Across the Spectrum

16

The Millennium Debate

The Return before the Reign (The Premillennial View)
Working toward and Waiting for a Coming Reign of Peace
(The Postmillennial View)
The Symbolic Thousand-Year Conquest of Satan (The Amillennial View)

Posing the Question

The book had all the makings of a bestseller. Adventure, drama, action, mystery, even a touch of horror; it was all there. Paul finished reading the final few pages, put the book down, and reflected on the author’s dramatized account of the events recorded in the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation. The author had a gift for bringing the biblical ideas to life.

Kelly, a friend from church, had recommended the book to Paul. She had told him the book was not only an excellent read—it had changed her life. With a new understanding of the way in which the end-times would unravel, Kelly again felt excited to be a Christian. She had explained to him how the book had enabled her to figure out the mysterious symbolism of Revelation. With this understanding, she was now able to see that the end-times scenario was unfolding right before her eyes!

Paul had to admit the book had held his attention from cover to cover. And he too felt a new urgency regarding the end-times. He was especially intrigued by the author’s view that Christ would soon come and take Christians out of the world, wage war against his enemies, and then embark on a thousand-year period, which he called the millennium—the period when Christ and his church would rule the world.

Just then the phone rang. It was Bob, a close friend of Paul’s and a member of his Bible study group. The timing was perfect. Bob had majored in biblical studies in college and loved to discuss theological subjects. Paul explained the basic story line of the book and then asked Bob what he thought.

Bob hesitated before finally saying, “Actually, Paul, I’ve looked through that book. I’ll agree that it seems to be an exciting book. But to be honest, I think the author’s interpretation of the book of Revelation is way off base, and I’m worried about its impact on people. The author treats the book of Revelation as though it’s a snapshot of the future when in fact it is intended to be symbolic. The apostle John wasn’t writing about events that will take place at the end of history. He was writing about events that were going to take place in the lives of the people he was writing to. He tells us this at the very beginning of the book. I’m afraid Christians will read this book and waste time trying to interpret current events through this book the same way some people use horoscopes.”

After their conversation, Paul was left with many questions. How should Christians interpret the book of Revelation? Literally or symbolically? Does it speak about events in the first century or about events in the twenty-first century? And what about this idea of the millennium? Will Christ return soon and set up a thousand-year reign on the earth?

The Center and Its Contrasts

Some of the most controversial questions in evangelical theology are related to the end-times in general and the book of Revelation in particular (see the appendix for evangelical interpretations of this book). One of the central issues in this general debate involves the millennium, the thousand-year period mentioned in Revelation 20:1–10, during which Christ is said to rule the world. What is the nature of the millennium, and when will it take place?

The millennium debate, however, is simply one issue within the wider debate about the end-times in general. It is safe to say that there is no more complicated and confusing topic in theology than eschatology—the study of the end-times.

Despite the complex debates about these matters, evangelical Christians can agree on several things. First, all evangelicals affirm that Jesus Christ will return to earth one day. This event is known as the second coming or the parousia. At his return, Christ will finally and fully defeat all evil. A second point of agreement is that there will be a bodily resurrection of all people who have ever lived, followed by a final judgment. Finally, all evangelicals affirm that believers will reign with Christ forever while nonbelievers will be separated from God’s presence. These areas of agreement reveal that evangelicals take issue with any understanding of the end-times that interprets Christ’s return in merely figurative or mythological terms. Evangelicals unanimously agree that with the return of Christ, God will intervene in human history in a decisive and undeniable way.

While most evangelicals agree on this basic outline of end-times events, any number of differences surface when it comes to filling in the details. The question of the nature of the millennium has been one area of perpetual debate throughout church history. The majority view in the first few centuries of the early church was a form of what today is called premillennialism. Premillennialism holds that the millennium is a literal thousand-year period, following Christ’s return, during which he will reign on earth. It is important to note that there are at least two significantly different models of premillennialism—historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. (See the appendix for more on this distinction.)

