I used to love watching the Wizard of Oz every year that it would come on TV. We didn't have cable so it was one of the few movies for kids I got to see in my own home every year. Dorothy landed in Oz but needed to get home and all she had to do was follow the yellow brick road and it would lead her to the Emerald City. When she finally got there, I remember how richly green the city looked, and of course, everyone was wearing green. In the original story, however, the Emerald City isn't actually emerald at all. The Wizard, a con man, had simply tricked the city into wearing glasses with green lenses that made the city and everything in it look like it was green. The city was just a regular city but try arguing that with one of its patriotic citizens who might curse you for saying otherwise.
Premill? Postmill? Amill? These debates have dominated biblical hermeneutics for the past few centuries. Someone thinks the Bible says something about these and then proceeds to shove it down the throat of every unsuspecting text they come across. One text in Revelation 20 speaks of a millennium but does it tell us that there will actually be one? I'm going to argue now that the answer to the question is, No.
Now, to caveat, I am not saying that there will not be one or that the Bible tells us that there will not be one. Hear me correctly. I am saying that the Bible does not tell us that there will be one. There may be unicorns in the new world, and the Bible does not say there will not be, but it doesn't say there will be either. So if you are a hardcore adherent, a citizen of the Emerald City who sees the millennium where there isn't one, what I am going to do now is to show you a hole in the matrix that you can look through to see the Bible as it is and not what those who have conned themselves and others into believing it says through what they think they read in the Bible but didn't.
Let's start by saying that if the only text that teaches about a millennium is literally telling us that there is one then both Postmill and Amill are false. Only Premill is supported by Revelation 20 if it is John's purpose to tell us about actual reality and not merely a possible reality.
Why do I say that? Well, let's look at the text for a moment.
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. and he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were completed (after these things he must be released for a short time). Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. Then they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. Then the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
We, who don't have emerald glasses on, can see here that the resurrection of the body must take place before the millennium, so Postmills and Amills are out. If the resurrection of the body must take place first, and this has not happened nor will happen before Christ returns, then any millennial view that posits a pre-resurrection millennium is not supported by the only text that talks about a millennium.
Now, you may say what every Postmill or Amill says, "Yeah, but I see resurrection here as regeneration and so its just the regeneration of Christians that is necessary to take place first, and since that has happened, Amill and Postmill can be supported by this text."
To which I say, "Thanks, Scarecrow, never thought about that one before." But actually, the text doesn't allow it. Hear me. THE TEXT DOES NOT ALLOW IT! Not me and my theology and preconceived notions. Not my traditions or personal, subjective longings for a particular idea to be true. THE TEXT DOES NOT ALLOW IT!
Why do I say that? Because key elements are being ignored by those trying to make that argument. It truly is a lesson in horrible hermeneutics. Someone who doesn't understand how to exegete will go through all of these texts that refer to regeneration as a type of resurrection or coming to life from other passages in the Bible, i.e., from other contexts with foreign referents, and then shove that meaning into this text and the phrase "they came to life."
So what does the text mean in context? Let's read it and find out.
Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
When does regeneration take place in a believer's life? Before or after he receives Christ, lives for Him and dies for Him? Obviously before. When would this regeneration happen here is "coming to life" meant regeneration? After they became Christians and testified of Jesus and obeyed the Word of God and refused therefore to bow down and worship the beast (whether the Roman Emperor it refers to or the system of the world doesn't matter here). So after they testified of Jesus, after they obeyed the Word of God, and after they refused to worship a false Christ, they became spiritually dead and were regenerated?
And that's another problem. They became spiritually dead after they received Jesus, testified of Him by doing so, obeyed the Word of God, stood in perseverance for their faith under the pressure of the beast (who was physically killing Christians in the rest of the book btw)? And what a weird way describing one becoming spiritually dead, "they who had been beheaded."
"Oh, well, I don't believe it's chronological," you might say. To which I would say, "The text makes it clear that it is by putting it in logical and temporal order. For instance, why were they "brought to life"? Because they previously had been beheaded? Why were they beheaded? Because what preceded the beheading was their not worshiping the beast, obeying the Word of God, and testifying of Jesus. We might then add, Why were they doing all of that? To which we would answer, Because they were already regenerated. So the one logically and temporally follows the other.
