It is interesting to read the definition of "Millennium" from Webster's dictionary...

Millennium (Mil*len"ni*um) n. [LL., fr. L. mille a thousand + annus a year] the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 during which holiness is to prevail and Christ is to reign on earth

Clarence Larkin has an interesting comment writing that...

The Millennium,” [is] from the Latin words “Mille” (1000) and “Annum” (year). It is to be regretted, however, that the word “Millennium” ever supplanted the Biblical word “Kingdom,” for it is this period that Christ taught His Disciples to pray for in the petition—“Thy Kingdom Come. . .” (see note Matthew 6:10). (Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth. Glenside, PA: Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, 1918, 1920)

Three Views of the Millennium

In simple terms there are 3 basic approaches to interpretation of "1000 years" in Revelation 20 only the first of which holds to the "Golden Rule" of literal interpretation!

1) Pre-millennial: Christ will return visibly and bodily to earth to defeat the Antichrist at the end of Daniel's Seventieth Week, His return marking the beginning of His 1000 year reign as King of kings.

After the 1000 years, the non-Christian dead are raised, judged at the Great White Throne, followed by the eternal state of a new heaven and new earth. Premillennialism generally holds to a revival of the Jewish nation (cp Israel's being granted her sovereign independence in May, 1948) and their repossession of their ancient land when Christ returns, specifically ruling over the boundaries promised by Jehovah in the Abrahamic Covenant...

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates (Genesis 15:18). (Comment: This literal covenant promise should not be "spiritualized" as having been or as being fulfilled in the Church, because Jehovah is a covenant keeping God Who will fulfill every promise to Israel literally. Although both Jew and Gentile are both saved by grace through faith {not just in the NT but also in the OT, which is why I abhor espousing a given brand of "systematic theology"}, the Jehovah's yet unfulfilled covenant promises to national Israel will be fulfilled beginning in the 1000 year reign of Messiah as King of kings. His Kingdom on earth will be consummated by divine dramatic intervention which effects utter and final defeat of all the rebellious kingdoms of men. When one begins to spiritualize the Scripture so that it conveniently fits with one's brand of systematic theology,  the problem arises as to whose permutation of spiritualization is correct. And how do we reliably decide which verses to spiritualize and which to interpret literally? What if we begin to spiritualize essential doctrines such as the resurrection {as occurred! See note 2 Timothy 2:18}? As an aside, although I probably come closest to the views of "dispensational theology", this website does not espouse a specific brand of "systematic theology", other than the literal interpretation of the Scriptures.).

2) Post-millennial: Christ will return after the 1000 years.

This view holds that in the present age, proclamation of the the gospel (but see next paragraph) reduces the influence of evil and brings gradual expansion of the Kingdom of Christ as the church fulfills its function of being salt and light in the darkness. Specifically, this view does not hold that there is any necessity for Christ personal appearance on earth in order to bring about God's Kingdom.

As with all views there are permutations and variations (the minute details of which are not the subject of this brief summary), so that liberals hold the belief that human efforts (e.g., the "social gospel" not the genuine Biblical gospel) are necessary to accomplish the bringing in of God's Kingdom.

Evangelicals who espouse the post-millennial view generally feel that that proclamation of the Gospel is necessary to bring in the kingdom of God. Certainly Jesus was quite clear when He declared...

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come. (Mt 24:14)

In regard to the specific interpretation that the proclamation of the Gospel by the Church is necessary to bring in the Kingdom of God, one must be careful to see what saith the Lord. Certainly believers are under obligation to both Jews and Greeks to proclaim the glorious Gospel (see note Romans 1:14)  but ultimately it is God's angelic messenger who presents the final proclamation of the Gospel to the whole world just prior to the Great Tribulation, announcing the beginning of the end (Note: for those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, the church will not even be present to accomplish the task Jesus described, so it has to be accomplished by God!), and in the midst of the impending wrath God remembers mercy, John recording...

And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel (this is the same Gospel Paul preached and there is no justification whatsoever for interpreting it as a "different gospel" as some such as C I Scofield did! {See Scofield's interpretative comment on Rev 14:6, regarding the "subdivisions" of "Gospel" - especially point #3 "it is neither the Gospel of the kingdom nor of grace" - I strongly disagree!} to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people 7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come (Great Tribulation); and worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters." (see notes Revelation 14:6; 14:7)

Comment: E W Bullinger had the following pithy comment writing that "While the majority of the Church’s teachers are loudly proclaiming that “the day of the Lord” will not come till the world’s conversion comes, the Spirit and truth of God are declaring that day shall not come until the apostasy comes {"and the man of lawlessness...is revealed" 2Thes 2:3-4}. While the majority of the Church’s teachers are maintaining that the world is not yet good enough for Christ, the Spirit is declaring in the Word that the world is not yet bad enough!"