With Augustine in the early fifth century, a new perspective came to the forefront: amillennialism. Amillennialism views the millennium not as a literal thousand-year period but rather as a symbol of Christ’s reign in general. It remained the dominant view throughout the Middle Ages. After the Reformation, a third view arose (though it had predecessors). Many Protestants came to believe that a thousand-year reign of peace was coming but that it would not be preceded by Christ’s return, as premillennialists hold. Rather, the church itself would usher in this thousand-year reign of peace by evangelizing and transforming the world. Christ’s return would culminate this millennial period. This view is known as postmillennialism.

While a majority of evangelicals today embrace a form of premillennialism, the other two views have defenders as well. The three essays in this chapter argue for each of these perspectives.

The Return before the Reign (The Premillennial View)

Despite some noteworthy differences (see “The Rapture Debate,” issue 13 in the appendix), all premillennialists agree that a literal thousand-year reign of peace is coming in the future that will not begin until Jesus physically returns to earth. Premillennialists are so named because they believe that Jesus’ return will take place before the millennium.

The Biblical Argument

The only passage that explicitly mentions the millennium is found in Revelation 20. John writes:

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be let out for a little while. Then I saw . . . the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus. . . . They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years. When the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations. (vv. 1–8)

Amillennialists dismiss the notion that a literal thousand-year reign of peace is coming on the grounds that the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic book. Admittedly, Revelation is largely apocalyptic, and apocalyptic literature is largely symbolic. But this is no reason to assume that apocalyptic literature in general, or the book of Revelation in particular, cannot communicate anything literally. Revelation 20 reads like a straightforward depiction of a future event. Four times this passage mentions, in a matter-of-fact way, that a thousand-year period is coming when Satan will be bound and the Lord will reign. There is no compelling reason to interpret this symbolically.

Nor is there a compelling reason to interpret as symbolic the clear distinction between a first and second resurrection. This is crucial to the premillennial perspective, for the view is rooted in the belief that the future holds two resurrections. The first will be a resurrection of saints, who will rule with Christ during the millennium. The second will be a resurrection of all others to eternal judgment. This distinction is not found only in Revelation 20. A host of other passages suggest it as well.

For example, in Luke 14:14, Jesus refers to “the resurrection of the righteous.” This phrase implies that there is also a distinct “resurrection of the unrighteous.” Similarly, Paul tells the Philippian Christians, “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil. 3:10–11). Paul is not speaking of a general resurrection, otherwise he would have no need to strive to attain it. He can be referring to a resurrection intended only for saints, one that separates saints from unredeemed sinners. The original Greek supports this, for it literally states that Paul longs to attain a “resurrection out from among dead-ones.” Paul clearly envisaged a first resurrection that was selective. This would later be followed by a general resurrection of all “dead-ones.”

Another passage that strongly supports the idea of two resurrections is 1 Corinthians 15. Paul says that all will be resurrected: “but each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (vv. 23–25). Note the distinctions Paul makes in this passage. First, Christ is raised. Then Christ returns and resurrects “those who belong to [him].” Finally, “the end” comes when he is victorious over all his foes. This agrees with what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians:

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. (4:16–17)

When Christ returns, those who are “in Christ,” whether dead or alive, will be “caught up in the clouds together.” This is the “resurrection of life,” for the resurrected will dwell with the Lord forever (cf. John 5:28–29). It is distinct from the “resurrection of condemnation” in which all nonbelievers are raised and then judged according to their works (cf. Dan. 12:2). Since only the premillennial view affirms two distinct resurrections, this evidence for two resurrections supports the premillennial perspective.

Although premillennialists disagree amongst themselves about the timing of the great and final tribulation in relationship to Christ’s return, they agree that his return will immediately lead to a thousand-year “Sabbath” on the earth. Many passages refer to this thousand-year Sabbath.

The Old Testament as a whole envisions God’s kingdom established on the earth. The Son of Man is portrayed as ruling over “all people, nations, and languages.” Indeed, with his “holy ones”—the saints of God—the Son of Man will rule over all the earth’s kings and kingdoms (Dan. 7:14, 18). So, too, Isaiah prophesies of a time when

the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. Many peoples shall come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they 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. (2:1–4)

This is the time when “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.” During this time of peace, “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” (Isa. 11:6–8). Other passages describe similar visions (e.g., Ezek. 36–48; Mic. 4:1–8). These promises all apply to and are explained by the earthly millennium.

