FRIDAY
I don’t know why, but every time I hear “Millennium” I hear Buzz Lightyear in my head saying, “To infinity and beyond!” I don’t know why; they don’t even sound alike. But anyway, there’s your introduction to my weird brain. You’re welcome!
Before we get into the different views on the Millennium, I think it would be wise to return to the Apostle’s Creed. The views that we must hold as Christians are 1. Christ will return to judge the living and the dead, and 2. There will be a bodily resurrection, 3. There will be life everlasting. That’s it! The rest of what we are discussing, here, is just our best attempt to understand what the text is saying. Therefore, we can hold this in the most open of hands. Most of this theology is based on this one text in Revelation, which as you’ve hopefully come to see, Apocalyptic literature is incredibly difficult to interpret.
That said, if this doesn’t help you in your faith, feel free to leave it and stick to the essentials we discussed above. However, part of my goal is to show you the difficulty of interpreting a passage like this, so that you will hold this theology with an open hand and show grace to those who view it differently. It can be unhelpful to oversimplify a complicated topic. Sometimes we are taught or just come to believe that truly difficult theologies are quite simple. This often leads us to view our perspective as the only biblical interpretation. This is a mistake on secondary theologies like this. This approach leads us to be overly critical, judgmental, and dogmatic against those who come to a different conclusion. Remember, this is a truth that we are still learning and will always still be learning until these events happen or Christ reveals it.
So, here is a brief outline of the primary views on what is called the Millennium—the 1,000 year reign of Christ that we mentioned this week. These are named according to when Christ is thought to return. Of course, these are very brief overviews.
- Postmillennialism
- Amillennialism
- Premillennialism
This view and Amillenialism are similar, in that Christ returns after the 1,000 year reign. What distinguishes them is that postmillennials think that the gospel will progress and increase peace and righteousness in the world, bringing about Christ’s return. In this view Satan is bound at the cross or another time in history. The coming to life in 20:4 refers to regeneration or salvation of the believers. Historical iterations of this view have involved the use of political powers to further the gospel in the world and essentially bring about the new creation. We saw this in Christendom and even in American history. On this Schreiner writes:
“A secular version of the postmillennial hope emerged, especially in American history, with the notion of “manifest destiny.” Nations like the United States began to think that they would be the engine by which the world would be transformed, but the hope that the United States and Western European nations would be the vanguard of worldwide change collapsed with the two world wars in the twentieth century. In addition, the burnish on Western civilizations dimmed considerably as people recognized the exploitation and mistreatment of other cultures and countries that came under Western colonial influence. Evangelical postmillennialists today, on the other hand, distinguish themselves sharply from this secular vision, contending that the transformation of the world will not be achieved through Western civilization and advancing technology but through the proclamation of the gospel.” - Thomas R. Schreiner, Revelation, 664.
In this view Satan was bound at the cross as well and the 1,000 year reign should not be interpreted literally. Throwing Satan into the abyss is the same event as Satan being thrown to earth in 12:7-9. This view argues that Satan is bound in the abyss now in the sense that he can no longer deceive the nations in the same way that he did before Christ. His power and influence has been diminished greatly from the Old Testament era. The first resurrection in 20:4 is either regeneration or the intermediate state (the time from death to the resurrection of the body) of believers. The battles in chapter 16, 19 and 20 are all referencing the same thing.
In this view Jesus returns to begin the 1,000 year reign. Most take this as a literal period of time, some exactly 1,000 years while others take it to mean a long period of time. The battles in chapters 19 and 16 are describing the same thing (Armageddon) but the battle in 20 is different. The nations are clearly still misled by the devil so it’s hard to square that with the idea of him being thrown into the abyss, as the postmillennial and amillenials views hold. In this view the “coming to life” in 20:4 is a physical resurrection so the saints are raised to life when Christ returns to rule with him. I have argued that this is the best interpretation in the devotionals.
Schreiner includes two other views in his commentary that I have never heard before but I will throw them in here.
- Ideal Millennialism
- New Creation Millennialism
In this view the thousand years doesn’t correspond to any actual period of time in history. The millennium is to be read as a parable or it is merely communicating an idea. This idea is that the faithful believers will be rewarded for the faithfulness by reigning with Christ in the new creation.
I think this is often thought of as a subset of premillennialism because they are quite similar. The millennium is the first era of the new creation. The resurrection in 20:4 is a bodily resurrection so there is no death. Satan is fully bound and powerless in this era. The millennium is a real interval of time whether 1,000 years exactly or more. Believers reign with Christ on earth in this time.
I’ve always thought the premillennial view is the best way to interpret this text. However, I’m drawn to the new creation millennialism view. But since I have only recently heard of its existence, I am far from throwing my hat in that ring.
All of these views have difficulties and all of them have well respected scholars who are doing their best to interpret the text in their camps. Again, we must hold this view with an open hand and have grace for those who have interpreted the text differently.