A comic strip character was watching television when his wife came into the living room, picked up the remote, and changed the channel.

When the man complained, his wife said, “I have the right to change the channel anytime I want. That was in our wedding vows.”

In the next panel, the man was reviewing his wedding video with a friend.

With a shocked expression, the friend exclaimed, “Tell me you didn’t agree to all that!”

The man confessed, “I guess I should have paid more attention.”

Among the qualifications to become a credentialed minister in the General Council of the Assemblies of God (AG) is showing a “thorough understanding of and agreement with our doctrinal position as contained in the Statement of Fundamental Truths.”

The Statement of Fundamental Truths (SFT) does not cover every theological topic, nor does it attempt to align with every Christian denomination.

Instead, the SFT situates the Assemblies of God among other Christian traditions by expressing those doctrines that are binding for fellowship among our ministers and churches.

The first six articles reflect the AG’s Protestant background. The statement begins with Scripture, and Article 6 teaches about the ordinances (not sacraments) of the Church. Those points place us within a greater Protestant tradition.

The next six articles identify the AG as Pentecostal. Articles 7 and 8 explain a Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism and its relationship to speaking in tongues, while Article 12 supports divine healing for today.

The statement on divine healing already separated early Pentecostals from many Protestant groups, but doctrines on Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues are uniquely Pentecostal.

The last four articles clarify that the AG is also premillennial. We believe in the resurrection and translation of the Church, the millennial reign of Christ on earth, the Final Judgment of God, and the new heaven and earth — in that order.

Not all Protestants share our beliefs in the Holy Spirit’s ongoing activity, and not all Pentecostals agree on Christ’s premillennial reign.

So, what does it mean to be premillennial, and why should it matter enough for the Assemblies of God to insist on it?

Eschatological Distinctive

Premillennialism belongs to the larger collection of Christian teachings within the category of “eschatology.”

That term comes from the Greek eschatos, meaning “last” as in “last things.” This Greek word appears in the New Testament, such as when Jesus says believers will be raised on the “last day” (John 6:39).

Eschatos can refer to the most distant point on the horizon as the final destination for travelers. The destination determines the journey. Similarly, Christian eschatology is a reference point for believers as they daily move toward the promise of God in Christ.

From Genesis onward, people of faith pursued God’s promises. This is one reason the whole Bible is eschatological.

God made promises to Noah and Abraham, respectively (Genesis 9; 12).

The Sinai covenant followed, with blessings for obedience and warnings against rebellion (Deuteronomy 28).

When Moses and the prophets held Israel accountable to God’s covenant, they promised that if Israel lost the land due to their sin, God would restore them after their repentance (Joel 2:12–27).

God told David he would always have a descendant on the throne (2 Samuel 7:12–13). When the descendants of David became unfaithful, God pointed to a future king who would reign in righteousness and the power of God’s Spirit (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6–7; 11:1–5; Micah 5:2).

With the exile, God’s promise included restoration (Ezekiel 34; 37; Zechariah 9).

Together, these promises anticipate a renewed kingdom under a Spirit-anointed King.

Not only would the Messiah be Spirit-empowered, but God’s people would receive the Spirit to help them do His will (Ezekiel 36:26–28). Prophetic signs would confirm the Spirit’s arrival (Joel 2:28-29).

The Old Testament concluded with some promises not yet fulfilled. Exiles returned, but remained under foreign oppression rather than seeing Gentiles turn to God (Isaiah 19:19–25).

The temple was rebuilt, but without the return of God’s presence to fill it (Ezekiel 43:4–5). The Law was reestablished (Nehemiah 9), but God had not transformed hearts by pouring out His Spirit.

God’s people awaited the fullness of their restoration, including a resurrection of the faithful (Daniel 12:1–2).

Jesus began His ministry by proclaiming the coming of God’s kingdom (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15).

The New Testament reveals Jesus as the Messiah who came to save not only Israel, but the world.

From Genesis onward, people 
of faith pursued 
God’s promises. 
This is one reason 
the whole Bible is 
eschatological.

Resurrection begins with Jesus himself (1 Corinthians 15:20).

