Home / Academics / Division of Religion & Philosophy /

Why the Amillennial Position Makes Sense

Definition

Technically, amillennialism means “no millennium,” but amillennialists do believe in a millennium, and with conviction.  It is simply defined differently than the way other eschatological schools formulate the doctrine, especially with respect to its nature and extent.  Some prefer the term “realized millennialism” to describe the amillennial position, but this isn’t likely to replace the entrenched term “amillennialism” any time soon.  The amillennial position is simple (but not simplistic) and elegant in comparison to other views.

Its overall framework concerning end-times events

1)  Second coming as a single event with no distinction between the rapture and second coming; church goes through the tribulation

2)  One general resurrection of believers and unbelievers at the second coming

3)  One general judgment of all people at the second coming

4)  No literal earthly millennium of 1,000 years; millennium = Kingdom = present church/gospel era = time between the two advents

5)  Eternal state inaugurated at second coming after general resurrection and general judgment

The nature and extent of the amillennial millennial reign

Amillennialists believe that Christ’s millennial kingdom extends from His first coming up to the time of His second coming at the end of “this present age.”  When He comes back, it will be to a mostly unconverted world in order to judge the living and the dead in one great resurrection/judgment event involving both the righteous and unrighteous.  Then the “age to come” takes up, that is, an eternal age involving the new Jerusalem, the new earth and the new heavens.

The millennial reign of Christ is therefore now, both in heaven and on earth.  Jesus Himself declared before Pontius Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).  He reigns presently in the hearts of His new covenant people while they are on the earth – “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:33).  He also reigns in heaven over the host of the redeemed already present there and over the angels as well, most definitely a “not of this world” type of reign.

Jesus, then, is king now, and He has been ever since His ascension to heaven.  Classic dispensationalists Lewis Sperry Chafer and Charles Ryrie deny this.  But in Matthew 28:18, Jesus says just prior to ascending, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”  In Acts 17:7 Paul and Silas taught that Jesus is King now, causing an uproar.  Paul tells Gentile Christians that they’ve been transferred into Christ’s kingdom (Colossians 1:13).

The throne of David

Jesus fulfilled the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-17) when he ascended to take His seat at the right hand of God the Father.  This is borne out by two things.  First, God’s throne is at times virtually equated with David’s throne (1 Chronicles 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chronicles 9:8).  Second, Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:29-36) teaches that the Davidic promises were fulfilled when Christ was resurrected, ascending into heaven later to be seated at God’s right hand.  Yes, a descendant of David – Jesus Himself – was now on the throne as promised.  Forever. 

Some scholars tie in Daniel 7:13-14 at this point as a prophecy about Christ’s ascension.  In v. 13, the Son of Man goes up to the Ancient of Days and is presented before Him, as fulfilled in Acts 1:9.  Then, v. 14 tells us what happened after Christ ascended to the Father: “And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him.  His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.” 

Hence, His investiture as reigning King officially began at the ascension and His session at God’s right hand.  His “not of this world” kingdom-reign, marked by the proclamation of the gospel throughout the earth, extends from this point up to His second coming.

Revelation as a whole

As a whole, the book of Revelation can be interpreted by means of progressive parallelism, a respected interpretive scheme among amillennialists and others.  According to this methodology, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections that run parallel to each other, each depicting the church and the world from the time of Christ’s first coming to the time of His second.  The seven sections run like this:  chapters 1-3; 4-7; 8-11; 12-14; 15-16; 17-19; and 20-22.  In addition, each successive section reveals a certain amount of eschatological progress, hence progressive parallelism.  Therefore, Revelation 1-22 doesn’t record an orderly sequence of events from start to finish.  For example, progressive parallelism makes room for Revelation 19:11-16 to be a description of the second coming, followed by Armageddon and the beast and false prophet being cast into hell.  Then, Revelation 20:1-6 can legitimately take up with His first coming as the start of the 1,000-year millennium.

