Views of the Millennium (Revelation 20)

Question: Glenn asks, “In Revelation 20 it refers to the 1000-year reign of Christ. Please explain the differences in the beliefs in those who are pre, post and amillennial?”

Answer: The word “millennium” is simply an English form of the Latin words mille annus, meaning a thousand years (taken, of course, from Revelation 20:4, “they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years”).

The Postmillennial View. That through the preaching of the gospel the world will eventually be christianized, bringing in a golden age (a millennium). Then the world will be fit for Christ’s return, and He will come back (“post” meaning after the millennium). This view was popular in the late 1800’s, when new inventions and discoveries signaled great progress. But two world wars dashed the hopes of most postmilliennialists that the world is getting better. There are relatively few of them today. And, of course, the view does not square with Scripture that teaches us “perilous times” will come in the last days, and “evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse” (II Tim. 3:1-5, 13).

The Amillennial View. That there is no such thing as a literal, earthly millennium (“a” meaning no). To hold this view, most amillennialists “spiritualize” the many Bible chapters describing the earthly reign of the Messiah, applying them to the church today in some symbolic sense. For example, consider what Matthew Henry (an amillennialist) does with Isaiah 11:6-9. The passage speaks of the removal of the curse upon creation, and the harmony in the natural world during the earthly reign of Christ. It refers to the wolf and the lamb dwelling together, etc. But Henry says, “Unity or concord [is] intimated in these figurative promises…men of the most fierce and furious dispositions shall have their temper so strangely altered by the grace of Christ that they shall live in love with even the weakest and such as formerly were easy prey.”

That the Lord transforms lives is quite true. The question is whether Isaiah meant that! And I would argue that he did not. The biggest problem with amillennialism is its inconsistent method of interpretation. It treats most of Scripture literally. But when it comes to many prophecies concerning Israel it resorts to “spiritualizing” (allegorizing). But then the question comes: Which Scriptures should be taken literally, and which should not? And who decides? (Matthew Henry decided those are “figurative promises,” but who gave him that right?) As the old interpreters used to say, “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.”

The Bible can best be understood with a consistently literal interpretation, duly taking into account figures of speech. (See the article regarding the interpretation of prophecy on the website.) There are approximately 1,000 individual prophecies found in the Word of God. To date, around 500 (or half) of them have been literally fulfilled. That can give us confidence that a plain, natural meaning is intended by the prophets. For example, was Christ literally born in Bethlehem as Micah predicted (Mic. 5:2)? Or are we to treat “Bethlehem” in some spiritual or symbolic way, rather than as a literal town?

The Premillennial View (the position of this website). That Christ will come back, visibly, bodily, before (“pre” meaning before) the millennium, ushering in a golden age of peace and plenty on the earth. There is an enormous amount of Scripture describing His earthly reign from the throne of David, and the nature of life on earth at that time. A consistent treatment of the Scriptures (as even some amillennialists will admit) will lead one to be a premillennialist. A good book summarizing the arguments for this position is Ryrie’s little volume The Basis of the Premillennial Faith.