|Millennium is a term derived from the Latin mille meaning "a thousand". The term "Millennium" per se is not found in the Scriptures but is used by many evangelicals to identify the period of "one thousand years" which John mentions six times in Revelation 20. Other synonyms for "Millennium" include "Millennial Kingdom", "Messianic Kingdom", "1000 Year Reign of Christ", "Messianic Age" and “literalistic chiliasm”. As outlined below, the characteristics of the "Millennium" are described in considerable detail in the Old Testament, albeit this period is never specifically defined as 1000 years in the OT text.
Millennium 1 - overview of Rev 19:11-21:3, history of interpretation
Millennium 2 - events leading up to
Millennium 3 - description
It is interesting to read the definition of "Millennium" from Webster's dictionary...
In simple terms there are 3 basic approaches to interpretation of "1000 years" in Revelation 20 summarized as:
In fairness, it should be noted that this summary is meant to be a generalization and does not seek to go into the various arguments or permutations of belief of the post- and a-millennial views. One is referred to other websites and resources for that exercise.
It should also be stated at the outset of this website does not espouse a single specific theological approach to eschatology including, including even Dispensationalism which also strongly supports a literal millennium. Instead the approach is to seek to adhere as best as is humanly possible to a literal interpretation of the Biblical text. As a chemistry major at the University of Texas and later as a medical doctor trained in the practice of observation of literal tissue samples (specifically as a pathologist analyzing various tissues and cells of the human body under a microscope) I take the approach that
And so it follows, especially if you are new to the study of prophecy, that one of the most important rules for accurate interpretation is to allow the Scripture to speak for itself, reading the text for the normal, plain sense, as long as the context allows (see discussion on Reading the Scripture Literally). Utilizing this admittedly simple and even somewhat simple minded approach, it is difficult to overlook John's declaration that there is a 1000 year period in which Jesus Christ will reign and rule on earth as Lord of lords and King of kings.
In fairness, it should be acknowledged that there are many good and godly people who disagree with the literal interpretation of Revelation 20 which leaves the non-literal interpretation as their only option. By default, they must resort to allegorical, spiritual or symbolic interpretation. A non-literal interpretative approach opens one to the vulnerability of fallen man's ingenuity and imagination. In other words, how far does one control the limits of their spiritualizing? What is the plumb line that determines the accuracy of their non-literal assessment?
The inherent dangers of non-literal interpretation should be readily apparent. I firmly believe that the difficulty of defining when an interpretation is too allegorical, too spiritualized, too symbolic, too mystical, etc is one of the major reasons there are so many conflicting and confusing interpretations on the book of the Revelation and specifically on this short section of Scripture in Revelation 20. And is it possible, that the Old Serpent, Satan, the liar, the devil, the diabolos (literally one who throws between or comes between and so one who divides!) has had no small part in orchestrating the confusion the interpretation of the Revelation of Jesus Christ which clearly defines our Lord's triumph and Satan's utter and final defeat? How often I hear Christians say they have never even read the Revelation of Jesus Christ. When I ask "Why not?", the most common answers are "I'm afraid to read it", "There are two many interpretations, so how can you know who is correct", or "It simply cannot be understood." I beg to disagree, dear Christian brother or sister. If you are born from above, your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, Who lives in you as your resident Teacher, Whom Jesus said
In his first epistle, John reminds us that...
From other NT passages, we know that John is not saying you never need a teacher, but that you must understand that you as a believer already possess in the Spirit's anointing the best Teacher you will ever have and One Who will help discern whether your human teachers are speaking truth or error.
Before you go any further and are biased even more by the interpretative comments on this page, you might take a moment and lay aside all you preconceived notions, your denominational trappings, your favorite prophecy teacher's interpretation, etc, and come to Revelation 19-22 as if you have never read this section before. Ask your Teacher the Holy Spirit to lead you into all the truth. Come with a heart that is tender and that trembles at His Word (Isaiah 66:5) seeking the plain sense of what God has declared about the end times. Remember that "God is not a God of confusion"! (1 Corinthians 14:33)
As you read these amazing passages, you might make a simple list of the major events from Revelation 19:11-21:3. You might also want to try to group the major events together and number each group. Then armed with what the Scripture clearly states, you will be better prepared to evaluate what the commentaries (including the one you are reading) have to say about these passages. As I always like to say
Now ask yourself as you simply wrote down the events in Revelation 19:11-21:3, does a literal reading suggest a logical sequence of the events? Again, try to put aside anything and everything you have ever been told about prophecy in general and the Revelation in particular, so that you might arrive at the most objective interpretation possible. May God's Spirit grant you His amazing grace to do so. Amen.
