The meaning of the Millennium

Bob_Dylan_-_Slow_Train_ComingIt is curious that we get more excited about the supposed events leading up to Jesus’ second coming than we do about what that coming itself will bring. It is a bit like being more excited about the fixtures and fittings on a train than where the train is actually going to take you.

My previous post addressed the confusions that arise from misreading the ‘little apocalypse’ in Matthew 24, and I have posted elsewhere about Mark 13 and about the doctrine of ‘the rapture‘, as well as some of Jesus’ teaching about judgement. I am posting here a brief overview I wrote some years ago of approaches to the millennium in Rev 20.1–6. The content is posted below, and the original handout is attached as a document.

What does it say?
That Christ will come (pre the millennium) (19.11), Satan is bound (20.2), then the saints will rule on earth with Christ for 1000 actual years (20.6), after which Satan is released (20.7), judgement takes place (20.11), and there is an end to death (20.14).

Who believes this?
This was the dominant view of the early church and commentators on Revelation until Augustine. It still has adherents (such as G E Ladd).

What is good about it?
It takes the order of Rev 19 and 20 at face value, and takes seriously the earthly dimension of Christ’s return.

What are its disadvantages?
It takes the millennium literally alone of all the numbers in Revelation. It does not pay attention to the complexities of the passages. It is hard to reconcile the idea of an interim kingdom of God on earth with what the rest of the NT says.

Dispensational Premillennialism
What does it say?
Additionally that prior to Christ’s return, there will be a ‘rapture’ of the saints, who will escape the subsequent ‘tribulation’ of three-and-a-half years (a half-week of years, Dan 9.27).

Who believes this?
This is widespread in North America. Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth. It was first proposed by J N Darby, one of the founders of the Brethren movement, and published in the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.

What is good about it?
It urges on people the need to make a positive decision to follow Christ.

What are its disadvantages?
It assembles texts all over the NT into a chronological jigsaw, disregarding their original meanings: Matt 24.40, 1 Thess 4.13–18, Rev 3.10, Ps 90.4/2 Peter 3.8. The word ‘tribulation’ simply means ‘suffering’. The clear message of Rev and the gospels (eg Matt 24.29) is that Jesus will return for his own after the period of suffering—Christians are not exempt.

What does it say?
That there will be no literal or future 100 years. The term refers to the in-between time from Jesus’ resurrection to his second coming.

Who believes this?
It was first proposed by Augustine in the early fifth century in City of God, and is a widely-held view today. 

What is good about it?
It avoids a materialistic view of the future and literalism. Makes Revelation easier to relate to what the rest of the NT says about Jesus’ return, and the millennium relevant to Christians now, as we are in it!

What are its disadvantages?
It supposes that Rev 20.1 steps back in time to Jesus’ time, when in Revelation it appears still to be future. The first resurrection (20.5) is simply the presence of the martyrs with Christ in heaven, which is unlikely. 1000 is not square or rectangular, so does not relate to 1260 days or 42 months.

What does it say?
That Rev 20.1 is a step back, but to some point in history after Jesus’ resurrection. Thus there is a golden age of the Spirit on earth before Christ returns.

Who believes this?
Joachim of Fiore proposed this in the twelfth century, and it was popular during the social optimism of the 18th and 19th centuries among people like Wilberforce. No-one really holds to it since the trauma of the First World War.

What is good about it?
It motivates social reform and involvement.

What are its disadvantages?
It is hard to square with the details of the text, and there is little evidence of a new millennial age in the world at large.

You can download the document as a table here: Four views of Millennium

In fact, none of these schemes is satisfactory, since they treat the millennium chronologically rather than theologically—they think that it is one event in a sequence, rather than being one way of explaining Jesus’ return set amongst other ways of understanding it. Rev 19–21 actually contains seven unnumbered visions, each of which starts with the phrase ‘And I saw…’ at Rev 19.11, 19.17, 19.19, 20.1, 20.4, 20.11, 21.1. As with other series in Revelation, we need to read them concurrently rather than sequentially, as giving a range of different insights into the meaning of Jesus’ return. Since Jesus was, is and will be the answer to all God’s promises in Scripture, it is perhaps no surprise that each of these dimensions has its roots in the Old Testament. This is my summary of the key themes we find in these chapters:

  • Justice will conquer (19.11)
  • The Word will prevail (19.15)
  • Deception will die (19.20, 20.10)
  • The saints are vindicated (20.4)
  • Heavens and earth will be remade (20.11, 21.1)
  • Death will be no more (20.14, 21.4)
  • God is present with his people (21.3, 21.16)

31CQCEwOOlLSome years ago Mike Gilbertson wrote a really helpful Grove booklet on this, The Meaning of the Millennium. He summarises the theological significance of the millennium under the following headings:

