Question #56

What is the millennium?

What does the church teach as to what the millennium is?

The Answer:

As always, I must emphasize that it doesn’t matter what the church teaches unless the church teaches that which the scripture teaches. Questions should always be framed in terms of seeking answers from the Bible.

There are three positions taken by various groups concerning what the Millennium is and when it occurs in history. Postmillennialism views Christ as returning after the Millennium. Premillennialism views Christ as returning before the Millennium and reigning upon the earth for a literal thousand years. Amillennialism contends that there is no Millennium in the sense of a literal thousand years.

Most, if not all, teach that the only explicit passage upon which the various millennial views are based is Rev. 20:1-6. Both pre- and post- millennialism interpret these verses literally; thus, whenever the Millennium occurs it is a literal thousand years. Amillennialism understands these verses to be figurative, with no reference to a literal thousand years.

Of the three, the amillennial view comports with scripture. All of the numbers in the Book of Revelation, with the possible exception of the seven churches, are figurative. Ten is the number of perfect completeness. Ten times ten times ten is absolute completeness. Most of those who hold pre- and post- positions accept the figurative nature of the numbers in Revelation until they get to 20:1-6. Then for some strange reason they take these numbers as literal, and, having done so, interpret all of the rest of scripture based upon their understanding of 20:1-6, an admittedly difficult passage. Such an approach violates one of the basic rules of hermeneutics – the obscure is always interpreted in the light of the plain.

Taken figuratively, the concept of completeness is understood by some quantitatively and by others qualitatively. The quantitative view understands the term to apply to a period of time, the time between Christ’s first and second coming. The qualitative view understands the term to refer to the complete and absolute binding of Satan.

The greatest objection to the amillennial view (other than its figurative understanding of the passage) is that the first and second resurrections are taken to mean two different kinds of resurrections, the first spiritual and the second the literal bodily resurrection. It is suggested that there is nothing in the text that requires them to be taken differently. Of course, they are called the “first” and the “second,” which in itself indicates that they are different in time. Why could they not also be different in nature? After all, John spoke of two resurrections, one spiritual and one literal in John 4:25-29. In 4:25 he spoke of a time that “now is,” i.e., “is” at the time John was writing. That was a spiritual resurrection that would bring spiritual life to those who had been spiritually dead. In 4:29 John spoke of those would come forth from the grave unto everlasting life or condemnation. While he did not use the word “resurrection,” it cannot be denied that he described two resurrections, one spiritual and one literal.

Entire books have been written on this subject. Only the surface, and only a portion of the surface, has been touches here. You will find many references to the doctrine of millennialism at this web site. While many are scattered throughout various classes, the reader my wish to especially consult the material on Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel.