Biblical Eschatology and the Millennium, Part III: Amillennialism

Amillenialism is the idea that the millennium is spiritual. The "a-" prefix is meant to be a negation that there is a literal/physical millennium.

Arguments in favor:

1.      The devil is said to be bound in Rev 20, and seems to correspond to the powers being disarmed in John 12:31, Col 2:15, and Heb 2:14.

2.      Christ is said to be reigning already over all things (Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20-22; Col 2:10) and the saints are said to be seated with Him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6). Thus, this seems to be the picture of Christ reigning already with and through His saints upon the earth, i.e., the church.

3.      Matt 13:37–43 Seems to present only two ages and at the end of the age, people are thrown in furnace of fire/the Lake of Fire, as in Rev 20 when Christ returns. There is nothing else in between. Hence, Revelation 20 must be talking about a spiritual resurrection of saints who reign with Christ. Many argue that it refers to regeneration.

4.      2 Peter 3 evidences that the earth and its wicked will be destroyed on the same day Christ returns. There cannot be a millennium after, as Premills suggest, and it makes little sense to destroy a world that is already Christianized, as (absent a Preterist spin on the passage) Postmills would have to conclude. 

5.      The argument from default is that if Premillennialism and Postmillennialism are not true, then Amillennialism must be true.

Arguments against:

 

1.      In Revelation 20, John sees the souls of the martyrs who have been faithful to Christ in word and deed, and says that he sees them “come alive” and reign with Christ. This cannot refer to a spiritual resurrection, i.e., regeneration, as these people have already become Christians, lived and died for Christ, exist as souls in God’s presence, and now are coming alive to reign with Christ. Hence, the reference to “coming alive” must refer to physical resurrection. It has this meaning as well when it speaks of the rest of the wicked dead who do not come to life until after the millennium. 

One can argue that John does not use the actual timeline that he knows will occur, but the question becomes whether this best explains why he does not use it. If John knows how these events will transpire, why in the world would he use scenarios he knows are not true?

2.      The chaining of Satan in Revelation is to be understood in the context of Second Temple Judaism, specifically, the chaining of the angels in 1 Enoch to which Revelation alludes with this language. The binding/chaining of these angels is complete and total. They have no influence upon the earth, as they are completely taken away from this sphere. If the chaining of Satan is to be understood this way, then the Amill argument that this is a partial binding, or specific only to a particular deception of the nations, would not be what the audience would have thought when hearing that Satan has been chained, thrown into the abyss, which is covered over and locked. This is a full imprisonment that completely cuts the devil off from the rest of the world. The verses, therefore, that speak about Satan’s disarmament, yet evidence that he is still the god of this world, the ruler of the lower invisible realm, deceiving the nations, must refer to the already-not yet scheme of the New Testament, and not the fulfillment of the imprisonment of Revelation 20.

3.      The argument that there are only two ages with nothing in between might be a good one as long as Premillennials maintain that the millennium is another age different from this one or the one to come. If they maintain that it is part of this age or that one, or something a part of both rather than its own separate age, the argument would fail.

  

4.      Argument from default is a false dichotomy. It may be that none are true, or that Scripture is doing something else in conveying the possibility of any of these schemes while not committing to any one of them.