The word millennium means “one thousand years.”[1] In Christian theology, the term comes from Revelation 20:1-5 which states that believers “came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.”[2] Throughout church history, there has been disagreement about the nature and timing of the millennium. Justin Martyr, a premillennialist, once noted that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians think otherwise.”[3] Martyr’s comment embodies the forbearing attitude that brothers and sisters in Christ should have when discussing the millennium with other Christians who disagree with their position.
In this blogpost, I argue that the amillennialism position provides the proper interpretation of Revelation 20:1-5, because “a thousand years” must be interpreted figuratively and symbolically in accordance with the apocalyptic genre of Revelation.[4] The phrase “a thousand years” should not be interpreted according to its literal meaning, just as Psalm 50:10 is not declaring that God has cattle on exactly “a thousand hills.” According to amillennialism, this millennial period begins at the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and will end at His second coming.[5] First, I will provide a brief overview of the non-amillennial positions. Second, I will provide biblical and theological support for the amillennialism position. Finally, I will discuss common objections to amillennialism and the weakness of these objections.
Non-Amillennial Views of the Millennium
Wayne Grudem lists three major views of the millennium in his systematic theology: premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism.[6] Other theologians list four categories: historic premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism.[7] These four major views have been recognized both in systematic theology and historical theology textbooks.[8] This blogpost will follow the four-category pattern.
Each view has held prominence at different periods of church history. During the first three centuries, historical premillennialism was the dominant position.[9] Beginning in the fifth century and continuing through the Middle Ages, amillennialism became the dominant position largely due to Augustine’s influence.[10] In the late seventeenth century, postmillennialism was formed by Daniel Whitby and Jonathan Edwards. Postmillennialism quickly grew in popularity, but largely fell out of favor in the early twentieth century.[11] However, we have recently begun seeing a resurgence in its popularity. Premillennialism regained prominence in the nineteenth century when dispensational premillennialism was formed by John Nelson Darby and advanced by preachers such as Dwight Moody.[12]
Historic Premillennialism
The prefix pre- means before. According to this view and the dispensational premillennialism view, Christ will return at the beginning of the millennium to establish His kingdom.[13] Both historic and dispensational premillennialism interpret the one thousand year reign of Revelation 20 as a literal event on the earth. However, unlike dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism does not make a sharp distinction between the Church and Israel. In this way, it is much like amillennialism. Because of this non-distinction, historical premillennialists generally believe that the Church will remain on the earth during the one thousand year reign of Christ.[14]
Historic premillennialist George Eldon Ladd believes that dispensational theory errs by insisting “that many of the Old Testament prophecies predict the millennium and must be drawn in to construct the picture of Messiah’s millennial reign.” As a result, they bring a presupposition to Revelation 20 that skews the straightforward interpretation of the passage. According to Ladd, amillennialists err by finding a “spiritual” interpretation of the millennium.[15] Instead, Revelation 20 should be seen as a literal, two stage destruction of Christ’s enemies: The Antichrist, Satan and Death. He writes:
“First, Satan is bound and incarcerated in ‘the bottomless pit’ (Rev. 20:1) for a thousand years ‘that he should deceive the nations no more’ (Rev. 20:3) as he had done through Antichrist. At this time occurs the ‘first resurrection’ (Rev. 20:5) of saints who share Christ’s rule over the earth for the thousand years. After this, Satan is loosed from his bonds, and in spite of the fact that Christ has reigned over the earth for a thousand years, he finds the hearts of unregenerated men still ready to rebel against God. The final eschatological war follows when the devil is thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone. Then occurs the second resurrection of those who had not been raised before the millennium. They appear before the judgment throne of God to be judged according to their works. ‘If any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15). Then Death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire.”[16]
Dispensational Premillennialism
Dispensational premillennialists agree with historical premillennialists that a literal millennium begins when Jesus returns to earth to establish His earthly kingdom. Since His earthly reign has not yet begun, the millennium should be viewed as a future event. An initial resurrection of the church will occur before the millennial kingdom begins and a second, final resurrection will occur at the end of the millennial kingdom.[17] This delineated period is one of several ‘dispensations’ that God has ordained to divide up the history of creation.