The New Testament also suggests a future reign of Christ on the earth. The author of Hebrews draws a direct parallel between the Sabbath in the Old Testament that God wanted the Jews to enter into and the Sabbath God has in store for Christians (Heb. 3:7–4:13). The parallel suggests that the “rest” for the church is on the earth, just as the “rest” for the Jews was intended to be. Relatedly, Jesus promised that the “meek . . . will inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). He also taught us to pray to the Father that his will would “be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Such passages make it clear that Jesus knew the Father had not given up on the earth. Rather, he was going to win it back, bind Satan, and have his earthly church rule with him over it. The millennium will be the time when the “new earth” is established (Isa. 65:17–22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1).

Supporting Arguments

1. Church tradition. While the early post-apostolic fathers did not seem to have a clear understanding of the rapture of the church, they nevertheless generally held to a premillennialist eschatology. It was unequivocally the view of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Lactantius. Unfortunately, some pushed this premilliennial perspective in a crassly materialistic direction, creating a version that came to be called chiliasm. In the fourth century, Augustine and several others reacted against chiliasm, ultimately rejecting premillennialism altogether in favor of an amillennial position. Nevertheless, the fact that this view was dominant in the early post-apostolic church supports the view that the apostles taught a premillennial position.

2. The deteriorating state of the world. Christians sometimes get discouraged because it often does not look as though “God is winning.” While Christianity is growing remarkably in many parts of the world, the same is true of Islam and some other non-Christian religions. In some parts of the world, such as America and Europe, Christianity is actually losing ground. In terms of the number of people accepting Christ and the impact the church is having on the culture as a whole, the church is not heading in the right direction.

This state of affairs is not easy for a postmillennialist or an amillennialist to explain, for according to their accounts the world is supposed to become increasingly Christian. The premillennialist has no such hope, however. Most premillennialists accept that prior to the Lord’s second coming things will generally get worse and worse. They are of course saddened by the deteriorating state of the world and of Western culture in particular, but it only confirms their faith that the Lord is returning soon.

Responding to Objections

1. This view has an inadequate foundation. Amillennialists object to the premillennial position on the grounds that the millennium is mentioned in only one passage, which happens to be apocalyptic. It is true that the millennium is mentioned only in Revelation 20, but it is mentioned four times. That is four times more than the number of times the word “Trinity” is mentioned! Moreover, as noted above, simply because Revelation is an apocalyptic text does not justify the conclusion that nothing in it can be taken literally. Almost all scholars interpret the seven churches and the messages that were recorded to them literally (Rev. 2–3). Thus, one must examine each passage independently to determine its literal or symbolic nature. Finally, while the term millennium is not mentioned explicitly anywhere else, numerous passages allude to it, as shown above.

2. This view runs counter to the “mustard seed” pattern of kingdom expansion. Some postmillennialists object to the premillennial position on the grounds that it is not consistent with the way God generally operates in world history. God usually expands his kingdom progressively. Jesus talks of the kingdom growing and taking over as a mustard seed—not as a single and momentary power play, as the premillennial perspective supposes (cf. Matt. 13:31–32).

Granted, there is a season in which God expands his kingdom in a slow and subtle mustard seed fashion. This is the church age we are now in. But there is no reason to assume this pattern will continue indefinitely. Sometimes the ordinary is suspended for the extraordinary. Noah’s flood and the plagues of Egypt are examples of this. So shall it be at the end of time.

On a day known only to the Father, Jesus will return, gather his bride to himself, bring judgment on the world, bind Satan, and set up his millennial rule. This time can be described as anything but business as usual.

Working toward and Waiting for a Coming Reign
of Peace (The Postmillennial View)

The view defended in this essay is called postmillennialism, for, among other things, it advocates that the Lord will return and judge the living and the dead after he reigns on earth through his church for a millennium. In contrast to both the premillennial and amillennial positions, postmillennialists believe that Christ will return after the Christianization of the entire world.

As with the other views, there are a few significant differences of opinion among postmillennialists. Classical postmillennialists such as the Puritans and many evangelicals in the nineteenth century interpreted the thousand-year reign spoken of in Revelation 20 literally. However, some contemporary postmillennialists maintain that the millennium is symbolic for a complete and total epoch when the Lord will rest from his labor of winning back the world. Postmillennialists also disagree as to when this millennial period will begin. Classical postmillennialists believed this period of time was in the future, though not usually the distant future. They were optimistic that the mission of the church to win back the world to God was going to be completed soon. Their optimism is surpassed by other postmillennialists, however, who maintain that we are already in the millennial age. Satan is in principle already bound and Christ is in principle already enthroned, though neither is yet perfectly manifested.