Christ redeems and pours out the Spirit even on Gentiles (Acts 10).

Seeing these signs, New Testament writers referred to their time as the “last days” (Acts 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:1–9; Hebrews 1:2; 2 Peter 3:3).

Consequently, the Spirit-filled Church preached with a sense of urgency. They anticipated Christ’s return (1 Corinthians 16:22; Ephesians 1:13–14; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 3:8–10); hoped for the resurrection (Romans 8:19–23; 1 Corinthians 15:12–57; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18); and warned of God’s coming judgment (1 Corinthians 3:12–15; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11).

The Church is an eschatological community that lives with an awareness of the last days.

All of Scripture points to a shared destiny for believers. Nevertheless, Christian eschatology typically focuses on a few New Testament passages, such as Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21). There are key texts on the resurrection (Romans 8:11–21;1 Corinthians 15:51–54; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11); Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1–12; 1 John 2:18; 2 John 7); and Judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 10:27; 2 Peter 2:4–9; 3:10; 1 John 4:17; Jude 6).

Then there is the Book of Revelation and the multiple ways Christians have read it. Additionally, there are Old Testament prophecies believers have sought to incorporate and interpret in light of all these texts.

Cultural context plays a role in how people view the end times. For example, believers experiencing persecution for their faith might read tribulation passages differently than those whose faith affords them cultural privilege.

Theologians sometimes talk about personal and corporate eschatology. The former deals with questions concerning how individuals experience the afterlife.

Corporate eschatology focuses on events surrounding the end of history, including the Second Coming, Millennium, and Judgment.

Christians have disagreed on all these issues, yet still agree on a shared hope of eternity with Jesus.

Historic Debate

Debates regarding millennialism have proven particularly divisive.

Revelation 19 depicts Christ’s return as a military victory over the Antichrist and false prophet.

In Revelation 20, Satan is bound, while faithful believers are resurrected to reign with Christ for 1,000 years (a millennium). Afterward, Satan is released to tempt the nations once again, leading to a final battle that culminates in the Last Judgment.

Revelation 21–22 describes the creation of a new heaven and earth.

Interpretations of Revelation 20:1–6 are central to the millennial debate. Divine promises in both the Old and New Testaments also play a role. Christians can maintain a high regard for biblical authority and still read these biblical texts differently.

As far back as the second century, many believers openly espoused what became known as premillennialism, or the teaching that Christ’s Second Coming will precede His millennial reign.

Christ will be present on earth during a 1,000-year reign with resurrected believers. This will include the redeemed from Israel, in fulfillment of Old Testament promises concerning their place among the nations.

Early premillennialists saw this intermediate period as an earthly reward for believers who suffered faithfully, fulfillment of God’s promises of restoration to Israel (Isaiah 11:1–11), and preparation for the incorruptible creation to come.

Because this reign depends on the physical return of Jesus, persecution of the Church is no hindrance. The Church does not need to conquer, but merely stand strong amid the pressures of the world.

Among the early Christians holding this view were prominent second- and third-century leaders and writers, such as Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Tertullian. When he wrote the first commentary on Revelation during the third century, Victorinus promoted a premillennial position.

There was room for disagreement. Justin Martyr wrote regarding his premillennial stance, “Many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”

Amillennialism was a competing interpretation during the same period. This view argues Christ’s 1,000-year reign symbolizes the present Church Age. The resurrection of believers refers to their entrance into Christ’s kingdom on earth, while Satan’s binding may signify the gospel’s unstoppable spread. Satan’s release at the end of the Church Age will lead to a period of persecution, culminating in the Second Coming and Judgment.

Casting the Church as a new Israel, amillennialism relegates prophecies about Israel’s renewal to symbolism.

Proponents of this view included third-, fourth-, and fifth-century leaders like Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. Amillennialists rejected premillennialism as too this-worldly. They saw allegorical interpretations of Scripture as more helpful.

Emperor Constantine’s conversion during the fourth century contributed to the popularity of amillennialism, as the earthly kingdom to which most believers belonged became Christian.

