Premillennialism can be summarized as the belief that Christ’s imminent second coming will usher in a peaceful, thousand-year reign of His kingdom on earth.
What sets premillennialism apart from other views, such as amillennialism or postmillennialism, is its consistent use of a grammatical-historical, literal hermeneutic. This approach is the foundation and strongest defense of premillennialism, as it represents the natural outcome of interpreting Scripture through this method.
In contrast, alternative views are not derived from a careful exegesis grounded in the literal method as a guiding principle. Instead, they often impose predetermined systems onto the Scriptures, allowing preconceived ideas to dictate when to apply literal versus spiritual or allegorical interpretations. This selective approach frequently serves to harmonize Scripture with the system itself, resulting in circular reasoning that ultimately undermines the integrity and plain meaning of the Word.
A common objection to the premillennial interpretation is that it adheres too rigidly to a literal reading of the text, leaving little room for figures of speech. In fact, the earliest criticisms of the premillennial doctrine, known as Chiliasm in the early church, were aimed at its literal approach to Scripture. A future post will explore these methods of interpretation in greater detail, addressing these objections and examining the historical origins of the various interpretive approaches. For now, the following from E.R. Craven, taken from “Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures,” adequately explains the literal interpretation:
No terms could have been chosen more unfit to designate the two great schools of prophetical exegetes than literal and spiritual. These terms are not antithetical, nor are they in any proper sense significant of the peculiarities of the respective systems they are employed to characterize. They are positively misleading and confusing. Literal is opposed not to spiritual but to figurative; spiritual is in antithesis on the one hand to material, on the other to carnal (in a bad sense). The Literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i. e. according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted—that which is manifestly literal being regarded as literal, that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded. The position of the Spiritualist (so called) is not that which is properly indicated by the term. He is one who holds that whilst certain portions of the prophecies are to be normally interpreted, other portions are to be regarded as having a mystical (i. e. involving some secret meaning) sense. Thus, for instance, Spiritualists (so called) do not deny that when the Messiah is spoken of as “a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief,” the prophecy is to be normally interpreted; they affirm, however, that when He is spoken of as coming “in the clouds of heaven” the language is to be “spiritually” (mystically) interpreted. . . . The terms properly expressive of the schools are normal and mystical.1
In his treatise called The Theocratic Kingdom, George Peters observes why the literal interpretation is so vital to uphold as paramount:
…if God has really intended to make known His will to man, it follows that to secure knowledge on our part, He must convey His truth to us in accordance with the well-known rules of language. He must adapt Himself to our mode of communicating thought and ideas. If His words were given to be understood, it follows that He must have employed language to convey the sense intended, agreeably to the laws grammatically expressed, controlling all language; and that, instead of seeking a sense which the words in themselves do not contain, we are primarily to obtain the sense that the words obviously embrace, making due allowance for the existence of figures of speech when indicated by the context, scope, or construction of the passage. (Prop. 4, Obs. 1)
The rejection of premillennialism is often presented in a way that is either intentionally exaggerated or rooted in genuine ignorance of its history and fundamentals. Throughout the discussions on this blog, we will demonstrate that the dismissal of premillennialism is not based on historical support or careful examination of Scripture, but rather on a lack of both. The late postmillennial advocate, David Chilton, provides a harsh example of this extreme distaste for premillennialism with the following words:
The notion that the reign of Christ is something wholly future, to be brought in by some great social cataclysm, is not a Christian doctrine. It is an unorthodox teaching, generally espoused by heretical sects on the fringes of the Christian Church. 2
As a way of response, the following words from theologian John Walvoord form a concise rebuttal to Chilton’s words above and set the tone for this defense of premillennialism:
Rooted in the Old and New Testaments, a product of literal interpretation, nurtured by the apostles and the early church, eclipsed for centuries by the dark shadows of pagan philosophies and allegorizing methods of interpretation, emerging once more as a dominant strain in Biblical theology in these eschatological times, premillennialism is more than a theory, more than a doctrine. It is a system of Biblical interpretation which alone honors the Word of God as infallibly inspired, literally interpreted, and sure of literal fulfillment. It has stirred the coals of evangelicalism, created interest in Biblical study, and constituted a preparation of God’s people for the coming of the Lord for His saints. Premillennial truth has been an inestimable blessing to those who have received it. To them the Bible has become a living book to be interpreted in its ordinary sense. It is significant that the Bible study movements have usually been premillennial, and institutions which emphasize the study of the text of Scripture, as illustrated in the Bible institute movement, have often been an integral part of the premillennial movement. 3
Over the course of time on this blog, we will greatly expand upon the doctrine held within PrM. We believe the discussions in the following posts, the numerous observations from scripture, and the historical support—evidence of this doctrine rooted in first teachers of our Faith—will prove that this “notion” of the Kingdom, of Christ’s future earthly reign for a thousand years, is in fact orthodox teaching.
Recommended Sources
Broad overviews of premillennialism
- Book: “The Millennial Kingdom: A Basic Text in Premillennial Theology” by John Walvoord
- Book: “Things to Come” by J. Dwight Pentecost