In spite of these differences, however, postmillennialists agree on the central point of the position: The church must expect and work for the Christianization of the world before it can expect the Lord to return physically and bring a cataclysmic end to world history.

The Biblical Argument

In the midst of the craze of premillennialism sweeping the evangelical masses (as evidenced, for example, by the Left Behind novel series and movies), many sincere evangelicals expect the Lord to return physically at any moment. The fear of being caught off guard and “left behind” is one of the selling points of this doctrine. Until the Lord returns, these Christians expect sin and suffering to increase in the world. Through the work of the church, individuals will be saved, but the world as a whole is a lost cause.

Postmillennialists consider this outlook pessimistic and biblically misguided. The prevalence of this attitude explains why the evangelical church of the twentieth century, in which premillennialism has been dominant, has been passionate about personal evangelism but apathetic and impotent in addressing social evil. In this respect, contemporary evangelicalism contrasts sharply with the evangelicalism of the nineteenth century, in which postmillennialism was dominant. For postmillennial preachers such as Charles Finney, the idea that Christians can bear witness to Christ by winning souls without transforming culture was unthinkable.

The premillennial mind-set stands in contrast to the attitude about the coming of the kingdom that Jesus advocated. When people asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, Jesus did not answer the way premillennialists answer this sort of question. “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed,” Jesus said. “Nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:20–21). Jesus in essence taught that we will not be able to tell when the kingdom of God comes. He was not looking for a cataclysmic occurrence to mark the arrival of the kingdom.

Just as significantly, in this passage, Jesus taught that in one sense the kingdom of God had already arrived! The kingdom was already “among” the people who asked the question. It seems evident that the verse presupposes a strong continuity between the kingdom of God as it is growing now and the kingdom of God as it will be when it is brought to completion then. Jesus did not envision a cataclysmic discontinuity between the now and the then. This teaching contradicts the popular twentieth-century premillennial notion that before God’s kingdom can be set up on earth, Christians first have to be raptured and those who are left behind have to go through a tribulation period. If that wouldn’t evoke the response, “Look, here it is” or “There it is,” what would?

Jesus stressed the continuity between the kingdom of God now and the kingdom of God then in many of his teachings. For example, at one point Jesus taught: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches” (Matt. 13:31–32).

Immediately following this teaching, Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened” (Matt. 13:33). The point of both teachings is that the kingdom of God begins in a small way, but gradually and subtly it grows until it eventually takes over the entire field or lump of dough— namely, until it takes over the world. In this light, the church should faithfully expect and work for nothing less than the gradual expansion of the kingdom of God over the entire world. The defeatist notion that there is nothing Christians can do to stem the tide of corruption in the world denies the kingdom authority the Lord has given to Christians and undermines the church’s motivation to advance the kingdom of God.

The central goal of God’s activity throughout world history, from his election of the nation of Israel to his sending of his Son into the world, has been to reclaim the world and its people as his own. He established humans as his viceregents over the world, but they tragically surrendered their authority to Satan. The Lord is in the process of defeating his archenemy, freeing his people, and thereby regaining the world. The millennium is that time in world history when the Lord’s objective will be attained.

This millennium is anticipated throughout the Bible as the goal to which history is moving. Scripture looks forward to a time when “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” to the Lord (Isa. 45:23–24). In New Testament terms, “every knee [shall] bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue [shall] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11). This is the time when the Messiah, the Lord’s anointed (“Christ”), will reign supreme. Satan will be put in prison for an extended period of time (Rev. 20:1–10). Peace will reign throughout the world—expressed symbolically as the lion lying down with the lamb (see Isa. 11:6–9). All who oppose God will be vanquished, while all who accept his reign will be united as one under him (e.g., Isa. 55:1–9; 66:18–24). The entire world will finally be united in the love and lordship of the Creator.

So, for example, Psalm 72 says of God’s anointed:

May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth.