By the fifth century, the Council of Ephesus condemned premillennialism as “superstitious,” making amillennialism the standard Christian view.

Nevertheless, the Middle Ages saw a resurgence of premillennialism. The premillennial view was particularly appealing to those calling for Church reform, since it did not equate the Church with Christ’s reign.

By the time of Protestantism, some reforming Christians argued for postmillennialism. This view claims that while Christ’s millennial reign referred to the Church Age, it signifies the Church’s eventual victory over culture before the Second Coming. The resurrection of believers might reference a spiritual awakening, and Satan’s binding suggests the Church’s success to come.

Postmillennialists believe Christ will return only after the Church’s victory. The millennial period, whether literal or symbolic, will be a time of widespread Christian conversion. Prophecies about Israel refer to the Church’s growth and cultural influence.

Cultural context plays a role in how people view the 
end times. For 
example, believers experiencing persecution for their faith might read tribulation passages differently than those whose faith affords them cultural privilege.

The postmillennial view became standard among Protestant revivalists during the 19th century. Calls for social reform — such as abolitionism, women’s suffrage, and the temperance movement — reflected this position.

Twentieth-century wars involving majority-Christian nations led some in the U.S. and Europe to question their optimism.

A form of premillennialism, initially popularized by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren in England, emerged around this time. Known as dispensationalism, it rejects the notion that God’s promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Church.

Dispensationalism asserts God will remove His church from the world in the Rapture. Between this event and the fullness of Christ’s Second Coming is the Great Tribulation (Revelation 7:14), a time of divine judgment before the millennial reign. The Church does not cause Christ’s return, but proclaiming His imminent return is the Church’s cause.

Dispensational communities helped found the Assemblies of God.

Some early Pentecostals — including Charles Parham and D.W. Kerr, primary contributor to the Statement of Fundamental Truths — taught that the Church would not experience the Rapture together due to differences in their experiences of sanctification and Spirit baptism. Still, most AG ministers accepted one Rapture.

A bigger point of disagreement was the Rapture’s timing in reference to the Great Tribulation (see Daniel Isgrigg’s Imagining the Future: The Origin, Development, and Future of Assemblies of God Eschatology, 111–113). Would it come before, during, or after the Great Tribulation? AG founders remained divided.

Despite these differences, the Fellowship remained united on premillennialism.

Biblical Defense

At the heart of millennial debates is a key question: Will there be an intermediate kingdom between Christ’s return and the Final Judgment?

Premillennialists argue their interpretation is a straightforward reading of Revelation 20.

Those who reject premillennialism say a symbolic approach is appropriate for eschatological texts. After all, Revelation utilizes symbols and allusions (1:20).

Premillennialists reject symbolic interpretations that speak of Satan’s binding, the resurrection of believers, and Christ’s millennial reign as something fulfilled in the present. They note the persistence of evil today belies the claim that Satan is bound in the Present Age. (Even in Revelation, Satan remains active until Chapter 20.)

Further, premillennialists highlight the interpretive inconsistency of treating the resurrection of believers as a reference to spiritual salvation, while accepting the raising of the dead in the same chapter as a literal resurrection.

If, as some argue, the millennial reign refers to the present Church Age, it must at minimum represent a significant period of time. While that poses no difficulty today after two millennia, the first generation of Christians looked for Christ’s appearing during their lifetimes. Revelation ends with Christ’s promise that He is coming soon (Revelation 22:10,20).

Critics of premillennialism claim Revelation 20 is a summary of the story that has already occurred. At issue is whether Revelation 20:1–6 is a retelling or a progression within the text.

For example, at the end of Revelation 19, Jesus conquers the armies of the Antichrist and false prophet, who are thrown into the lake of fire (verse 20). Later, Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, “where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown” (20:10).

Are these separate battles or two ways of describing the same event? Premillennialists argue the mention of the beast and false prophet in Revelation 20:10 explains their absence from the final battle, so the story is progressing.

If the Millennium in Revelation 20:1–6 happens between the two battles, it indeed follows the Second Coming.