Perfect symmetry isn’t required here.  In other words, there doesn’t have to be a “first coming” type of event recorded at the beginning of each of the seven sections followed by a “second coming” type of event recorded toward the end of each of the seven sections.  Along these lines, the fourth section – chapters 12-14 – begins with a vision of a woman giving birth to a son while a dragon waits to devour him as soon as he is born, an obvious symbolic reference to Christ’s birth yet occurring in the middle of the book.  Revelation, then, doesn’t require that events be recorded in perfect chronological sequence throughout its twenty-two chapters.  Progressive parallelism is an effective system of interpretation for the book of Revelation.

The binding and loosing of Satan in Rev. 20:1-3

The “binding of Satan” (Revelation 20:2) isn’t literal in the sense of metal chains binding an evil spirit being.  It speaks instead of limiting and restricting the devil’s power across the world, beginning with Christ’s earthly ministry; His Kingdom was “at hand” (Matthew 3:2).  Nor is Satan literally sealed deep inside an abyss somewhere (20:3), because 1 Peter 5:8 states that he “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”  Granted this is a metaphor, but it denotes a freedom of sorts possessed by Satan.  Personally, I’ll take this clear metaphor over against symbolic chains and a sealed abyss to conclude that Satan is still free enough to wreak spiritual havoc upon the earth.

In Matthew 12:22-29, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Kingdom was present because God’s Spirit was casting out demons through Him.  In addition, Jesus entered the strong man’s house, Satan’s world, and began to bind his power initially through measures like exorcisms.  Luke’s parallel account in 11:14-23 also teaches this.  In Luke 10:17-20, the demons were subject to the seventy disciples in Christ’s name when they were sent out to preach, another evidence of the devil’s power being restricted.  In v. 18, Jesus said, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.”  Metaphorically, this means that Jesus saw in the works of the seventy an indication that Satan’s kingdom was being dealt a crushing blow.  Mark 3:20-27 teaches the same.

At the cross, however, Satan lost the war.  Christ’s atonement for sin was the occasion for Satan’s ultimate defeat.  After Jesus rose from the dead, Satan couldn’t “deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed” (20:3).  In other words, the gospel era of “1,000 years” had begun.  Satan can’t do anything now to prevent the spread of the gospel to the nations; the church is conquering Satan’s kingdom.  The “1,000 years” is the symbolic timeframe for Christ’s millennial reign; it’s the perfect and complete time period that God providentially allows for the spreading of the gospel between the two comings of Christ.

At the close of the present gospel era, “Satan will be released from his prison” (20:7).  The fact that he’s “released for a short time” (20:3) coincides superbly with the idea that unbelieving nations will reject – at Satan’s instigation! – all missionary and evangelistic work prior to the second coming of Christ.  The antichrist of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 will be raised up at this time “in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders” (v. 9).  The restrainer or Holy Spirit is “taken out of the way” (v. 7), not necessarily out of the world, and so Satan is allowed free reign again; he’s been loosed for a little season.  Even God sends “a deluding influence so that [persons] will believe what is false” (v. 11), because they’ve already chosen to believe Satan’s lies.

The binding and loosing of Satan, then, fits the amillennial scheme of things well.  Since Paul’s non-symbolic predictions about the end times in 2 Thessalonians 2 match the symbolic prophecies of John in Revelation 20 so well, it’s hard to see how Paul and John could both be referring to some other set of collective circumstances.

The two resurrections of Revelation 20:4-6 vs.

one general resurrection taught elsewhere in Scripture

My conscience, hermeneutically speaking, won’t allow me to use Revelation 20 to find support for a doctrine prescribing two resurrections separated by 1,000 years.  It is hermeneutically unsound to let one obscure passage in an apocalyptic writing govern the formulation of our resurrection doctrine.  It seems much more logical to read Revelation 20 after having read all the Scriptures about the resurrection preceding it, rather than making it the starting point.  This obscure passage, then, ought to be made to harmonize with all the clear passages about the resurrection, not vice versa.  Two resurrections separated by 1,000 years, therefore, can’t be substantiated by clear passages of Scripture elsewhere in the Bible. 