As an aside will this worldwide angelic proclamation of the eternal gospel have the desired impact? Let's let the apostle John answer that question for he writes the following words

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no one could count (do not miss John's "quantitative" comment for it promises a future harvest of souls during the Great Tribulation which is innumerable!), from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, (notice that "coincidentally" these are the same four terms John used to describe the "recipients" of the eternal gospel in Revelation 14:6!) standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands...13 And one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and from where have they come?” 14 And I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the Great Tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (See notes Revelation 7:9, 13; 14) (Comment: The reasonable conclusion is that those who come out of the Great Tribulation heard the worldwide proclamation of the eternal gospel at the midpoint of the Tribulation, just prior to the onset of the last 3.5 years when the mystery of God would be finished {see note Revelation 10:7, cp notes on Revelation 15:1 re "the wrath of God is finished"} and by grace through faith in God's glorious and eternal gospel, washed their robes white in the blood of the Lamb.)

3) Amillennial: There will be no literal, visible millennium on earth, and thus no literal reign of Christ on earth over His kingdom.

This view holds that Satan is bound (see notes Revelation 20:1; 20:2; 20:3) and the church is experiencing the millennium now and Christ is presently reigning over a spiritual kingdom either in (1) the hearts of men, (2) in heaven or (3) in the church.

There are some differences as to whether the millennium is being fulfilled on earth now (Augustine), or whether it is being fulfilled by the saints in heaven (Reformed). The main belief is that there will be no more millennium than there is now, and that the eternal state immediately follows Christ's Second Coming. Some modern amillenarians, however, spiritualize not only the millennium but also the Blessed Hope of the Second Coming of Christ (see note Titus 2:13). This modern view of the Lord's return identifies the coming of Christ as a perpetual advance of Christ in the church that includes many particular events.

One of the major repercussions of the amillennial view is that those who hold this position are forced to interpret the many OT and NT passages that refer to the millennial kingdom in a non-literal way, generally interpreting these verses spiritually as fulfilled in the church, who they "spiritualize" as "spiritual Israel" (see related discussion of The Israel of God).

In fairness, it should be noted that the summary of these three views of interpretation of the 1000 years in Revelation 20 is meant to be only a generalization and does not seek to go into the various arguments or permutations of belief of the post- or  a-millennial views, some of which are quite complex.

As alluded to earlier, it needs to be reiterated that this website does not espouse a single specific theological approach to eschatology 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

if the plain sense of the Biblical text makes good sense in context, then one should seek to make no other sense out of the inspired text for fear that the conclusion may end up as sheer nonsense.

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). If the Bible conveys actual or literal truth from God, it follows that the Bible ought to be interpreted 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.

Literal Interpretation of
Symbols or Figures of Speech

Many shy away from the word literal since it seems to preclude anything symbolic. Clearly, the Bible uses symbolic language and figures of speech to convey literal truth. This however does not imply that the Bible should be interpreted symbollically, but that the symbols and figures of speech must be translated into literal truth in order for us to clearly understand God's intended message. You may be asking "How can a symbol be interpreted literally?" The real question is how else should a symbol be understood? In other words, if a symbol does not represent an actual or literal truth, then by default it must be a symbol of another symbol, etc, etc, this line of reasoning going on and on until the final result is nonsense. The point is that a symbol must represent some literal truth. When Jesus declared "I am the door. if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture" He was clearly using a figure of speech, and with the symbol of a door He beautifully illustrated that He was literally the Way through one must pass to come into the "room" of salvation. In short, we readily recognize the use of symbolic language in Scripture but emphasize that symbolic and figurative language must be understood plainly. To be sure, there are times when one cannot be absolutely certain of the literal meaning of a symbol, as for example the locusts in Revelation 9:7 (see note). The danger in such cases is to devise a symbolic interpretation of the symbol and forgo seeking the literal truth that God is trying to convey.

The straightforward, plain, normal, literal interpretation is the most basic of all guidelines for the study of prophecy.

