THE MILLENNIUM: Arguments for Amillennialism

Before examining the arguments for the three different positions of the Millennium, it is important to realize that the interpretation of the details of prophetic passages regarding future events is often a complex and difficult task involving many variable factors.  The degree of certainty that attaches to this conclusions in this area will be less than with many other doctrines. I think it important for evangelicals to recognize that this area of study is complex and to extend a large measure of grace to others who hold different views regarding the millennium and the tribulation period.

In favor of the Amillennial view, the following arguments are advanced:

1)       When we look through the whole of the Bible, amillennialists will say, only one passage (Revelation 20:1-6) appears to teach a future earthly millennial rule of Christ, and that passage is itself obscure. It is unwise to base such a major doctrine on one passage of uncertain and widely disputed interpretation.

But how do amillennialists understand Revelation 20:1-6? The amillennial inter­pretation sees this passage as referring to the present church age. The passage reads as follows:

Then I saw an angel coining down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound hint for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while.

Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testi­mony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to lite until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years.

According to the amillennial interpretation the binding of Satan in verses 1-2 is the binding that occurred during Jesus’ earthly ministry. He spoke of binding the strong man in order that he may plunder his house (Matthew 12:29) and said that the Spirit of God was at that time present in power to triumph over demonic forces: “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28). Similarly, with respect to the breaking of Satan’s power, Jesus said during his ministry, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18).

The amillennialist argues that this binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1 – 3 is for a specific purpose: “that he should deceive the nations no more” (verse 3). This is exactly what happened when Jesus came and the gospel began to be proclaimed not simply to Jews but, after Pentecost, to all the nations of the world. In fact, the worldwide missionary activity of the church, and the presence of the church in most or all of the nations of the world, shows that the power that Satan had in the Old Testament, to “deceive the nations” and keep them in darkness, has been broken.

On the amillennialist view the scene described in verse 4 occurs in heaven: John said, “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” (verse 4). Since John sees “souls” and not physical bodies, it is argued, this scene must be occurring in heaven. When the text says that “They came to life” it does not mean that they received a bodily resurrec­tion. It possibly means simply that “they lived,” since the aorist verb ezesan can readily be interpreted to be a statement of an event that occurred over a long period of time. On the other hand, some amillennial interpreters will take the verb ezesan to mean “they came to life” in the sense of coming into heavenly existence in the presence of Christ and beginning to reign with him from heaven.

According to this view, the phrase “first resurrection” (verse 5) refers to going to heaven to be with the Lord. This is not a bodily resurrection but a coming into the presence of God in heaven. In a similar way, when verse 5 says, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended, “this is understood to mean they did not come into God’s presence for judgment until the end of the thousand years. So in both verses 4 and 5, the phrase “come to life” means “come into the presence of God.” (Another amillennial view of “first resurrection” is that it refers to the resurrection of Christ, and to believers’ participation in Christ’s resurrection through union with Christ.)

2)       A second argument often proposed in favor of amillennialism is the fact that Scrip­ture teaches only one resurrection, when both believers and unbelievers will be raised, not two resurrections (a resurrection of believers before the millennium begins, and a resurrection of unbelievers to judgment after the end of the millennium). This is an important argument, because the premillennial view equires two separate resurrections, separated by a thousand years.

Evidence in favor of only one resurrection is found in at least three passages. Jesus says, “The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29). Here Jesus speaks of a single “hour” when both believing and unbelieving dead will come forth from the tombs. Similarly, when Paul is on trial before Felix he explains that he has a hope in God that his Jewish opponents also accept “that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust” (Acts 24:15). Once again, he speaks of a single resurrection of both believers and unbe­lievers. Finally, we read in Daniel: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2).

3)       If Christ comes in glory to reign on the earth, then how could people still persist in sin? Once Jesus is actually present in his resurrection body and reigning as King over the earth, does it not seem highly unlikely that people would still reject him, and that evil and rebellion would grow on the earth until eventually Satan could gather the nations for battle against Christ?

4)       There seems to be no convincing purpose for such a millennium. Once the church age has ended and Christ has returned, then what is the reason for delaying the start of the eternal state?

In conclusion, amillennialists say that Scripture seems to indicate that all the major events yet to come before the eternal state will occur at once. Christ will return, there will be one resurrection of believers and unbelievers, the final judgment will take place, and a new heaven and new earth will be established. Then we will enter immediately into the eternal state, with no future millennium.

At this point we can respond briefly to these amillennialist arguments, though on some points a fuller answer will be developed in the arguments for premillennialism.

In response to the objection that only one passage teaches a future earthly millennium, several comments can be made:

The Bible only needs to say something once in order for it to be true and something that we must believe. The story of the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel, for example, is only taught in Genesis 11:1 – 9, yet we believe it to be true because Scripture teaches it. Similarly, even if only one passage taught a future millennial reign of Christ, we still should believe it.