In brief, there will be one general resurrection of both believers and unbelievers.  See Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; and Revelation 20:11,15.

Nevertheless, a running commentary concerning 20:4-6 is needed.  Some amillennialists make the “first resurrection” spiritual, i.e., being born again, with the absent but implied “second resurrection” referring to a bodily resurrection.  The “second death” is obviously spiritual, i.e., hell, and the absent but implied “first death” is taken to be physical death.  Charges of inconsistency are levied against this interpretation regarding the use of the Greek word rendered “came to life” (ezesan), since it first gets used to mean a spiritual resurrection and used the second time to mean a physical resurrection.  Even granting this, John 5:24-25 contrasts a spiritual resurrection to a bodily resurrection found just a few verses later in vv. 28-29.  Moreover, ethnic Israel is distinguished from believing Israel in the very same verse in Romans 9:6.  Hence, the context decides, not the bare concept inconsistency.  James Hughes, Anthony Hoekema, and others, however, put forth a consistent interpretation whereby both resurrections are seen to be spiritual in nature.  Even Millard Erickson, a leading historical premillennialist, admits to its consistency.  The interpretation is as follows.

In verse 6, “This is the first resurrection,” refers back to those that “came to life and reigned with Christ” in v. 4.  It is a spiritual resurrection because the raising of actual bodies from the dead isn’t mentioned at all until vv. 11-13.  Only if one presupposes two bodily resurrections can the ezesan of v. 4 be made to refer to a bodily resurrection.  Again, the Scriptures elsewhere clearly teach only one bodily resurrection.  Those who “came to life” are souls without resurrected bodies, enjoying heavenly life and fellowship with Christ for 1,000 years, i.e., throughout the gospel era and up to the time when Christ returns to earth to raise their bodies from the grave.  Curiously, where’s the earthly millennial reign?  The scene here is in heaven.  Verses 4-6 say nothing about the earth, Jerusalem, or Jews.  The reign of these souls with Christ in heaven is going on now.

Verse 5a, then, is parenthetical.  Here ezesan also has a spiritual connotation.  The “rest of the dead” are the unbelieving dead who are not enjoying heavenly life and fellowship with Christ during the 1,000 years. The parenthesis is merely contrasting the status of the two groups of dead, unbelieving and believing.  No more, no less.  Thus, “until the thousand years were completed” doesn’t mean that the unbelieving dead will later be able to enjoy Christ after the gospel era is consummated, i.e., when the 1,000 years are up.  Rather, the until points to what will happen next to the unbelieving dead, what v. 6 calls “the second death,” or hell, the lake of fire.  After their bodies are resurrected (first mentioned only in v. 13, not in vv. 4-6), they will be cast into hell, both body and soul.

In v. 6 these born-again believers with Christ in heaven are indeed “blessed and holy,” and therefore aren’t subject to eternal punishment because “over these the second death has no power.”  But if the “first resurrection” of v. 5 is interpreted as physical, this group would already have been clothed with their glorified bodies, and so John’s emphasis on the “second death” having no power over them wouldn’t need an explanation here.

In summary, I see no earthly millennial reign of Jesus on Jerusalem’s throne in these verses, and no primarily Jewish Kingdom either.  Rather, the souls of believers with Christ are reigning from heaven with Him throughout the gospel era, more specifically from the time of their individual deaths to the time of His second coming.

One general judgment

Two judgments separated by 1,000 years can’t be substantiated either by clear passages of Scripture elsewhere in the Bible.  For example, the judgment of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46 and the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15 are one and the same event.  There will be one general judgment of both believers and unbelievers.  See Matthew 7:21,23; 13:30-43; 16:24,27; 25:31-46; Romans 2:5,16; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15; 2 Corinthians 5:9-11; and 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10.