In fairness, it should be acknowledged that there are many good and godly people who disagree with the literal interpretation of 1000 years in Revelation 20 but that leaves the non-literal interpretation as their only option. By default, they must resort to allegorical, spiritual or symbolic interpretation. What is the inherent danger of such an approach? 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 of a given passage? What is the plumb line that determines the accuracy of their non-literal assessment?

John Walvoord a literalist wrote...

A literal promise spiritualized is exegetical fraud. (Walvoord, J F: The Millennial Kingdom. Page 200. Zondervan Publishing, 1959)

The inherent dangers of non-literal interpretation should be readily apparent. I firmly believe that the difficulty of defining which allegorical, spiritualized, symbolic, mystical, etc, interpretation is the "right" interpretation is one of the major reasons there is a veritable cornucopia of chaotic, conflicting and confusing interpretations on the book of the Revelation and specifically on the short section of Scripture in Revelation 20. Is it not possible (even probable), that the Old Serpent, Satan, the liar, the devil, the diabolos (literally one who throws between or comes between and thus 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, and concerning Whom Jesus said

"will teach you all things" (John 14:26) and will "guide you into all the truth...and... will disclose to you what is to come (sounds like He wants us to know prophecy!)." (John 16:13)

In his first epistle, John reminds us that...

the anointing (which alludes to the teaching ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit) which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (1John 2:27)

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. So a good practice when studying prophecy is to "pray without ceasing" seeking the Holy Spirit's ministry of illumination.

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, unbiased by any specific theological persuasion or system of theology, you will then be better prepared to evaluate what the commentaries (including the one you are reading) have to say about these important Scriptures. As I always like to say

"It's amazing how much light the Scriptures will shed on the commentaries!"

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.

Some have claimed that belief in a literal "Millennium" is the product of twentieth century evangelical interpretation (especially widespread Dispensational teachings) but there is ample evidence that the literal view was espoused by many in the early church (the so-called "Early Church Fathers"), and that this view dominated for the first two centuries of the Christian era.

Geisler writes that

Millenarianism became the general belief of the time (the early church fathers) and met with almost no other opposition than that given by the Gnostics." (Geisler, Church History, vol.1, p.166)

John Walvoord gives a helpful synopsis of the history of the interpretation of the 1000 years noting that...

In the first two centuries of the Christian era the church was predominantly premillennial, interpreting Scripture to teach that Christ would fulfill the prophecy of His second coming and bring a thousand-year reign on earth before the eternal state will begin. Though not always cogent and sometimes fanciful, in general, prophecy was treated in the same way as other Scripture.

In the last ten years of the second century and in the third century the heretical school of theology at Alexandria, Egypt advanced the erroneous principle that the Bible should be interpreted in a nonliteral or allegorical sense. In applying this to the Scriptures, they subverted all the major doctrines of the faith, including prophecy. The result was that there was little progress in theology, especially in the prophetic area, until this problem of interpretation was solved.
Augustine (354-430) rescued the church from this erroneous principle as far as non-prophetic Scripture is concerned but continued to treat prophecy in a nonliteral way with the purpose of eliminating a millennial kingdom on earth.

Because amillennialism, which denies a literal millennial kingdom on earth following the Second Coming, is essentially negative and hinders intelligent literal interpretation of prophecy, there was little progress in this area. However the church continued to believe in heaven and hell and purgatory but neglected or explained away long passages having to deal with Israel in prophecy and the kingdom on earth as frequently revealed in the Old Testament. Even in the Protestant Reformation prophecy was not rescued from this hindrance in its interpretation.

Though remnants of the church still advanced the premillennial view, it was not until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that a movement to restore the literal truth of prophecy began to take hold. The twentieth century has been especially significant in the progress of prophetic interpretation and is one in which many details of prophecy have been debated and clarified in a way that had never been possible before. Though amillennialism continues to be the majority view of the church, among those who hold a high view of Scripture the premillennial interpretation has been given detailed exposition, serving to provide an intelligent view of the present and the future from the standpoint of biblical prophecy. (Walvoord, J. F.. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books. 1990)

Crispen adds that

the early Fathers lived in expectation of our Lord's speedy return... They distinguish between a first resurrection of the saints and a second or general resurrection. These they supposed would be separated by a period of a thousand years, during which Christ should reign over the saints in Jerusalem... While the church was alternately persecuted and contemptuously tolerated by the Roman Empire, the belief in Christ's speedy return and His millennial reign was widely entertained... When the Church was recognized and patronized by the state, the new order of things (i.e., acceptance by the establishment)  seemed so desirable that the close of the dispensation (i.e., a literal 1000 year Messianic Age) ceased to be expected or desired. (History of Doctrine, p.231-232)

Smith notes that...