This view also teaches that the millennial kingdom will be established only after human kingdoms have come to an end. Dispensationalists cite Daniel 2 and 7 to support this claim. According to dispensational premillennialist Paul Benware, the “purpose of the millennial kingdom is to fulfill the covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants. Premillennialism thus gives a much greater place to the nation of Israel than the other major millennial views.”[18] Dispensational premillennialists believe that God will fulfill His Old Testament covenant promises to ethnic Jews by establishing a new, earthly kingdom with Jesus ruling on the throne of David. According to Benware, Dispensational premillennialists also claim that “the premillennial approach of a consistent literal hermeneutic is a strength of this view.”[19] This contrasts with the amillennial view that in order to obtain the literal meaning of Revelation 20, the term “a thousand years” must be interpreted figuratively to be consistent with the apocalyptic genre of Revelation.
Postmillennialism
The prefix post- means after. According to this view, Christ will return after the millennium.[20] In this way, postmillennialism agrees with amillennialism. The two positions only differ on the nature of the millennium. Postmillennialist Loraine Boettner describes postmillennialism this way:
Postmillennialism is that view of last things which holds that the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals. The world will eventually be Christianized and the return of Christ will occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the millennium.[21]
Similar to the amillennial position, postmillennialists believe that the millennium will be an indefinite period, possibly much longer than one thousand years. They interpret the term “a thousand years” in Revelation 20 according to its figurative meaning. Postmillennialists do not believe that every human being will be saved during this period, but that the gospel will be so powerful that the whole world will effectively be Christianized. According to Boettner, in the millennium “evil in all its many forms will be reduced to negligible proportions, that Christian principles will be the rule, not the exception, and that Christ will return to a truly Christianized world.”[22]
Postmillennialists do not believe that God will treat the Church differently from Israel in the millennium. They also do not believe that this period will be “essentially different from our own so far as the basic facts of life are concerned.”[23] There will not be a personal, visible reign of Christ in the city of Jerusalem. Instead, the world will gradually grow more pure and holy until the millennium begins. Postmillennialists point to modern circumstances as evidence that the millennium is near. This evidence includes the near abolition of slavery and polygamy, greater social status of women and children, better social and economic conditions in most nations, and a higher spirit of cooperation among nations.[24]
Biblical and Theological Support for Amillennialism
According to the amillennial view, there is no future millennium for the church to look forward to. Instead, the millennium in Revelation 20 refers to the present church age.[25] This is sometimes referred to as “present” or “realized” millennialism. This eschatological position argues for a present millennial age manifest in the present reign of Jesus Christ in heaven.[26] Instead of interpreting the thousand years of Revelation 20 literally, amillennialists teach that it is symbolic of the entire age between the first coming and second coming of Christ.
The book of Revelation is written in the apocalyptic genre. Amillenialists believe that all of Revelation, including chapter 20 should be interpreted in accordance with the rules of this genre. Revelation 20 begins with the words “Then I saw,” which indicates this passage has a visionary and apocalyptic character. Therefore, the passage should be interpreted figuratively and symbolically in accordance with its apocalyptic form. Amillennialist Sam Waldron notes that Daniel, the Old Testament prophet, received a vision as recorded in Daniel 7:16. During the vision, he had to approach “one of those who were standing by and began asking him the exact meaning of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things.”[27] In the same manner, the meaning of the Revelation 20 passage is not immediately obvious like prose or narrative language. We must allow the clearer passages of Scripture to govern the less clear passages. Therefore, it is advisable to look to the rest of Scripture and apply the analogy of the faith to ensure that our interpretation of Revelation is consistent with the rest of biblical revelation.
Revelation 20 consists of other symbolic language such as the binding of Satan for a thousand years and throwing him into the abyss. The question that we must ask in a manner consistent with all of Scripture is, when does this event occur? Jesus declared, “”But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matt 12:28-29). In this statement, Jesus is associating the binding of the strong man with the coming of Christ’s kingdom at His first coming.[28] Further, in Luke 17:9 Jesus describes Satan’s falling from heaven as the kingdom is being established during Christ’s earthly ministry. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the one thousand year binding of Satan as a period that began during Christ’s first appearance, rather than at a future date.
