Observations on Calvin’s Argument Against Millennialism

In the midst of some other reading, I ran into an argument about Calvin’s view of millennialism. I was a little startled by the arguments Calvin used, so I went back and looked at the author’s quotes of Calvin to understand them in context. What follows is a few thoughts on Calvin’s argument against a literal, physical millennial Kingdom.

The whole Scripture proclaims that there will be no end either to the happiness of the elect, or the punishment of the reprobate. Moreover, in regard to all things which lie beyond our sight, and far transcend the reach of our intellect, belief must either be founded on the sure oracles of God, or altogether renounced. Those who assign only a thousand years to the children of God to enjoy the inheritance of future life, observe not how great an insult they offer to Christ and his kingdom.D102 If they are not to be clothed with immortality, then Christ himself, into whose glory they shall be transformed, has not been received into immortal glory; if their blessedness is to have an end, the kingdom of Christ, on whose solid structure it rests, is temporary. In short, they are either most ignorant of all divine things or they maliciously aim at subverting the whole grace of God and power of Christ, which cannot have their full effects unless sin is obliterated, death swallowed up, and eternal life fully renewed. How stupid and frivolous their fear that too much severity will be ascribed to God, if the reprobate are doomed to eternal punishment, even the blind may see. The Lord, forsooth, will be unjust if he exclude from his kingdom those who, by their ingratitude shall have rendered themselves unworthy of it. But their sins are temporary (see Bernard, Epist. 254). I admit it; but then the majesty of God, and also the justice which they have violated by their sins, are eternal. Justly, therefore, the memory of their iniquity does not perish. But in this way the punishment will exceed the measure of the fault. It is intolerable blasphemy to hold the majesty of God in so little estimation, as not to regard the contempt of it as of greater consequence than the destruction of a single soul. But let us have done with these triflers, that we may not seem (contrary to what we first observed) to think their dreams deserving of refutation.
Institutes book 3 chapter 25

In this translation of Calvin’s Institutes, there is a footnote:

D102 Calvin’s chief objection to “Chiliasm” appears to be alleged limitation, to a period of one thousand years, of the reign of Christ with His saints. A secondary objection arises out of his interpretation of Revelation 20:2–7 (in which the term “thousand years” appears six times) as referring to the Church militant in this world. These objections against “Chiliasm” would today apply only to that view of the last things called Premillennialism. However, if a person held (1) that Christ’s kingdom is spiritually present, as He rules in the hearts of His elect; (2) that Christ’s kingdom shall have a future, earthly manifestation, when He shall reign with His saints upon the earth; and (3) that Christ’s kingdom will not cease at the close of the thousand years, but will merge into eternity; then it would appear that Calvin’s chief objection to this view would be removed. Of course, his secondary objection would remain as a difference of hermeneutical (interpretive) approach and method.

Calvin also addresses a millennial Kingdom in his commentary on Daniel:

In fine, this preface might seem a proof of an important conversion; but we shall directly see how far Nebuchadnezzar was from being entirely purged of his errors. It ought, indeed, to affect us exceedingly to behold the king wrapt up in so many errors, and yet seized with admiration of the Divine virtue, since he cannot express his thoughts, but exclaims,—His signs how mighty! his wonders how powerful! He added, His kingdom is a perpetual kingdom, and his dominion is from age to age. Here he confesses God’s power not to be dependent upon man’s will, since he had just before said, the statue which he had erected was to be worshipped, because he had chosen so to decree it. Now, however, he remits much of this pride by confessing God’s kingdom to be a perpetual one. The narrative now follows. Thus far we have merely a preface, because the edict was diffused among his subjects to render them attentive to the most important subjects.
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, Chapter Second, Lecture Twelfth

Based on these quotes, Calvin’s argument against the Millennial Kingdom seems to have four components:

• There can be no millennial period because this limits Christ’s reign, the blessings of the Saints, and the punishments are of temporary rather than permanent duration.
• The Kingdom is spiritual, so all physical descriptions of the Kingdom should be dismissed as accomodation or allegory.
• The descriptions of the Kingdom are “fantastic,” and that which seems impossible to be believed should be taken as allegory.
• Holding to a millennial reign denies the unchanging nature of God (thus denying God’s divinity).

The first argument is a straw man; no-one believes the Kingdom is the total duration of eternity either for blessing or condemnation. In fact, millennialists hold the thousand-year reign is not part of the eternal state, so this objection is misinformed.

The second argument seems to be based on John 4:21-24 and similar passages, which are taken to mean there is no physical Kingdom. The Kingdom, however, can be both physical and spiritual. In fact, if the Kingdom is “spiritual only,” then neither Jesus nor any Christian would have a physical body in the Kingdom, which contradicts Jesus’ postresurrection appearances and many other passages.

If we take the third argument seriously, then we must also take the argument: “the resurrection of Christ is fantastic, therefore we should not believe it,” seriously. This argument defeats Christianity itself to defeat the literal reading of Daniel 7, Revelation, etc. This argument is about consistent hermeneutics–can you apply one standard to one part of the text while applying a different standard to a different part of the text?

The final argument takes Hebrews 13:8 and similar passages to mean that God is metaphysically simple–that God does not have emotions, does not change his mind, does not know that which he has not willed, etc. Relying on this view of God, if God reigns in a physical form for a thousand years, this means God must take on a body for this reign, which is a “change in God.” This line of argument ignores the incarnation entirely, or implies the incarnation is also not possible because God being born of a virgin is a “change,” and “change is impossible in God.”

So the arguments essentially consists of a straw man, a false dichotomy, an inconsistent and self-defeating hermeneutic, and an incoherent view of God. While modern neo-Calvinists have created “stronger arguments,” Calvin’s original arguments don’t appear to be very strong.

What also strikes me about Calvin’s arguments is how much he relies on ad hominem and “no true Scotsman” arguments. His opponents are stupid, frivolous, unworthy, etc. Anyone who does not agree is condemned to hell, but actual arguments grounded in Scripture and logical chains of reasoning are thin on the ground.