Immediately after the triumph of Constantine, Christianity having become dominant and prosperous, Christians began to lose their vivid expectation of our Lord's speedy advent, and to look upon the temporal supremacy of Christianity as a fulfillment of the promised reign of Christ on earth. (Smith, New Testament History, p.273)

Ferguson and Packer write that...

Many of the early fathers, including Papias (c. 60–c. 130), Justin (c. 100–c. 165), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Victorinus of Pettau (d. c. 304) and Lactantius (c. 240–c. 320), were premillennialists, i.e. they expected the personal coming of Christ in glory to inaugurate a millennial reign on earth before the last judgment. This belief was not only an interpretation of Revelation 20, but also a continuation of Jewish apocalyptic expectation of an interim messianic kingdom. The framework of Rev. 20 was filled with content derived from Jewish apocalyptic and especially from OT prophecies, with the result that the millennium was understood primarily as a restoration of paradise. Amid the abundant fruitfulness of the renewed earth and peace between the animals, the resurrected saints would enjoy 1,000 years of paradisal life on earth before being translated to eternal life in heaven. The 1,000 years were explained either as the originally intended span of human life on earth or as the world’s sabbath rest at the end of a 7,000-years’ ‘week’ of history. It was the materialistic nature of this millennialism which made it objectionable to others of the fathers, including Augustine, whose highly influential rejection of it led to the virtual disappearance of premillennialism until the 17th century. (Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. New Dictionary of Theology. Page 428. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) (Bolding added)

Of the Early Church Fathers we read in more detail that...

"Papias, who had personal contact with those taught by Christ and His apostles and may well have been a disciple of the apostle John, asserted that “the Lord used to teach concerning those [end] times” that “there will be a period of a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead and the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth” (cited in Eusebius HE iii.39.12; Irenaeus Adv. haer v.33.3f).... (Papias') account is a weighty testimony to primitive Christian eschatological beliefs...Justin Martyr, “the most important of the Greek apologists of the second century” (Quasten, I, 196), while granting that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians think otherwise” than he on the millennial issue, explicitly declared: “I and others are right-minded Christians in all points and are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned and enlarged” (Dial. 80f; cf. J. Daniélou, VC, 2 [1948], 1–16).... In taking a millennial viewpoint, these fathers ranged themselves on the side of orthodoxy in two particulars: they supported the apostolicity and canonicity of Revelation (against those who combined a denial of its authenticity with amillennialism, e.g., Dionysius of Alexandria, as cited in Eusebius HE vii.14.1–3; 24.6–8); and they opposed both the Gnostics, whose dualistic spiritualizing of Christian doctrine completely wiped out eschatological hope, and Christian Platonists such as Origen (De prin. ii.11.2), whose rejection of a literal millennium stemmed from an idealistic depreciation of matter and a highly dangerous allegorical (Ed note: Figurative, symbolic and specifically having deeper or hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text! It is a method of interpreting a text in which the characters, events or places signify “deeper” meanings than their literal meaning. The allegorical method was especially employed with difficult texts. Even opponents of a literal millennial interpretation can clearly discern the potential pitfalls and dangers of the allegorical approach to the Word of Truth. Click offsite article) hermeneutic (Ed note: hermeneutics is the "science" or study of the methodological principles of interpretation, in this case of the Scripture)". (A. C. McGiffert, History of Christian Thought, I [1932], 227f)." (Bromiley, G. W.  The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Vol. 3, Page 357-358. Wm. B. Eerdmans) (Bolding added)

WHAT HAPPENED TO
LITERAL INTERPRETATION?

(Related resources - Systems of Interpretation; Allegorizing and Spiritualizing the Truth)

If the early church believed in a literal Millennium, what happened to relegate this view to obscurity for most of the "Middle Ages"?

The answer is probably far more complex than that explained in this brief discussion, but the short answer is that during the fourth century of Christianity, when the church was given a "favored status" under the emperor Constantine, the amillennial position began to emerge as the dominant belief, thus replacing the previous belief in a literal millennium. The amillennial position was championed by the well known theologian Augustine (354–430AD). It is interesting that Augustine initially interpreted the "1000 years" literally and only later recanted from his literal interpretation. He apparently was driven away from that position by (in his words) the “immoderate, carnal” extremism of some of its advocates (Civ. Dei xx.7).