It is not surprising that this doctrine should be clearly taught in the book of Revelation. There was somewhat of a similar situation at the end of the Old Testament era. The entire Old Testament has no explicit teaching to the effect that the Messiah would come twice, once as a suffering Messiah who would die and rise again, earning our salvation, and then later as a conquering King to rule over the earth. The first and second comings of Christ may be hinted at in the Old Testament prophets, but they are nowhere explicitly taught, because God did not deem it necessary to reveal that amount of detail about his plan of redemption before it happened. Similarly, in several of the Old and New Testament books leading up to the time of the writing of Revelation, there are hints of a future earthly millennium prior to the eternal state, but the explicit teaching about it was left until John wrote Revelation. Since Revelation is the New Testament book that most explicitly teaches about things yet future, it is appropriate that this more explicit revelation of the future millennium would be put at this point in the Bible.

In response to the allegation that the passage that teaches a millennium is obscure, premillennialists respond that they do not find it obscure at all. They argue that one advantage of the premillennial position is that it understands Revelation 20:1- 6 in a straightforward sense: the text says that Satan will be bound and cast into the bottom­less pit for a thousand years, and the premillennialist says a time is coming when Satan will be bound and cast into a bottomless pit for a thousand years. The text speaks of a thousand-year reign of Christ, and the premillennialist expects a future thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. It speaks of those raised in the “first resurrection,” and the premillennialist says that there will be a first resurrection of believers who are “blessed and holy” (Revelation 20:6) and a second resurrection at the end of the thousand years “for the rest of the dead” (verse 5). According to premillennialists, “obscurity” only enters the pas­sage when an interpreter tries to find in it something other than such a straightforward interpretation.

Finally, many premillennialists argue that several other passages, especially in the Old Testament, require us to believe in a future period that is far greater than the present age but that still falls short of the eternal state (see Psalm 72:8 -14; Isaiah 11:2-9; 65:20; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). These passages portray a period that looks very much like the millennium as they understand it.

With respect to the interpretation of Revelation 20:1 – 6 as given by amillennialists, several difficulties arise. Although Matthew 12:28-29 and Luke 10:18 do speak of a “binding” of Satan during Jesus’ earthly ministry, the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20 seems to be much more extensive than that. The passage does not simply say that Satan is bound at this time, but speaks of “the bottomless pit” and says that the angel that came down from heaven “threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended” (Revelation 20:2-3). More than a mere binding or restriction of activity is in view here. The imagery of throwing Satan into a pit and shutting it and sealing it over him gives a picture of total removal from influence on the earth. To say that Satan is now in a bottomless pit that is shut and sealed over simply does not fit the present world situation during the church age, in which Satan’s activity is still very strong, in which he “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8), in which he can fill someone’s heart “to lie to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:3), and in which “what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God” (1 Corinthians 10:20).

Even after the binding of Satan during Jesus’ ministry, it remains true that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4). This is why Christians still must contend not “against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). This is because even during the church age, though the gospel is able to come with triumph and break down the forces of demonic opposition to the spread of the kingdom of God, nonetheless Satan’s influence has not fully been removed from the world: “The spirit of antichrist … is in the world already” (1 John 4:3), and, in fact, “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). This repeated theme in the New Testament, the theme of Satan’s continual activity on earth throughout the church age, makes it extremely difficult to think that Satan has been thrown into the bottomless pit, and it has been shut and sealed over for a thousand years. That imagery can only speak of the total removal of Satan’s active influence from the earth.

But what can be said with respect to the fact that amillennialists say that the bind­ing and imprisonment of Satan in Revelation 20 is said to be “that he should deceive the nations no more” (verse 3)? Does that not simply mean that the gospel can now be preached effectively among the nations? While the phrase might mean that, it seems more consis­tent with the use of the word deceived (Greek planao), especially in Revelation, to say that this is a deception that is now going on during the entire church age and that ends only when the millennium begins. Satan is called the one “who deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:9), and the sorcery of Babylon is said to have “deceived” “all nations” before its judgment comes (Revelation 18:23). Therefore, it seems more appropriate to say that Satan is now still deceiving the nations, but at the beginning of the millennium this deceptive influence will be removed. There was an even greater deception before Christ came, but there is still significant deception that remains today.

The fact that John saw “souls” in his vision does not require that the scene be set in heaven. Since these souls are persons who then “came to life” in “the first resurrection” we should see these as people who obtained resurrection bodies and who began to reign on the earth. Moreover, Revelation 20:1 indicates that the scene is focused on events on the earth, for it says, “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven.” But if the angel came down from heaven, then he carries out his activity on the earth, and the entire scene is set on the earth.

Does Scripture teach only one resurrection, so that believers and unbelievers will be raised at the same time? It is hard to accept this when we realize that Revelation 20 explicitly speaks about “the first resurrection,” thus implying that there will be a second resurrection as well. Speaking of those who came to life and reigned with Christ a thou­sand years, we read, “This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power” (verses 5 – 6). The passage distinguishes those who share in this first resurrection and are blessed from others who do not share in it. They are “the rest of the dead” and the implication is that “the second death” (that is, facing final judgment and being condemned to eternal punishment away from the presence of God) does have power over them, and they will experience it. But if this passage clearly teaches a first resurrection, and the fact that the rest of the dead will come to life at the end of a thousand years, then there is clear teaching on two separate resurrections here in Revelation 20.