  • The victory of God
  • The lordship of Christ
  • The vindication of the saints
  • The renewal of the earth

Mike concludes:

In this booklet, I have argued that the millennium of Revelation 20 is a rich and powerful symbol with important implications for our understanding of God’s relationship with the world. I have also suggested that the long-established debates between the various traditional approaches to the text (premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism) tend sometimes to obscure the theological significance of the passage. The approach I have adopted is to see the millennium neither as the prediction of a literal future state, nor as a time- less abstraction. Rather, I have interpreted it as a symbol which conveys key truths about God’s plan to execute his justice and renew the world. The symbol is situated in the future, but has profound implications for how we live now…

The biblical vision of the triumph of God, the lordship of Christ, God’s vindication of his people, and his commitment to transform the earth, provides the church with compelling resources to speak prophetically and relevantly in this contemporary context. The symbol of the millennium helps us to affirm profound hope for the present and the future in the light of the ultimate power of God’s love and justice.

It is well worth a read—it is really time we got more excited about where the train is taking us!

Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.

Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

6 thoughts on “The meaning of the Millennium”

  1. Being brought up in the Plymouth Brethren, then the Baptists, then the Elim Church/Assemblies of God before loosing all faith and years latter finding it in a very reflective C of E service. I have always found these readings and this discussion something between Christian water boarding and incoherence.

    So thank you for your clear and brief description!

    I increasingly am drawn to Apologetics and am hoping to find an MA level course but wonder how this helps us defend our belief and expand its influence, in a positive manner.

  2. This is a very interesting and helpful post Ian. I have much sympathy with Paul above and his disillusionment with so-called evangelical theology. The kind of thinking you describe is endemic within conservative and evangelical approaches to the Bible and owes much to a strict emphasis on the functional literalism of words which are divorced from their historicity, culture and context. This is coupled with a particular mindset that borders on treating the Bible as an idol and breeds a herd instinct often focused around prominent personalities.

    Such proponents boast on their soundness of biblical interpretation whereas they are in many cases, adopting a very unsound approach to scripture. The assumption that the literal ‘plain meaning’ of the text is the correct interpretation in the absence of any indication of allegorical, poetic or symbolic genre is simply a claim that the Bible never asserts for itself.

    Having come to faith in a strong evangelical landscape I have latterly come to see that starting point for all or most Biblical interpretation is to ensure that you are certain that you are reading the meaning of the text as it was intended for the original reader. If you cannot clearly demonstrate that you know this, then you really shouldn’t comment.

    The thing is, – that determining what the text meant to the original reader requires effort and careful study. I have found that in many evangelical churches it’s much easier to just work with the functional meaning of words to produce an interpretation rather that do the necessary research to determine their contemporary usage. It’s too much like hard work for the average evangelical.

    As one who would consider himself an evangelical of the conservative kind, I think I have been protected from much functional literalism by my strong scientific and mathematical training. This has caused me to examine much of the assertions made by evangelical functional literalists and I have searched far and wide to endeavour to put myself into the mind of those for whom the text was originally written. As a result I have found that my faith has been deepened, placed on a firmer footing, my confidence in the Bible as being the authoritative word of God strengthened and I have been set free from a number of misconceptions that troubled and held me back in developing as a Christian. I have also not turned into a liberal!

    So If you are still tuned in Paul, then do not be disheartened. Ultimately your faith rests on a living relationship with God and not on a doctrinally accurate set of theological suppositions. The basic message of the Bible can be understood by a little child. We only know in part but if you continue to trust in Him then in time He will make things clearer and lead you through to the light at the end.

  3. I agree that the debates between the traditional interpretations often cause us to overlook the theological significance of Rev 20—this is a critical point. However, you said in this post that Augustine was the first to propose amillennialism. This is often asserted in one way or another, but it is incorrect. It is true that this view was popularized through Augustine’s influence. However, both Irenaeus and Justin Martyr refer to other orthodox Christians who rejected their premillennialism in favor of what could reasonably be called amillennialism. The issue, according to Irenaeus, is that those who rejected his view believed in a heavenly intermediate state, whereas he and other premillennialists believed that even the righteous dead remained in Hades until the resurrection because they needed to follow the pattern of Jesus. Therefore, when we look at the early Christian sources that do not show evidence of belief in an earthly millennium, and which also express the hope of a heavenly intermediate state for Christians, based on what Irenaeus says we should place them in the non-premillennial camp. Charles Hill treated this issue in detail in his Cambridge dissertation, which has been published as Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity (Eerdmans, 2001). I highly recommend this book. I also very much look forward to working through your recently published commentary on Revelation.