In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more.

May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

May his foes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust. . . .

May all kings fall down before him, all nations give him service. (vv. 6–9, 11)

Psalm 110 expands on the theme.

The Lord says to my lord, “Sit at my right hand

until I make your enemies your footstool.”

The Lord sends out from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes.

Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day you lead your forces on the holy mountains.

From the womb of the morning, like dew, your youth will come to you.

The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (vv. 1–4; cf. Isa. 2:1–4)

The promise of Scripture is that the Messiah will eventually defeat all his enemies and rule over the entire world. This rule in principle began when Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The only remaining task is for the church to apply in practice, by the power of the Spirit, what God has already established in principle. Christians are called to be the means by which God increasingly manifests Christ’s rightful rule throughout the world. They are commanded to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18–20), recognizing that the Lord will not return until all nations have been evangelized, with multitudes accepting the Good News of salvation (Matt. 24:14). Already, Jesus assures us, Satan has been “driven out” of the world. Therefore, Christians may be assured that when they lift him up, he “will draw all people” to himself (John 12:31–32). The mustard seed has been planted. Christians must allow it to grow in them and through them until it takes over the entire world.

The wonderful promise of Scripture is that despite occasional setbacks, the church will be successful in fulfilling its task, for its success depends not on the efforts of humans but of God. Postmillennialists do not deny that there are still serious battles to fight and that Christians may be called on to undergo suffering. Nor do they deny that there will be an ultimate battle between God and the forces of evil, a time when the world will undergo tribulation. This will take place after an epoch of Christ’s reign, not before (Rev. 20:3, 7). According to this view, nothing justifies believers having anything but an optimistic stance toward the world and a passionate motivation to see God’s will done in every area of society.

Supporting Arguments

1. Confidence for the future. Because the postmillennial view embodies the New Testament’s confidence that the kingdom will continue to expand, and because it understands that the church is the primary means by which this expansion will occur, the postmillennial view motivates believers in a way that premillennialism and amillennialism do not. Fueled by an optimistic postmillennial vision as to how the future will unfold, believers are motivated to engage passionately in social action, as the postmillennial evangelicals of the nineteenth century did. They are inspired to work to bring culture into conformity with God’s will. They are not concerned only with leading individuals to Christ while leaving the society to the devil. They are inspired to seek to demonstrate the truth that Jesus is Lord by confronting and overcoming racism, genderism, hunger, homelessness, and all other forms of social injustice throughout the world. The premillennial and amillennial positions do not offer this motivation and hope to believers.

2. A credible eschatology. It can be argued that the premillennial craze that has gripped contemporary evangelicalism has encumbered the church’s mission of credibly communicating its faith to a lost world. Instead of embracing an eschatological vision that would inspire Christians to witness to the world by demonstrating Christ’s love in radical social action, many evangelicals have embraced an eschatological vision that leads them to demand that unbelievers accept that Christians shall soon disappear in the clouds (the rapture) and to warn them that if they do not accept Christ, they will be left behind. Apart from the issue of whether we should interpret the rapture literally or symbolically, it is ill-advised to wager the credibility of Christianity on a highly unusual concept that is opaquely referred to in only one verse in the New Testament (1 Thess. 4:17). With postmillennialism, eschatology becomes an asset to evangelism rather than a liability.

Responding to Objections

1. This view runs counter to church tradition. Some argue that postmillennialism is not adequately rooted in church tradition, which must count against it. If it is true that considerations of church tradition are never decisive for evangelicals in settling doctrinal disputes, then the consideration of church tradition on matters of eschatology can carry little weight indeed, for there has never been a consensus of opinion on such matters.

Various forms of premillennialism were popular in the early church, but not exclusively so. Amillennialism was most popular during the Middle Ages, but again, not exclusively so. And postmillennialism was most popular among the Puritans and evangelicals of the nineteenth century, but again, other views were entertained by these groups and by others as well. Hence, the criticism that postmillennialism is without adequate grounding in church tradition has little force.

2. How does this view explain evidence of a decaying world? Critics of the postmillennial position point out that as a matter of empirical fact the church does not seem to be winning the battle for the world. In some geographical regions, non-Christian movements are growing faster than Christianity. In some areas, Christianity is actually losing ground. It is understandable why European and American evangelicals in previous centuries may have been optimistic about Christianity taking over the globe, they argue, for at the time there were positive indications that Christianity was moving in that direction. It seemed that Christianity was advancing steadily and that society was improving. But the twentieth century reversed many of these trends.