As for the other passages that amillennialists claim to support the view that there is only one resurrection, it must be said that those passages do not exclude the idea of two resurrections, but they simply do not specify whether or not the resurrection of believers and unbelievers will be separated in time. In fact, Jesus’ statement in John 5 does hint at the possibility of two resurrections. He says that those who are in the tombs will come forth, “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29). In this way Jesus in fact speaks of two different resurrections.

As for Daniel 12:2, it simply says that those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, “some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” but it does not specify whether this will happen simultaneously or at different times. It simply says that both types of people will be raised. The same is true of Acts 24:15, where Paul says there will be “a resurrection of both the just and the unjust: This affirms that both types of people will be raised from the dead, but it does not exclude the possibility that this would happen at different times. All of these verses, in the absence of Revelation 20:5 – 6, might or might not be speaking of a single future time of resurrection. But with the explicit teaching of Revelation 20:5 – 6 about two resur­rections, these verses must be understood to refer to the future certainty of a resur­rection for each type of person, without specifying that those resurrections will be separated in time.

It is certainly not impossible that evil and secret rebellion could persist on the earth in spite of the bodily presence of Christ reigning as King. We must remember that Judas lived with Jesus on the closest terms for three years, and still betrayed him. Many of the Pharisees saw Jesus’ miracles, and even saw him raising people from the dead, and still did not believe. In fact, even when the disciples were in the presence of the glorified Lord Jesus, we read that “some doubted” (Matthew 28:17). Such persistent unbelief in the very presence of Christ is hard to understand, but we must remember that Satan himself fell from an exalted position in the presence of God in heaven.

When the amillennialists object that people could not persist in sin in the presence of Christ’s bodily reign on the earth, their position simply fails to realize the deep-seated and highly irrational nature of sin. It also fails fully to reckon with the fact that even “massive proof” and “undeniable evidence” cannot compel genuine conversion. Genuine repentance and faith is brought about by the enabling and persuasive work of the Holy Spirit in people’s hearts. Such is the irrational nature of sin that those who are “dead in trespasses and sins” will often persist in rebellion and unbelief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.15

This is not to say that no one will be converted to Christ during the millennium. No doubt millions of people will become Christians during that time, and the influence of the reign of Christ will permeate into every aspect of every society in the world. Yet at the same time it is not at all difficult to understand how evil and rebellion will grow simultaneously.

God may have several purposes in mind for a future millennium, not all of which may now be clear to us. But certainly such a millennium would show the outworking of God’s good purposes in the structures of society, especially the structures of the family and civil government. During the church age, the good purposes of God are primarily seen in individual lives and the blessings that come to those who believe in Christ. To some extent now (and to a greater extent in times of revival) this affects civil government and educational institutions and corporations, and to a larger extent it affects the family. But in none of these structures are God’s good purposes manifested to the extent they could be, showing God’s great wisdom and goodness not only in his plans for individuals but also for societal structures. In the millennium the beauty of God’s wisdom will show forth to his glory from all of these societal structures.

The millennium will further vindicate God’s righteousness. The fact that some continue in sin and unbelief will show that “sin— rebellion against God—is not due to an evil society or to a bad environment. It is due to the sinfulness of the hearts of men. The justice of God will be fully vindicated in the day of final judgment.” With Satan bound for a thousand years, the fact that sin can persist will also show that the ultimate blame for sin is not demonic influence in people’s lives but deep-rooted sinfulness in people’s hearts.

The entire scope of the Bible reveals to us that it is God’s good pleasure to unfold his purposes and reveal more and more of his glory gradually over time. From the calling of Abraham to the birth of Isaac, the sojourn in Egypt and the exodus, the establishment of the people in the promised land, the Davidic kingdom and the divided monarchy, the exile and return with the rebuilding of the temple, the preservation of a faithful remnant, and finally the coming of Jesus in the flesh, God’s purposes were increasingly seen to be glorious and wonderful. Even in Jesus’ life the progressive revealing of his glory took thirty-three years, culminating in the last three years of his life. Then in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, the completion of our redemption was accom­plished. Yet the spread of the church throughout all nations has now occupied over 1,900 years, and we do not know how long it is to continue. All this is to say that God’s way is not to bring to realization all of his good purposes at once, but to unfold them gradually over time. This is so even in the individual lives of Christians, who grow daily in grace and in fellowship with God and in likeness to Christ. It would not be surprising if, before the eternal state, God instituted one final step in the progressive unfolding of the history of redemption. It would serve to increase his glory as men and angels look on in amazement at the wonder of God’s wisdom and plan.

Finally, a major objection to amillennialism must continue to be the fact that it can propose no really satisfying explanation of Revelation 20.

The Millennuim: The three major views, Last week, October 8, 2017

Arguments for Amillennialism, this week, October 15, 2017

Arguments for Postmillennialism, next week, October 22, 2017

Arguments for Premillennialism, in two weeks, October 29, 2017