Amillennialist O. Palmer Robertson in The Israel of God points out that a symbolic interpretation of “a thousand years” offers a much better understanding of the Revelation 20 passage. First, he asserts that the entire New Testament “points to two phases rather than three phases of the coming kingdom.”[29] These phases include the present age and the age to come. Because of the two-age pattern, there is no room for a literal thousand-year temporary kingdom between the present kingdom and final kingdom. Second, Robertson observes that “The symbolic use of numbers throughout the book of Revelation suggests that this number of one thousand is also symbolic in significance.”[30] The Apostle John begins Revelation by addressing exactly seven churches, which suggests that they were chosen to symbolically represent the entire Christian community (Rev 1:20). Further, John speaks of “seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven angels with seven bowls” (Rev 5:1, 8:2). He mentions “one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel” (Rev 7:4). Each of these numbers has a symbolic significance. Third, Robertson notes the same point that Waldron makes about the binding of Satan referring to this present age.[31]
Fourth, Robertson points out that Revelation 20:4 references the “souls of those who have been martyred, who have not worshiped the beast.” These souls are now seated on thrones, which describes the state of Christians who have died during the present age.[32] Fifth, Robertson notes that the first resurrection described in Revelation 20:4-6 “is best understood as referring either to the renewal of life that occurs at conversion or to the transfer of the believer’s soul from earth to heaven at death.” Finally, Robertson argues that the “idea of a middle phase in the coming of the kingdom, during which, for a thousand years, Christ physically subdues his enemies from an earthly throne located in Jerusalem, would be sadly anticlimactic in the experience of the Christian.”[33] We have already been seated with Christ in the heavenly places, so the idea of a future earthly kingdom where sin is still possible pales in comparison to our eternal resting place.
Objections to the Amillennial Position
Ladd, a historical premillennialist, argues that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 is a different kind of binding than what Jesus mentions in Matthew 12:29. According to Ladd, Jesus was referring to “the breaking of the power of Satan that individual men and women might be delivered from his control.” [34] He argues this binding is different from the binding that stops Satan from deceiving the nations in Revelation 20. If these passages are talking about two different types of binding, then both the historic and dispensational premillennialist have an exegetical opening to argue that the Revelation 20 account occurs at the second coming of Christ.
However, there are at least two weaknesses in this argument. First, Ladd does not address the fact that the basic unit of nations are individuals. Jesus does not specify that Satan is only bound at certain times or certain locations, which would have to be true if He had the protection of certain individuals in mind. Second, the meaning of “bind” prohibits us from applying it to select individuals. The same Greek word for bind (δέω) is used in both passages. This word means to tie or constrain someone or something.[35] It is used in contrast to the word used for loosing (λύω) in Matthew 18:18 and 21:2. It is not possible for a being to simultaneously be bound and loosed in a literal sense; a requirement for Satan to only be bound against certain individuals. Therefore, premillennialists who hold to this interpretation must adopt a symbolic interpretation of Satan’s binding in Matthew 12:29. Of course, they will not do this because it opens the door to interpret the entire Revelation 20 account symbolically.
Loraine Boettner, a postmillennialist, argues that Revelation 19:11-21, not Revelation 20 “describes the progress of the church between the first and second comings.” [36] Boettner rejects the amillennial interpretation that the book of Revelation is a series of progressive parallelisms. According to the progressive parallelism view, Revelation 19 describes the second coming and Revelation 20 describes the first coming. In Revelation 19, the Christ descends from heaven on a white horse to judge and wage war. Jesus uses a sharp sword protruding from his mouth to strike down the nations. Boettner believes that this account should be interpreted as “Christ on his heavenly throne” directing the affairs of His kingdom on earth. The result is that the whole world becomes Christianized.[37] The shortcoming of this interpretation is that Christ is depicted as judge in Revelation 19:11. There is no mention in Scripture of Christ performing the function of Judge before the second coming. Also, the marriage supper of the Lamb arrives in Revelation 19:7, another feature of Christ’s second coming. Thus, the content of Revelation 19 more strongly supports both the amillennialist’s progressive parallelism interpretation and the premillennialist’s post second coming interpretation of Revelation 20.
