Revelation 20 and the Millennial Kingdom: How Can We Know Which View Is Right? (Part 3)

In previous installations of this series, we introduced the concepts of the major millennial views and millennialism as a whole; that of the nature of a thousand year reign of Christ and His saints laid out primarily in Revelation 20. In Part 1, we laid out the “progressive parallel” model of understanding the book of Revelation as well as some foundation for preferring a view like amillennialism over that of premillennialism, especially Dispensational premillennialism. In Part 2, we looked at whether we should understand scripture as specifying a literal “thousand year” period in Revelation 20 and, given that we are perhaps living in this millennial reign today, we looked at how we should view Satan’s role in the world given that verses 1-3 talk about Satan being bound.

But Revelation 20 is a deep and full passage of scripture and there is still more truth to be drawn from it. Particularly, in Part 3, we will discuss exactly how and why we should see this millennial period to be the present day in contrast to other views. As well, verses 4-6, so far only glossed over, contain clues and further evidence for understanding the timing of the millennium. So let’s jump in!

So, About That Whole Timing Thing Again?

It occurred to me while working through the previous parts of this series that, while we had discussed the major millennial views and some of their differentiators, the actual scriptural case for amillennial timing had not been made or, in the very least, had not been made fully. And that case is an important one given that it serves as a foundation from which many other predictions and interpretations are made.

As a brief review, there are largely three categories of millennial views in regards to timing of the millennium mentioned in Revelation 20. We can lump historic premillennialism and Dispensational premillennialism together into an overarching “premillennial” view which postulates that the parousia, or second coming of Christ, occurs before the millennium. There is also postmillennialism which views the second coming as occurring after the millennial period and amillennialism which has been described as “realized millennialism” or which views the millennium as occurring today.

But while at first the views seem to be completely distinct or exclusive, the distinctions, particularly between postmillennialism and amillennialism, are not quite as pronounced as you might expect. Postmillennialism and amillennialism actually share a number of similarities, namely, that they both view the millennial period as occuring during the church age between the first and second comings of Christ. The primary distinction, then, between the two is that of extent. Amillennialism views the millennium as almost “filling up” the entirety of the church age, from the first century to the “final” century, whereas postmillennialism moreso views the church age as a progressive era that gradually morphs into the millennial era. Hoekema, paraphrasing Boettner, a noteworthy postmillennial scholar, describes the process as such: According to postmillennialism the present age will gradually merge into the millennial age as an increasingly larger proportion of the world’s inhabitants are converted to Christianity through the preaching of the gospel.”

Or, put a bit more cheekily, in the words of Kenneth Gentry, on distinguishing the differences between postmillennialism and amillennialism, “It’s easy! Amillennialism is postmillennialism without hope.”

So Which Is Right?

With the aforementioned framework in mind, for the purposes of distinguishing the millennial views in terms of timing itself, we can actually compare them a bit more easily as two groups rather than four; that of premillennialism and post/amillennialism. So the more functional question is: what scriptural evidence is there to determine the accuracy and credibility of the timing of one view over the other?

We can begin with premillennialism which offers the most stark contrast to amillennialism. One large scriptural clue that premillennialists depend on to inform their understanding of millennial timing is that of the chronology of Revelation itself. If one tries to approach Revelation in a sort of strict chronology, especially chapters 19 and 20, one very well may be left assuming that the events of the second coming of Christ and the marriage supper of the lamb occur chronologically before the events of Revelation 20. As well, scholars such as George Eldon Ladd also look to passages like I Corinthians 15:23-26, used in parallel with Revelation 20, as a sort of resurrection framework to make the case for placing the millennium in a particular position given a certain expected chronology.

There is, perhaps, no simple, clear refutation of the premillennial understanding of this logic but a cumulative case can be made. The first obvious point is that, while the premillennialist envisions a physical, earthly kingdom during the millennial period, Revelation 20 does not decisively make this case. There is much precedent throughout church history and, as seen in this series, scriptural support to understand the millennium of Revelation 20 in a very different sense. As well, there is some discrepancy in the characterization of the ruling of the saints for premillennialists. It is commonly held that those reigning with Christ during the millennium include those who were dead in Christ at His return as well as those who are still alive. But, once again, Revelation 20 only speaks of those who, “came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years,” with no mention of those still alive.

The language of Revelation 20 also provides us evidence for its timing and calibration with overall eschatological timing. Revelation 20, with its parallel section of Revelation 12, seems to describe a similar series of events, namely, that of the defeat of Satan and his forces by Christ. If we allow these passages to calibrate one another, this indeed points to an understanding of the millennium of Revelation 20 as proceeding directly after Christ’s death and resurrection. As well, the events of Revelation 20 go on to depict the final judgment in verses 11-15. So, logically, if the events within Revelation 20 itself are chronological themselves, and the second coming of Christ is coincident with the final judgment, the millennium of verses 1-6 must pre-date both events, thus establishing the millennium as occurring prior to the parousia.