Postmillennialists acknowledge that the world goes through various ebbs and flows of evil and that Christianity experienced some setbacks in the twentieth century. They deny, however, that this constitutes a valid reason to abandon the optimism of Scripture that Christ’s rule will eventually extend to the entire world and that this expansion can be accomplished through the work of the church. Two things may be said in response to this erroneous conclusion.

First, hope must be based on the Lord’s promise that the mustard seed will continue to grow, not on human ability to observe its progress. Much of the growth of a mustard seed occurs underground, where no one can observe it.

Second, Christians must not become pessimistic by focusing too much on recent setbacks of kingdom expansion, thus magnifying them out of proportion. They must recall that the kingdom of God also experienced significant advances in the twentieth century. Though some ground was lost, overall, Christian missions advanced steadily throughout the last century, to the point at which many missiologists predict that in several more decades there will be no remaining unreached people groups! While many Islamic regions remained resistant to the gospel, Christianity made remarkable progress in other regions, especially in Two-Thirds World regions where various forms of ancient paganism previously held people in bondage. The Bible, or at least portions of the Bible, is being made available to people around the globe in a manner that could hardly be imagined a hundred years ago. Television, radio, and more recently the Internet have increased the availability of the gospel. Moreover, despite the incredible waste of human life that occurred in the twentieth century through wars, and despite the persistence of hunger, poverty, and disease, it must be acknowledged that overall humanity experienced unprecedented advances in health and human rights awareness throughout the twentieth century.

Christians must not minimize the reality of setbacks, but neither should they allow these setbacks to dim the hope that the Lord’s kingdom will steadily advance in the world and the clear indications that this hope is in the process of being fulfilled.

3. There are scriptural problems with this view. Some argue that certain passages of Scripture contradict the postmillennial understanding of the end-times. For example, in Matthew 24, Jesus taught that before the end there would be false messiahs (vv. 4–5, 10), wars (vv. 6–7), famines and earthquakes (vv. 7–8), persecution (v. 9), and increased lawlessness and apathy (v. 12). Does this not imply that we should expect things to get worse, not better, as we approach the end?

Some postmillennialists interpret this passage in a preterist fashion, concluding that Jesus was not talking about the end of the world as such, but the end of the world as the Jews of the time understood it. This “world” came to an end with the Jewish-Roman war between AD 66 and 70, resulting in the destruction of the temple and the banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem. In support of this view, these postmillennialists point out that the question Jesus was answering throughout Matthew 24 concerned when the temple would be destroyed (vv. 1–2). Moreover, Jesus ended this discourse by promising them, “Truly, I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (v. 34).

Other postmillennialists believe this passage refers to the actual end of world history but do not agree that it means the world will get increasingly worse until the Lord returns. There will be increased wars and the like, but Jesus also promises in this very discourse that “this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come” (v. 14). The optimism of the postmillennial vision of the future is not that things will get easier and easier but that the kingdom will continually advance—despite resistance from human and spiritual opponents of the gospel.

The Symbolic Thousand-Year Conquest of Satan
(The Amillennial View)

Amillennialists deny that there is a literal millennium, either before or after the return of Jesus Christ. Indeed, they reject the notion that there are two future resurrections or two stages in the Lord’s return, which premillennialism is largely based on. Once the symbols are recognized for what they are, New Testament eschatology is actually remarkably simple. In the fullness of time, the Lord will return, the dead will be resurrected, and all will be judged. The complex eschatological schemes of many contemporary evangelicals are at best unnecessarily complex if not misleading.