  4. This is very helpful. I lean strongly to historic premillennialism of the George Ladd flavor. As Ian points out, this was the predominant view of the early church fathers.

    I reject dispensational views on the issue, as well as Postmill views.

    However, I respect all views, since I am certain that all are wrong to some extent. The one thing I am certain about is the Jesus is coming, and I long for his perousia!

  5. I grew up in dispensational churches. I am drawn to amillennialism until I read Rev 20. There I find the notion of a ‘spiritual resurrection’ very weak.

    I’m not sure how the millennium as a ‘symbol’ works. Mike writes, ‘The approach I have adopted is to see the millennium neither as the prediction of a literal future state, nor as a time- less abstraction. Rather, I have interpreted it as a symbol which conveys key truths about God’s plan to execute his justice and renew the world. The symbol is situated in the future, but has profound implications for how we live now.’

    A symbol of what? If it is not a time-less abstraction I cannot see how it can be other than a concrete reality. Mike admits as much. I see this best served by a premillennial interpretation.

    I don’t think chronology can be avoided. It is explicit in the passage. The binding of Satan is in contrast to his activity in previous chapters. Eventually he is consigned to the Lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already are and at the end of the 1000 years will be released for a little while – more sequence and chronology. Earlier we read of the martyrs now these martyrs come to life and reign for a 1000 years. The thousand years need not be literal but they express a timespan. The timespan progresses towards an end of rebellion. I think chronology is both intended and unavoidable.

    I acknowledge difficulties. Especially the rebellion. It seems John leans heavily on Ezek 38,39. Most of us want to see evil wrapped up entirely at the Second Coming. It is much neater but it seems that Scripture does not fully allow it.

  6. John Thomson is absolutely correct above in saying about the millennium that “I don’t think chronology can be avoided. It is explicit in the passage.” It is indeed.

    There are two texts in Revelation we can compare that tell us quite plainly that the MILLENNIUM HAD ALREADY EXPIRED before John was writing Revelation. Those texts are Revelation 20:3 & 7 compared with Revelation 12:12.

    First of all, we read in Revelation 20:3 & 7 that Satan was going to be loosed at the EXPIRATION and the FULFILLMENT of the millennium, and his loosing would only last for a “little season”.

    Next, we compare this with Revelation 12:12 where John warned those of his generation, “Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a SHORT TIME.” This then-present “short time” of Satan’s release in John’s days was the very same timespan as the “LITTLE SEASON” of Satan’s loosing in Revelation 20, which was AFTER the millennium was fulfilled and expired.

    Putting these two texts together, we can know for certain that the millennium was in the past as of the time John was writing Revelation, since Satan’s “short time” / “little season” (at the end of the millennium) had already begun by then.

    We also have the information in the Revelation 20:5 verse that the millennium would be “finished” at the point when the “First resurrection” had occurred, at the same time when a “remnant of the dead came to life” at the end of those thousand years. This “First resurrection” was the one in AD 33 when Christ rose from the dead, and the Matthew 27:52-53 “remnant of the dead” came to life again on that same day of Christ’s resurrection. The “First resurrection” is that of “Christ the First-fruits of them that slept”, the “First-born”, and the “First-begotten”.

    This Revelation 20:5 verse tells us that the millennium essentially was finished at the “First resurrection” in AD 33, which agrees with the two compared verses just listed above, that prove a fulfilled millennium BEFORE John was writing Revelation.

    I believe this millennium was an exact, literal thousand years, extending backward in time to the occasion of Solomon’s foundation stone being laid down for the Temple in 968 / 967 BC. This millennium period represented a literal thousand years of a PHYSICAL Temple worship system: a type that looked forward in time to the ascended Christ becoming the True “foundation stone” – the “chief cornerstone” of the SPIRITUAL Temple not made with hands, and composed of believers as “living stones” built upon that foundation.

    Satan’s deception of the nations was chained during that thousand years, by the marked increase in the ministries of the prophets and their spoken and written work. “The entrance of thy Words giveth light”. Therefore, any time a prophet opened his mouth and said “Thus saith the Lord…”, the level of spiritual darkness was being reduced further, and Satan’s deception continued to be chained.

    The nations may have still acted wickedly in spite of this, but at least they could not claim to be ignorantly deceived by Satan after they had heard about Israel’s God. Any sin committed during this period, even in the face of this knowledge about the God of Israel, was done deliberately, and not by Satan’s deception. Or any remaining deception came from their own hearts, and not from Satan’s efforts to delude them.

    I have found that much of the supposed descriptions of the millennium have either been greatly exaggerated and / or mistakenly removed from other contexts and forced into a millennium setting where they do not belong.


Leave a comment