A curse-free earthly millennium?

Old Testament Scriptures that appear to be describing an earthly, millennial reign can more appropriately be applied to the new earth and new heavens.  For example, Isaiah 11:6 states that the “wolf will dwell with the lamb,” etc.  Its parallel passage in Isaiah 65:25 utilizes almost identical imagery, “The wolf and the lamb will graze together.”  However, eight verses earlier (65:17) the text explicitly states that it’s the “new heavens and a new earth” under consideration by Isaiah.  It’s not unreasonable, then, to posit that Isaiah 11:6 speaks of this same new earth/new heavens in light of the similar language used by the same author.  Furthermore, an unambiguous New Testament passage teaching that the curse of Genesis 3 is somehow lifted or lessened at the beginning of the 1,000-year earthly millennium doesn’t exist.  Hence, there’s no way to posit a curse-free, animal-friendly world during an earthly millennium, unless your hermeneutic assumes that certain Old Testament texts teach this as opposed to describing the new earth and the new heavens.

A three-class citizenry?

Another strange scenario arises if you posit an earthly millennium.  Three groups of people will seemingly populate such a kingdom.  First, glorified saints in their resurrection bodies.  Second, unbelievers who come to Christ, whether from the generation that survived the tribulation or later generations; they are regenerate but without resurrection bodies.  And third, unbelievers who remain that way throughout their millennial lives only to die without Christ.  Imagine these three groups living side-by-side in a Jerusalem suburb, or shopping together on Ben Yehuda Street for that matter!  In addition, the glorified saints who had previously been living with Christ in heaven must now take up an earthly residence where sin and death still reign, and for an anticlimactic 1,000 years at that!  In reality, the Bible speaks nothing about these things, yet these are considered to be good and necessary inferences as far as promoting an earthly millennial kingdom goes. 

Rule over the nations with a rod of iron?

This idea of Christ ruling over the nations with a rod of iron during an earthly millennium seems to come from the King James translation of Revelation 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15, all three of which are apparently quotations from the Septuagint translation of Psalm 2:9.  Some scholars maintain, however, that it can also be translated “break the nations with a rod of iron,” which changes the meaning altogether.  Rather than Jesus coming again to “rule” over the nations with a rod of iron at the millennium, it could just as easily mean that when He comes again He will “break” his enemies with a rod of iron.  His enemies, then, will be destroyed at the second coming, not ruled over, and none will be left to enter into some earthly millennium.

Centrality of the cross

The amillennial approach makes the incarnation/crucifixion/resurrection/

ascension central to redemptive history, believing that a literal, 1,000-year reign of Christ in Jerusalem serves no further redemptive purpose in history.  All that can be done redemptively was already accomplished at the cross.  This also supports the lack of the need for an earthly millennial temple in the first place.  Why is one needed?  For sacrificing animals again to forgive sin according to old covenant prescriptions?  No, because Jesus was the final sacrifice, as the cross and the book of Hebrews attest.  For a memorial then?  No, the Lord’s Supper is our earthly memorial.  Who could improve this?  Are sacrifices to be performed in some symbolic way, as some dispensationalists say?  Then why couldn’t the description of the Ezekiel 40-48 temple itself also be symbolic?  The cross as a historical event dwarfs the significance of a millennial earthly reign.  One rarely gains this perspective from dispensational literature. 

More about Ezekiel 40-48

Dr. Peter Gentry has done research showing that Ezekiel 40-48 could never serve as a blueprint for a future temple to be built in the millennium.  Why?  Simply because the Hebrew term for “length” appears 40 times throughout these chapters, the term for “width” appears 55 times, and the term for “height” appears only once.  It couldn’t be built according to plan even if somebody wanted to, not on the basis of a single height dimension of one rod (16 ½ feet) mentioned only in connection with the wall surrounding the temple and not the temple itself.  Literalness is out, it seems, and therefore the temple must symbolize something.  But what?  Some say the perfections of Christ.  Others say that Ezekiel is asking us to place our worship of God at the center of all human endeavors, whether society, government, ecclesiastical bodies, or as individuals.