The Biblical Argument

First, there is no compelling reason to conclude that a literal thousand-year period of peace is coming upon the earth. True, the book of Revelation says that Christ will reign with martyred saints for a thousand years while Satan is “in prison” (Rev. 20:1–16). But why should we interpret this literally? The genre of Revelation is apocalyptic, which by definition means it is filled with metaphorical and symbolic images. There is no more reason to take this thousand-year reign literally than there is to interpret as literal the twenty-four elders who wear gold crowns and flash forth lightning while surrounded by four creatures who “are full of eyes all around and inside” (Rev. 4:4–8). Indeed, when considering Revelation 20, are we to believe that an angel will literally hold a “key” and “lock and seal” Satan into a “bottomless pit” (vv. 1–3)? Are we to believe that after a thousand years Satan will “deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth” (v. 8)? Will “the earth and the heaven” literally flee from God’s presence as he sits on a literal “great white throne” (v. 11)?

Will he literally open a “book of life” and read it before “the dead” who have come up from a “sea” (vv. 12–13)? Will the wicked then go into a literal “lake of fire” and “sulphur” (v. 14)? Most readers and all scholars of apocalyptic literature understand these concepts to be symbolic. There are no grounds for holding that the thousand-year reign spoken of in this chapter should be taken literally.

Second, according to premillennialism, there will be two resurrections in the future, separated by the thousand-year reign of Christ and the church. Not only is the thousand-year reign not mentioned outside of Revelation, but nowhere outside of this passage is there any clear reference to two distinct resurrections. This is fatal to the premillennial position.

Jesus referred to a future time “when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28–29). The passage depicts the righteous and the unrighteous responding with different outcomes to one and the same call. There is no thousand-year gap. Similarly, Paul taught that there will “be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous” (Acts 24:15)—one resurrection that includes both the righteous and the unrighteous.

The consistent depiction of the end-times in the New Testament is of one multifaceted, interconnected event. It includes the Lord’s return, his victory over evil, the general resurrection from the dead, and the final judgment. Hence, for example, Paul speaks of the Lord relieving those who suffer and judging those who are rebellious as one future event. When “the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire,” Paul says, he will “repay with affliction those who afflict you, and . . . give relief to the afflicted as well as to us.” When Jesus “comes to be glorified by his saints and to be marveled at on that day among all who have believed,” the wicked “will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thess. 1:5–10). The reward and the punishment are given at the same time. There is no thousand-year interval.

Peter speaks in the same way about the end-times. “The day of the Lord will come like a thief,” at which time “the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed” (2 Pet. 3:10). At this juncture “the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire” (2 Pet. 3:12) so the righteous will be “at home” in a “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Pet. 3:13). According to standard premillennial eschatology, a seven-year tribulation period followed by a thousand-year epoch will separate the Lord’s coming from the final judgment, when “the elements will be dissolved.” Nothing like this is suggested in this passage.

Similarly, Paul links the final restoration of the entire creation with the redemption of the sons of God (Rom. 8:18–23). He never mentions a redemption followed by a thousand years followed by a renewed Satanic assault after Satan is released from prison. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul links the resurrection with the handing over of all things to God the Father after Christ has “destroyed every ruler and every authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24; cf. vv. 20–28).

Since there is clear teaching neither of a thousand-year reign nor of two distinct resurrections or returns of Christ, and since the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic book that is thoroughly symbolic, there is no reason to expect a literal thousand-year period of peace sometime in the future.

Third, many postmillennialists agree, against the premillennialists, that the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20 are symbolic. And all postmillennialists agree in rejecting the premillennial view that there will be two resurrections and two judgments separated by a thousand years. The end-times events referred to in the New Testament occur roughly at the same time. But postmillennialists disagree with the amillennial view that there is no coming millennium at all. They rather believe that the thousand-year reign spoken of in Revelation refers to some future time when the devil will be imprisoned and Christ will reign through his church on the earth. At the end of this period of time, all the end-times events spoken of in the New Testament will take place.

There are three problems with postmillennialism, however. First, this view presumes that the church will make consistent headway in advancing the kingdom and fighting the devil until it reaches the millennial period. But as premillennialists have always insisted, the Bible does not support this optimistic conclusion. Many passages suggest that as the end approaches, things are going to get worse.

For example, in Matthew 24 the disciples asked Jesus, “What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (v. 3). Jesus answered by first warning them that the number of false messiahs and false prophets will increase (vv. 4–5, 11). He said that wars (vv. 6–7) and famines and earthquakes (vv. 7–8) will increase as well. He then said his disciples will be “tortured and . . . put to death” as they are “hated by all nations” (v. 9). There will be widespread apostasy, and former disciples will hate and betray one another (v. 10). Not only this, but people in general will become loveless, lawless, and brutally wicked (v. 12). Those who want to be saved will simply have to “endure” it (v. 13). This hardly sounds like a positive crescendo as the church works to apply Christ’s rule to the entire world.