It appears that Augustine began to follow the symbolical-mystical hermeneutic approach of the fourth-century donatist Tyconius (a schismatic heretical Christian sect originating in North Africa in 311 AD, and which 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 "1000 years" of Revelation 20 actually designated the interval (in Augustine's words) “from the first coming of Christ to the end of the world, when He shall come the second time” (xx.8). Thus was “a new era in prophetic interpretation” introduced, wherein Augustine’s conception of the millennium as “spiritualized into a present politico-religious fact, fastens itself upon the church for about thirteen long centuries” (Froom, I, 479, with tabular summary of medieval views, 896f; see also R. C. Petry, Christian Eschatology and Social Thought: A Historical Essay on the Social Implications of Some Selected Aspects in Christian Eschatology to a.d. 1500 [1956], pp. 312–336). (ibid) (Bolding added)

John Walvoord gives some background on Augustine's position noting that the issue of whether prophecy should be interpreted literally or not...

"was raised in the writings of the early church fathers and was brought to a head in the third century in the Alexandrian school of theology which attempted to give to all Scripture an allegorical or nonliteral meaning. Among the orthodox fathers Augustine countered the Alexandrian heresy by suggesting a twofold principle of interpretation of Scripture, namely, a literal interpretation of Scripture as a whole, but a spiritual or nonliteral interpretation of prophetic Scripture." (Walvoord, J: The Millennial Kingdom)

Augustine's interpretation proved to be the foundation for the doctrine which we today refer to as "Amillennialism". His allegorical approach (Click offsite article on rise of allegorical interpretation) in interpreting prophetic Scripture in general and the 1000 years in particular was so fully accepted that at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD, belief in the millennium was actually condemned as superstitious! The millennium began to be interpreted as a reference to the church, and the thousand-year reign of Christ and His saints was equated with the whole history of the church on earth, thus making for the denial of a future millennium, or so-called amillennialism. Amillennialism became the predominant view during the next 1300 years from about 400AD to 1700AD, the so-called Middle Ages or Dark Ages!

Although the Protestant Reformation brought about a renewed interest in the idea of "Sola Scriptura" (the Scriptures alone), this interpretative view did not completely reverse Augustine's symbolic/mystical approach to interpretation of Revelation 20. It seems that most of the Reformers...

"were so (legitimately) preoccupied with correcting the Church’s soteriological (doctrines dealing with how a person is genuinely saved or born again) errors that they could not give high priority to eschatology (study of future events). But from the pre-Reformers Wycliff and Huss to Luther, Calvin, and the doctrinal affirmations of Protestant Orthodoxy, the papacy was identified with the antichrist (Ed note: A non-literal interpretation which is not accurate when compared with specific Scriptures that describe the "antichrist"). This conviction led many Reformation Protestants to believe that the end of the world was at hand (T. F. Torrance, SJT, Occasional Papers 2, pp. 36–62; Vulliaud, pp. 127f). Had it not been for the outbreak of chiliasm (belief in a literal 1000 years) in a particularly offensive form at Münster (1534), early Church teaching on the millennium might have been recovered along with other doctrines obscured in the medieval synthesis. The speculations of radicals, however, as concretized in Münzer’s “Zion,” were so offensive to all that this was rendered impossible.  (Ed note: Fueled by differences in wealth and class, radical leaders arose who claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit and who advocated rebellion against their oppressors in the name of God and in pursuit of the Millennium. In 1534, a rebellion in the city of Munster in 1534 was led by Jan Matthys took control of the community, by preaching that he was Enoch and was preparing the way for the return of Christ by establishing a community of good and doing away with the prevailing law codes. Then he issued a call for all the faithful to gather at Munster because it was the New Jerusalem. A great multitude of Anabaptists fled to the city and were besieged by an army of both Protestants and Catholics. A reign of terror served to keep the community under the control of Matthys' successor, Jan Bockelson, but the defenses finally collapsed and the town was taken.)

The Augsburg Confession, art 17 (Lutheran) and the Helvetic Confession, art 11 (Reformed) expressly rejected such “Jewish opinions” (but, let it be noted, did not reject millennialism per se — cf. Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, I, 531–34; M. Reu, Lutheran Dogmatics [1951], pp. 483–87; and Saarnivaara, pp. 94f)." (ibid) (Bolding added)

Not all early Protestants agreed with the Reformers as shown by the return to a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 in the early 17th century. A German Calvinist theologian, Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638), revived the teaching of premillennialism in an academic form in the modern world. Alsted's book, "The Beloved City" (1627), presented his views, which caused the Anglican scholar, Joseph Mede (1586-1638), to become a premillennialist.