In regards to I Corinthians 15, it is plainly evident that the text cannot be used as direct evidence for an earthly millennial kingdom. Given the context of the chapter, it would appear that the intent of Paul’s extrapolation of the resurrection of the saints is primarily intended to reinforce the belief of the church at Corinth in the future resurrection of believers itself; not to communicate a timeframe for future eschatological events.

As well, the premillennial framework seems to be at odds with theological underpinnings in scripture as well as scripture itself. For instance, the concept that Christ Himself would return to earth to physically reign over a kingdom in which sin and death still exist and enemies still war against the church seems out of place with the whole of scripture. Indeed, there seems to be little evidence of an “intermediate” stage between the Lord’s return to a fallen world and His judgment and the creation of a new heavens and new earth. Passages such as Matthew 25:31-46, I Corinthians 4:5, and II Peter 3:10-13 speak in terms of a finality, stark contrast, and quick procession of Christ’s return, judgment, and restoration.

What About Postmillennialism?

As we previously mentioned, postmillennialism offers us a much more compatible view with which to start from and many of the key tenets held by amillennialists are also shared, at least in part, with postmillennialism. The majority of disagreements or incompatibilities between the two views revolves around one key difference in outlook, that is, what the church can or should expect the world to be like for the remainder of the church age until Christ’s return. Will the future continually improve to the point of an idyllic state of Christianization for a long period of time prior to the parousia, as postmillenialists hold? Or is there still something of a tribulation and troubled future for Christianity in the future?

That is not to say that this distinction is not or cannot be an important or influential one. Indeed, the outlook one has for the future can greatly affect how one views evangelism, current events, or even the nature of God.

But we would be amiss not to discuss some scriptural support for amillennialism over postmillennialism or the differences in interpretation between the two schools. There are a number of passages, largely prophetic in nature, which illuminate the differences in expectations and interpretation between amillennialism and postmillennialism. Passages like Psalm 2:8, Isaiah 2:4 with its language describing the nations “beat[ing] their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks” could be understood, as postmillennialists largely do, as describing a peaceful millennial state. But on the face of many of these passages there exists no overarching reason why these passages can not describe the final, new creation state; to do so without particular justification in each case would be to assume something the text does not demand.

Another large area prone to disagreement between amillennialists and postmillennialists would be the apocalyptic sections of scripture related to the Great Tribulation, mentioned in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, and the II Thessalonians apostasy. While likely not held by all postmillennialists, many would hold to a certain preterist interpretation of these passages that would affirm that these events were fulfilled entirely within the first century with no expectation of a future fulfillment. Entire volumes have been written in analysis of these passages alone and I hope to go into them more fully in the future. To be honest, such preterist interpretations pose perhaps the greatest temptation towards a modern postmillennial view that I have so far encountered.

What Does the Description of the Saints in Verses 4-6 Tell Us About the Millennium?

We can, however, look to verses 4-6 of Revelation 20 for some possible clarity to further cement a proper interpretation of the nature of the millennial age. The reasons for this are quite apparent upon some inspection. If verses 4-6 describe the process and purpose of the rule and reign of saints with Christ during the millennial age, and either premillennialism or postmillennialism demands some form of earthly manifestation of this kingdom, then we should be able to compare scripture here with the overall view and expectation of those views. Let us take a moment to review the passage in its entirety.

“4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those 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 for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”

As mentioned previously, premillennialists and even postmillennialists have a bit of a problem when it comes to imposing an earthly millennial state on the text. The language of verse 4 and 5 seems to clearly speak of those who are dead in Christ as taking part in a resurrection of sorts and reigning with Christ. But if the text is actually describing an earthly reign, what then of those believers still alive, either alive at the time of the parousia in the case of premillennialism, or alive during the gradual transition periods toward the idyllic millennial state in the case of postmillennialism. In fact, the language actually seems in some cases to disqualify any such reading, with language hearkening to “those who had been beheaded,” explicit references to these saints coming to life, and the explicit reference in verse 5 of “the rest of the dead.” As well, if indeed otherwise normal lifespans were still in effect for mankind, verse 6 seems to further disqualify a physical millennial state in its declaration that “they will reign with him for a thousand years.” Regardless of whether the millennial period is a literal thousand years in length or simply a very long but finite period of time, a lifespan that long given the current conditions on earth does not seem to be warranted or reasonable in this case.

The Bottom Line

I hope this series has been helpful to you in understanding better how amillennialism represents one of the most credible views, if not the most credible, on the millennium and eschatology as a whole. I certainly was not aware of just how much theology stemmed from six simple verses in Revelation. I have also been left with a reminder of just how rich scripture can be in general and how interconnected it can be. I hope that you have been left with a similar impression and that this study has rekindled a desire to understand scripture better and to be confident in your interpretation of it, whether it matches my own or not.