Paul and Peter express a similar pessimism toward the future of this world. Paul says that as the end approaches

people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. (2 Tim. 3:2–5)

Similarly, Peter says that in the final days, “scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’” (2 Pet. 3:3–4).

The point is that the hope the New Testament offers is not associated with an expectation that the world will increasingly be won over for Jesus Christ. It is rather centered on the certainty that Christ will return and rescue us from a world that is increasingly moving away from God.

Second, and closely related to this, it is clear that the earliest disciples expected the Lord to return at any moment. This is impossible to square with the view that they expected a thousand-year period of peace to take place prior to the Lord’s return. Paul notes how the Thessalonians “turned to God from idols” as they “wait for his Son from heaven” who “rescues us from the wrath that is coming” (1 Thess. 1:9–10). So, too, he instructs his disciple Titus to teach people to “live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:12–13). The early Christians were not waiting or even working for a millennium of peace. They were waiting for Jesus to return and rescue them from a decaying world (Heb. 9:28; James 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:13; 2 Pet. 3:11–12).

Third, while the church is making great gains in some parts of the world, there is no evidence that the church is taking over, or ever will gradually take over, the world, as postmillennialists maintain. If the Lord is going to regain lordship of the earth—and he certainly will—it will take a radical supernatural act, such as his second coming, to bring it about.

In sum, then, amillennialists agree with premillennialists, over against postmillennialists, that the Lord will return at any time and that we cannot expect the world to improve significantly until he does so. But amillennialists agree with postmillenialists, over and against premillennialists, that the attempt to reconcile Revelation 20 with the rest of the New Testament’s thinking on eschatology by positing two resurrections and two judgments, separated by a thousand years, is convoluted and unnecessary.

A Supporting Argument

Church tradition. While it seems that a type of premillennialism was popular in the early church, we know that amillennialism was present as well. Its acceptance increased after being endorsed by Augustine in the fifth century. Indeed, amillennialism has arguably been the most commonly held position throughout church history, if not explicitly, then implicitly. Since Augustine, relatively few theologians have interpreted Revelation 20 literally (the premillennial view) or held out hope that the church will gradually evangelize the entire world prior to the Lord’s return (the postmillennial view).

Responding to Objections

1. The amillennial position spiritualizes Scripture. Some conservative Christians argue that the “spiritualizing” heremenuetic of amillennialism is dangerous. Not only do amillennialists interpret the thousand-year reign spoken of in Revelation 20 symbolically, but they also interpret the multitude of Old Testament prophecies about a future world peace symbolically. This approach, it is argued, allows people to interpret anything symbolically that does not fit their theological system if interpreted literally.

In response, no one takes everything in the Bible literally, for all recognize that portions of Scripture are not meant to be taken literally. This means that all Christians must discern which portions of Scripture are and are not literal. Amillennialists cannot be criticized for seeing some things as literal and other things as symbolic any more than any other Bible interpreter.

The issue is not whether someone understands some portions of Scripture to be symbolic—for all do—but whether someone decides what is and is not symbolic for good reasons. Amillennial advocates make this decision in line with established principles of exegesis and only as a particular genre of Scripture calls for it (e.g., apocalyptic, certain Old Testament prophetic texts, etc.).

2. This view offers a weak defense. Some argue that the amillennial position is unwarranted on the grounds that the case for it is largely a negative one. Its defense largely consists of a refutation of postmillennialism and premillennialism.

This approach is to be expected, however, given the nature of the controversy. After all, the other two views make a positive claim for a literal millennium, while amillennialism is, by definition, a denial that this claim is adequately grounded in Scripture. However, this does not mean that the amillennial position does not offer a constructive case for its own interpretation of biblical eschatology. Amillennialists affirm all that the New Testament teaches about the Lord’s return. They simply deny that this affirmation needs to be complicated by the insertion of a literal period of peace, either after the Lord’s return (as premillennialists hold) or before the Lord returns (as postmillennialists hold).