Beyond appeals to symbolism or simplicity, some critics of premillennialism insist God’s promises transcend the earthly realm. Thus, they reinterpret Old Testament texts regarding the restoration of Israel and a future kingdom on earth in spiritual terms.

Premillennialists do not have to reinterpret those Old Testament prophecies because they believe in an intermediate kingdom before the Final Judgment and new creation.

Jewish eschatological works outside the New Testament also referenced an intermediate kingdom before the Day of the Lord. It stands to reason that early Christian readers would also interpret Revelation 20 as promising an intermediate kingdom.

The later rejection of this view may reflect the preference among some Church leaders for more Greek ways of reading texts.

AG Doctrine

The Assemblies of God lays out the boundaries of eschatology in its Statement of Fundamental Truths, and in the Bylaws under “Eschatological Errors” (Article 9, Section B.3).

The last four articles in the Statement of Fundamental Truths explain primary AG eschatological teachings, while the Bylaws list errors to avoid.

Article 13 in the SFT describes the Blessed Hope as the resurrection of the Church and translation of the righteous, based on Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:51–52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17; and Titus 2:13.

The biblical phrase “blessed hope” comes from Titus 2:13, where Paul anticipates the appearing of Jesus in glory.

Article 13 also uses the term “imminent.” To say Christ’s return is imminent means He could return at any moment.

Two eschatological errors in the Bylaws relate to Article 13. First, ministers are to avoid setting a date for the Lord’s return. Second, they must not deny Christ’s imminent return.

Together, these points declare that there is no event (including anything associated with the Great Tribulation) that must occur before the return of Jesus, and we cannot know when that return will be.

Article 14 affirms the doctrine of Christ’s 1,000-year visible reign on earth with the saints. The AG maintains this reign follows Christ’s return.

This type of premillennialism looks to the future salvation of Jews (Ezekiel 37:21–22; Zephaniah 3:19–20; Romans 11:26–27) rather than regarding the Church as a replacement for the people of Israel.

The millennial reign will be a time of universal peace (Isaiah 11:6–9; Micah 4:3–4), where nations will lay down weapons and natural enemies will reside together harmoniously.

The Church does not cause Christ’s return, but proclaiming His imminent return is the Church’s cause.

The Bylaws forbid ministers from denying premillennialism and interpreting the millennial reign of Revelation 20 to refer symbolically to the current Church Age.

This prevents ministers from preaching against Article 14. It also safeguards the Church from conflating representation of the Kingdom with a reign on earth before Christ’s return.

The Church can exercise godly influence in the world, but the Kingdom to come depends on the King’s coming.

These boundaries help define an eschatology that has existed since the Fellowship’s founding.

The opening paragraph to the minutes of the first General Council of the Assemblies of God in April 1914 ends with these words:

Almost every country on the globe has heard the message and also the prophecy which has been predominant in this great outpouring, which is “Jesus is coming soon” to this old world in the same manner as He left it to set up His millennial kingdom and to reign over the earth in righteousness and peace for a thousand years.

Practically the first words from the newly formed Assemblies of God espoused a premillennial view.

Premillennialism continues to define the global Movement. The World Assemblies of God Fellowship (WAGF) comprises 180 national bodies around the world.

The WAGF Statement of Faith ends with an article titled “The End of Time”:

We believe in the premillennial, imminent, and personal return of our Lord Jesus Christ to gather His people unto Himself. Having this blessed hope and earnest expectation, we purify ourselves, even as He is pure, so that we may be ready to meet Him when He comes (John 14:1–3; Titus 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17; 1 John 3:2–3; Revelation 20:1–6).

Throughout its history, the AG has defined itself as premillennial. This insistence is not just a matter of Pentecostal history and tradition, however. It reflects our interpretation of Scripture in such a way that changing it could deeply impact our practice.

In Acts 1, the disciples asked the risen Lord, “Are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (verse 6).

Explaining that the timing was up to the Father, Jesus pointed to the Church’s immediate assignment: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Pentecostals understand Spirit baptism as empowerment for the same calling the Early Church received: bearing witness of Christ.

