed by early church premillennialists. Wesley’s hope for the future included both components. He was not willing to let go of either the dream of gospel expansion in this age or a new earth in the age to come. (For a fuller presentation of Wesley’s use of Bengel regarding the concept of a dual millennium, see Kenneth J. Collin’s The Theology of John Wesley, 2007, 314-316. Collins sees both premillennial and postmillennial thought in Wesley, but appropriately emphasizes the dominating role of Wesley’s postmillennial leanings.)
So, again I ask the question, was John Wesley a premillennialist or a postmillennialist and does it matter? I believe that his preaching included elements of both premillennialism and postmillennialism. He was inspired by both eschatological schools particularly where they supported his grace-based optimism. When Wesley touched on eschatological themes, his preaching typically made mention of the major themes of eschatology such as the return of Christ to judge the living and the dead, heaven, hell, and a new creation. Thoughts of an earthly millennium are found in his sermons. Wesley’s dependence upon Bengel certainly allowed him to envision a great earthly kingdom of Christ following the second advent. At the same time, Wesley also imbibed the postmillennial enthusiasm and hope of his age. Wesley’s sermon, “The General Spread of the Gospel” (1783) is an example of the classic eighteenth-century optimism that gave rise to Methodism’s conviction to seek the spread of Scriptural holiness and the conversion of the world. (The United Methodist Baptismal Covenant III still maintains that the Church exists to bring about the “conversion of the world.”) Wesley’s sermon “The General Spread of the Gospel” is based on a favorite text of postmillennial preachers, “The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9). Wesley emphatically declares in that sermon, “The loving knowledge of God, producing uniform, uninterrupted holiness and happiness, shall cover the earth; shall fill every soul of man.” The optimism of Wesley was an optimism of grace that could envision the prevailing of perfect love throughout the world. For eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century evangelicals, it would not be a triumph of the Church’s social activism that would change society, but the triumph of Spirit-inspired gospel preaching.
John Wesley believed in the Christianizing of this world before the return of Christ. His blending of the premillennialism of the early Church and the postmillennialism of his age allowed him to show great respect to Scripture as interpreted by the Ante-Nicene premillennialists and to seek revival like an eighteenth-century postmillennialist. Much premillennialism of twentieth-century evangelicalism has been a pessimistic creed that seemed to have given up on the betterment of life on the earth. Because of his view of the transforming power of grace, Wesley would never fall victim to such despair. It is easy to feel the enthusiasm for the mission of the church in the postmillennialism of Isaac Watt’s hymn (1719):
Jesus shall reign where’er the sun doth its successive journeys run; his kingdom spread from shore to shore, till moons shall wax and wane no more.
John Wesley shared Isaac Watts’ hope for the prevailing of the gospel in history. In contrast to that hope, note the premillennial missional gloom of P.P Bliss’s “Hold the Fort” (1870):
Hold the fort, for I am coming,” Jesus signals still, Wave the answer back to Heaven, “By Thy grace we will.”
These two very different hymns illustrate a major shift in eschatology. There is a direct correlation between eschatology and evangelistic zeal even if the correlation is unrecognized. A preacher’s conviction about the power of the gospel to change lives has many practical ramifications for both preaching and prayer. John Wesley’s view of the culmination of history was important. He realistically could accept the ravages of sin without yielding to despair. His view of the path and goal of history allowed for the growth of both the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13.34-43), the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of God in history. Much Christianity today seems to expect the growth of the tares but looks for little growth of the wheat. Great spiritual awakening comes when large numbers of Christians believe that such an awakening is possible and imminent. For many modern evangelicals, a downward trajectory of the church’s spiritual success is indicative of the soon return of Christ, so it is something to be accepted and relished even if unintentionally. Wesley’s eschatology allowed him to be faithful to the hopes of early Christians and the audacious hopes of the best in revival preaching of his own age. Wesley expected God to bring a revival of primitive Christianity to the whole world before the consummation of history. Perhaps great revival tarries today because Christians have lost the hope that revival can happen on a great scale.
Written by Dr. Jeff Patterson is the Senior Pastor at Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church in High Point, North Carolina. He is an Elder in the Western North Carolina Conference of the UMC.
Erick Chepkwony, TH.D 