THE 1700's

During the 1700's, postmillennialism became the prevailing eschatological interpretation, receiving its most impressive formulation through the work of the Unitarian Daniel Whitby (1638-1726). According to his interpretation, the world was to be converted to Christ, the Jews restored to their land, and the pope and Turks defeated, after which the earth would enjoy a time of universal peace, happiness and righteousness for a thousand years. At the close of this period Christ would return personally for the last judgment. While some of Whitby's writings were publicly burned as heresy, particularly his views on the Trinity, many conservative theologians rapidly embraced and propagated his viewpoint on the millennium. Perhaps because of its agreement with the views of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, postmillennialism was adopted by the leading commentators and preachers of the 1700's.

THE 1800's
TO THE PRESENT

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 a literal interpretation of the "1000 years" of Revelation 20.

Robert Clouse explains that..

During the 1800's premillennialism again attracted widespread attention being fostered by the violent uprooting of European political and social institutions during the era of the French Revolution. There was also a renewed interest in the conversion and status of the Jews. One of the more influential leaders at this time was Edward Irving (1792-1834), a Church of Scotland minister who served a church in London, published many works on prophecy and helped to organize the Albury Park prophecy conferences. These meetings set the pattern for millennial gatherings throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Irving's enthusiasm spread to other groups and found firm support among the Plymouth Brethren movement.

J. N. Darby (1800-1882), an early Plymouth Brethren leader, articulated the dispensationalist understanding of premillennialism. He described the coming of Christ before the millennium as consisting of two stages: the first, a secret rapture removing the church before the Great Tribulation devastates the earth; the second, Christ's coming with his saints to set up the kingdom. He also believed that the church is a mystery of which only Paul spoke and that the purposes of God in Scripture could be understood through a series of time periods called dispensations. At his death Darby left forty volumes of writings and some fifteen hundred assemblies around the world. Through his books, which include four volumes on prophecy, the dispensational system was carried throughout the English-speaking world. The line of continuity from Darby to the present can be traced from his dispensationalist contemporaries and followers (C. H. Mackintosh, William Kelly and F. W. Grant) through the interceding scholars (W. E. Blackstone, James Hall Brooks, G. Campbell Morgan, H. A. Ironside, A. C. Gaebelein, and C. I. Scofield and his Scofield Bible) to the current adherents of his views.' The extent of this influence has been so vast that in many evangelical circles today the dispensationalist interpretation prevails.

The spread of Darby's views was aided by Henry Moorhouse, a Brethren evangelist of dispensational outlook, who helped convince D. L. Moody (1837-1899) of his prophetic interpretation. By the end of the nineteenth century Moody was probably the outstanding leader among evangelicals. Darby's impact on C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) was probably even more important since Scofield made dispensationalism an integral part of his Bible notes, and within fifty years three million copies of the Scofield Reference Bible were printed in the United States. In recent days the popularity of Hal Lindsey's books again demonstrates the vitality of the dispensational view. (Clouse, R, editor: The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, IVP)

It is clear from the above synopsis that for the past 2000 years there have always been genuine believers who espoused a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 so that a literal "Millennium" is not the "product" of modern day evangelicals, especially those who hold to a dispensational approach to theology. To be sure this latter school has promoted the literal approach as widely and effectively as any previous group, but they did not originate a literal interpretation of the 1000 years. It should also be noted that one can be a literalist without being a dispensationalist, so do not discard the interpretation of a literal 1000 years just because you don't agree with all dispensational theology (See a simple overview of this viewpoint at Covenantal vs. Dispensational Theology)

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...

“The figurative interpretation, it must be owned, cannot be made exegetically good even in its most plausible applications... This remarkable paragraph in John’s Apocalypse speaks of a real millennial reign of Christ on earth together with certain of His saints, which comes in between a first resurrection and the final judgment” (pp. 441f).(ISBE, volume 3, p360)

COVENANT PROMISES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPORT A FUTURE MILLENNIUM

Does the Old Testament support the idea of a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth?

Tony Garland writes that...

Even in the absence of the book of Revelation, premillennialists would expect a future kingdom on earth because one is required in order for God to fulfill the many OT promises which require such a kingdom (See notes Why a Millennial Kingdom?)

There are no Old Testament Scriptures that specifically quantify a future 1000 year period during which Messiah will rule on the earth.