If you observe Revelation 19:11-21:3 literally, independent of any teaching on prophecy you may have heard or specific theological viewpoint, you will be able to come up with a literal timeline of the end time events similar to the one below. As you look over this outline ask yourself "Does this sequence of events seem logical and orderly?" If so, why would one need to allegorize the 1000 years? Is 1000 years not compatible with God's plan for the end of time? Why not? Is it because you were taught by someone you respected who simply did not believe the 1000 years was literal? Or is it because you have read several commentaries that don't interpret "1000" as "one thousand"? Even if you did not know that there were literally dozens of Old Testament Scriptures that perfectly paralleled this period of "one thousand years", can you not see how the literal interpretation fits so well into the flow of events in these last chapters? Notice I am not espousing any particular theological viewpoint (dispensational or otherwise) but only a simple minded literal reading of the Scripture.
(1) The Second Coming of Christ:
(2) The defeat and fate of the Antichrist and the false prophet
(3) The binding of Satan for 1000 years
(4) The reign of Christ and His saints for 1000 years
(5) Satan's final defeat and eternal demise in the lake of fire
(6) The Final Judgment of all Unbelievers at the Great White Throne
(7) The New Heaven and New Earth and "Immanuel" God With Us Forever
A simple reading of the plain text, and listing of the events, leads to the objective conclusion that there is a period between Christ's defeat of the Antichrist and time of the Great White throne judgment which is separated by 1000 years, the period many have referred to as the "Millennium."
Some have claimed that belief in a literal "Millennium" is the product of twentieth century evangelical interpretation but there is ample evidence that this view was also held by the early church, one source recording that...
Of the Early Church Fathers we read in more detail that...
If the early church believed in the Millennium, what happened to relegate this view to obscurity for most of the "Middle Ages"? The answer is probably far more complex, but the short answer is based upon fact that the influential theologian Augustine interpreted who initially interpreted "1000 years" literally. Augustine however later recanted being driven away from that position by the “immoderate, carnal” extremism of some of its advocates (Civ. Dei xx.7), and began to interpret the "1000 years" as not an actual length of time but as a "symbol", which in turn led to the pontification of the teaching that there was no literal 1000 year reign of Christ upon earth, a doctrine usually referred to as "Amillennialism". More specifically, Augustine began to follow the symbolical-mystical hermeneutic approach of the fourth-century donatist Tyconius (a schismatic heretical Christian sect originating in N Africa in 311 AD, that maintained that it alone constituted the true church and arose out of the initial teaching of Donatus who sought to separate the “pure” church from the “apostate,” or “fallen,” church) in arguing that
The Protestant Reformation brought about a renewed interest in the idea of "Sola Scriptura" (the Scriptures alone) but did not completely reverse Augustine's symbolic/mystical approach to interpretation of Revelation 20. It seems that most of the Reformers...
It is interesting that many of the Reformers interpreted the millennium to be a period of 1,000 years, but that this 1000 years was variously dated as in the past time, during which the gospel flourished. They interpreted the release of Satan from bondage after 1000 years as coinciding with the rise of the medieval papacy (as alluded to the previous quote). Not all early Protestants agreed with the predominant view of the Reformers as shown by the return to a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 in the early 17th century, especially under the influence of Joseph Mede (1586-1638). By the 1800's under the influence of J N Darby (1800-1882), founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement, there was a rising interest in interpretation of the "1000 years" as a literal "1000 years". The upshot is that for the past 2000 years there have always been genuine believers who espoused a literal interpretation of Revelation 20. so that this approach is not a "product" of modern day evangelicals, especially those who hold to a dispensational approach to theology. (See also article on The Millennial Position of Spurgeon by Dennis Swanson)
Finally, let us conclude these background comments on the "1000 years" by quoting an honest, albeit liberal amillennialist, S. D. F. Salmond (in "Christian Doctrine of Immortality" 2nd ed 1896) who admits that...
Does the Old Testament support the idea of a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth? There is no specific statement defining a 1000 year period of time in the OT. There are however many passages that describe a period associated with the return of Christ in which there are unique physical, spiritual and political characteristics which are very compatible with the one thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. As the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states