A symbolic temple accounts for other problematic issues as well.  Taken literally the priesthood gets restored, sacrifices get reestablished, unclean foods are forsaken again, and Gentiles must be circumcised in order to enter the sanctuary.  Is this really the way it’s supposed to be again?  In addition, if the four figures of Ezekiel 1 can be classified as symbolic vision, if the dry bones of Ezekiel 37 are also taken as symbolic vision, why couldn’t Ezekiel 40-48 fit this genre as well?  Interestingly, Ezekiel 40:2 “literally” states that these chapters are a vision. 

Direct Scriptural evidence for a an earthly millennium

or indirect Scriptural evidence for no earthly millennium?

Again, my conscience won’t allow me to use Revelation 20 to find support for an earthly millennial reign, the six mentions of 1,000 years notwithstanding.  What I can do, however, is turn to clear New Testament passages for purposes of demonstrating the lack of an earthly millennial reign, even the lack of its necessity.  I also find it odd that Jesus Himself never says anything directly about the earthly millennial reign over which He is made to preside.  Neither does Paul for that matter.  What Paul teaches indirectly, however, is the lack of such a reign.

Matthew 25:31-46 gives no indication of some 1,000 year period manifesting itself.  The New Testament contrasts two ages: the present age and the age to come.  There’s no evidence in the gospels, in Acts, or in the epistles as a whole that some third age must be wedged between the present age and the age to come.  In addition, the glorious throne on which Christ will sit (v. 31) isn’t an earthly millennial throne, but it’s the throne of judgment that ushers in the final age, as evident from v. 46, “These will go away into eternal punishment.”

1 Corinthians 15:23-24 says this: “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.”  In the phrase “then comes the end” (v. 24), the Greek word for “then” is eita, a word used to suggest a logical sequence between two events with no indication contextually that a long lapse of time separates the two.  Eita is used in this manner in each of the following Scriptures: Mark 4:15; Mark 4:17; Mark 4:28; Mark 8:25; Luke 8:12; John 13:5; John 19:26-27; John 20:27; 1 Corinthians 15:5; 1 Corinthians 15:7; 1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Timothy 3:10; and James 1:14-15.  Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to assign it the same meaning in 1 Corinthians 15:24.  

The context here is obviously the resurrection.  Christ was resurrected as the first fruits.  His people will be resurrected at the second coming, then (eita), that is, next in sequence without a long interval of time passing, comes the end!  The end of time.  The end of everything as far as “this present age” is concerned.  Where’s the 1,000 years?  It’s not taught here that I can see.  So when the end actually comes, Jesus hands the kingdom back over to the Father.  Why?  Because he had already reigned over it during the church age/gospel era.  Redemptive history is consummated, and by logical inference the new earth and new heavens come next. 

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 says: “For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed – for our testimony to you was believed.”

Where’s the thousand years?  Since other groups besides amillennialists say that the wicked are judged at the end of the millennium, where can the thousand years be located in this text and why are the wicked being judged at the time of the second coming itself?  The thousand years simply aren’t present but seemingly should be, if an earthly millennium is really on the verge of transpiring.

In addition, how is it possible that any single wicked person could escape this judgment and subsequent casting into hell described here, events that occur, according to the text, immediately after the second coming instead of a thousand years later?  They can’t escape!  It just won’t happen.  But since an earthly millennial reign obviously requires a population, some of whom must surely include the unsaved wicked, where will the wicked come from to populate the alleged earthly millennium if they’ve all been consigned to hell already?  Will the glorified saints, then, perhaps populate the millennium?  No, because according to Christ’s own words in Luke 20:34-36, glorified saints don’t procreate, the “sons of the resurrection” as Jesus calls them.  The census for the earthly millennium reads “Zero Population.”  This conclusion can also be drawn from Matthew 25:31-46.