Paul Benware, a dispensational premillennialist, writes that amillennialists incorrectly “employ a dual system of hermeneutics.”[38] According to Benware, this approach to biblical interpretation allows amillennialists to find a spiritual meaning in the Revelation 20 passage that is not intended by the Apostle John. Benware makes a serious charge against both amillennialists and postmillennialists by declaring that “there is truth to the idea that when one spiritualizes the Scriptures the interpreter becomes the final authority instead of Scripture itself.”[39]
As a former progressive dispensationalist, I appreciate how this argument can be attractive to Bible inerrantists who rightly defend the requirement to identify the literal meaning of every Bible passage. However, most Reformed theologians consider amillennialism to be as opposed to allegorizing (or spiritualizing) passages of Scripture as the other views.[40] A literal interpretation is not always required to determine the author’s literal meaning. In fact, it is often required of the interpreter to recognize that the author is using symbolic language to determine the correct literal meaning of poetic and apocalyptical genres. In these genres, literary devices such as figures of speech and metaphors are regularly employed.
John MacArthur, a dispensational premillennialist, acknowledges that in Revelation 19 the horse, crowns, sharp sword, rod of iron, and wine press are symbolic terms that “represent various aspects” of the reality of Jesus’ second coming.[41] However, he does not acknowledge that the thousand years in the very next chapter might also be symbolic language. Benware himself interprets the “key” in Revelation 20:1 as symbolic “for authority” and not a literal key.[42] Yet, Benware claims that “an element that characterizes dispensational premillennialism is an emphasis on a consistently literal hermeneutic.”[43] This fallacious argument is exposed by pointing out instances where dispensational premillennialists interpret some passages of Revelation literally and others symbolically without express warrant from the author or text to do so. Benware insists that “a proper study of the millennial issue demands, first, an analysis of the methods of interpretation which have produced amillennialism and premillennialism. This lays bare the problem and opens the way to see the issue in its true light.”[44] I agree with Benware that the different interpretation methods are the primary source of the different views of the millennium. However, Benware and other dispensational premillennialists fail to see the inconsistency of their own interpretation of Revelation 20 with respect to their own insistence upon a consistently literal hermeneutic.
[1]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 1109.
[2]The NASB has been used throughout this blogpost.
[3]Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 686.
[4]Samuel E. Waldron, The End Times Made Simple (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000), 87.
[5]Waldron, The End Times Made Simple, 80-82. According to Waldron, 1 Corinthians 15:21-28 teaches that Christ’s reign of conquest on earth began at the time of His resurrection and will end with the resurrection of believers at the Parousia. He argues that a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10 is impossible because the millennium must occur prior to the destruction of the last enemy at Christ’s second coming. Also, since the end of the reign of conquest occurs at the Parousia, the Parousia ushers in the eternal state—not a millennium.
[6]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1109.
[7]Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 13.
[8]Allison, Historical Theology, 685.
[9]Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium, 9.
[10]Allison, Historical Theology, 687-688.
[11]Ibid., 693-694.
[12]Ibid., 694-695.
[13]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1111.
[14]Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995), 93.
[15]Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium, 18.
[16]Ibid., 17-18.
[17]Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, 94-95.
[18]Ibid., 96-97.
[19]Ibid., 98.
[20]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1110.
[21]Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium, 117.
[22]Ibid., 118.
[23]Ibid., 120.
[24]Ibid., 126.
[25]Allison, Historical Theology, 688.
[26]Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 31.
[27]Waldron, The End Times Made Simple, 87.
[28]Ibid., 94.
[29]O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000), 159.
[30]Ibid., 160.
[31]Ibid., 161.
[32]Ibid., 162.
[33]Ibid., 164.
[34]Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium, 190.
[35]Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 221.
[36]Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium, 200.
[37]Ibid., 201.
[38]Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, 110.
[39]Ibid.
[40]Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 954.
[41]John MacArthur, Because the Time is Near: John MacArthur Explains the Book of Revelation (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2007), 288.
[42]Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, 111.
[43]Ibid., 97.
[44]Ibid., 110.