Our role as witnesses or ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) remains distinct from Christ’s millennial reign to come. We are not now reigning with Christ as enthroned nobles, but proclaiming His coming rule as servants carrying our own crosses (Matthew 16:24).

Not all who reject premillennialism would argue for a cultural reign. Yet premillennialism has a built-in guardrail against churches taking thrones where they should be carrying crosses.

The Assemblies of God remains committed to the Church’s mission of bearing witness, while looking for Christ’s return to usher in His Kingdom. Rather than bringing about the Kingdom, the Church serves as a sign pointing to it.

Premillennialism appealed to early Pentecostals, who sought spiritual power over worldly rule. They were less interested in accumulating “silver or gold” than in saying, like Peter, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk” (Acts 3:6).

Finally, Israel’s role in the premillennial framework helps guard against antisemitism. If the Jewish people have a future place in God’s plan, they also have a present place.

This is not to say a rejection of premillennialism is itself antisemitic. A believer can love Jewish people without accepting premillennialism. The premillennial view simply offers another compelling reason for rejecting antisemitism.

The Assemblies of God embraces premillennialism because it follows the most natural reading of Revelation 20:1–6 and related passages. It rejects readings of this passage that force the text to describe the present or suggest the Church should exercise control as if bringing about Christ’s reign now.

Christian attempts to seize cultural levers of power have historically damaged the gospel message. For more than a century, a premillennial view has protected the AG witness.

Pastoral Practice

As ministers in the Assemblies of God, we are called to model and preach premillennialism.

We model premillennialism with integrity by making God’s promises of a coming Kingdom and new creation our hope. How we guide the congregation during a shared tragedy or lead through a polarized political climate, for example, can reveal our true eschatological beliefs.

If we compromise Christian values in exchange for worldly power or view such power as the way to exert godly influence, we may truly think the Kingdom is up to us or has already arrived.

Are we looking for cultural power more than Christ’s return? Are we living in light of the former instead of the latter? We must remember God’s promised reward belongs to “all who have longed for His appearing” (2 Timothy 4:8). Our prayer as one Body remains, “Come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20).

We preach premillennialism with hope and encouragement rather than fear and judgment.

I grew up in a church where we constantly heard the promise of Christ’s coming. In youth group, though, the warnings not to be “left behind” tended to outweigh the promises, as well-meaning adults listed the activities, behaviors, and even thoughts that could disqualify us from the Rapture. What the Bible calls a “blessed hope” became a holy terror.

The story of Scripture ends well for believers, so preaching premillennialism should produce anticipation rather than dread. While warnings about God’s judgment are appropriate and biblical, we should encourage one another with the hope of Christ’s coming (1 Thessalonians 4:18).

Inducing fear rather than hope suggests believers are going forward into an uncertain future. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Considering the confusion and divisiveness associated with eschatology, it is not surprising that many pastors shy away from teaching about the end times. Yet eschatology is essential to understanding Christ’s mission — and ours.

Realizing Christians can disagree without sacrificing their faithfulness should keep us humble and loving when we come into conflict with other believers. Eschatological differences are not necessarily gospel differences. The Statement of Fundamental Truths outlines what must be believed for fellowship, not necessarily for salvation.

God calls the Church to take divine promises seriously, but not to use them as weapons against the Body.

Scripture concludes with a united community worshipping God, who remains as the center of all creation.

The AG position paper on premillennial eschatology reminds us to “show charity to other believers in disagreements over eschatology.” The document goes on to say:

The Assemblies of God has defined the boundaries of its eschatology with the formulation of the Statement of Fundamental Truths. However, the Statement of Fundamental Truths does not set the boundaries for being a Christian. We recognize that Christians can disagree on matters that are not essential to salvation, even if it involves the interpretation of Scripture. Eschatology matters, but not all Christians hold the same beliefs about eschatology. God has called all Christians to show charity to one another because of who we are in Christ Jesus despite our disagreements. Premillennialists, postmillennialists, and amillennialists can all hope in and proclaim the return of Jesus and the resurrection of all believers.

This article appears in the Fall 2025 issue of Influence magazine.