But not only that, Revelation has cycles that recapitulate the time from John to the ending of the devil's world and the beginning of Christ's world taking over all things. There is a progression from John's present to the end and this part of this final cycle is at the end, not in John's present. All rule and authority has been abolished in this scenario in Chapter 19, the beast/emperor and his kings, the false prophet, and the devil have all been toppled, which is where Christ begins to reign completely over all things with no opposition. In this cycle alone, John suggests a final push by the devil to take back his kingdom from Christ that fails so completely that the battle isn't even described. It begins and then immediately we are brought to the final judgment with the obvious losers being thrown into the lake of fire.
So both in the immediate context and in the overall context, this is meant to be temporal and a logical sequence of events where one thing must precede the other in order to happen, i.e., these saints must become Christians who testify of Christ and obey the Word of God, this causes them to be beheaded/killed, and this causes Christ to bring them to life.
I mean, they are even paralleled with the souls in Revelation 6, which speaks of the same group in extremely similar language:
When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.
Not only is the fifth seal here late in the cycle, although not as late as Revelation 20 is in its cycle, showing the progression of the temporal sequence of events within each cycle, but notice that the same language is used of these people who are told to wait for God to do what He does in Revelation 19-20 because all Christians have to join them first in death. And they have died. They are crying out to God to take vengeance upon those who have shed their "blood," which is a synecdoche for "murder." They are told to wait until the rest of their brethren "who were to be killed even as they had been." So these "souls" as John calls them are physically dead.
And why are they dead here in the cycle of Revelation 6? They "had been slain because of the Word of God and because of the testimony which they had maintained." Notice the parallel language: "Souls" // souls, "slain" // "beheaded" in Rev 20, "because of the Word of God" // "because of the Word of God," "their testimony" // "the testimony of Jesus."
I don't know about you, but I'm with the Sixth Sense kid, I see dead people. And they're not spiritually dead. They're physically dead but in the presence of God, i.e., spiritually alive and well, i.e., having been brought to life spiritually long before they died since it was the entire reason that they were murdered in the first place.
What this means is that the "souls" in Revelation 20 are souls. The word "beheaded" refers to their being executed for their faith. That means that that the making of them alive is from the only death they are suffering from at the time of their being made alive, i.e., physical death, i.e., it's the physical resurrection from the dead to which Revelation 20 is referring. And you know what that means? The physical resurrection must take place first before the millennium in this passage, again, the only passage that actually speaks of a millennium, not only within the rest of the Bible but in the book itself. In Amill, we're in the millennium now. Is that supported by the only text speaking about a millennium? Nope. In Postmill, we or people before Christ's return and the physical resurrection will enter the millennium. Is that supported by this text? Nope. Sing it with me, "So goodbye yellow brick road."
Now before you feel all lost like someone just whipped you out of your home in a tornado so that you no longer feel like you're in Kansas anymore, let me suggest that the visceral reaction you might be having to what I've just said might be because you made something the Bible isn't even teaching into an entire hermeneutic that we now see you didn't actually get from the Bible.
Likewise, lest Premills rejoice in their victory, let me point out that John gives multiple scenarios that might happen in the end throughout the Book of Revelation and there is nothing to indicate that whatever one he ends with is the one that is going to happen. Revelation 6-7 ends with nothing about a millennial kingdom after Christ takes His victory. Likewise, there is no millennial kingdom when He takes the world from the devil in Revelation 8-11. Only in the final cycle of 12-22 does one find the millennial kingdom idea as one of three possible endings John gives the devil's world in the book. This tells us that it is not his purpose to describe the details of the end to us but rather use possible ends to say that no matter how the devil's world ends, it will end. The devil and those who follow him will lose. Christ and those who follow Him will have the victory and inherit the world to come.
This means that a millennial idea should not dominate your hermeneutic. No hermeneutic that isn't clearly and sufficiently supported by exegesis should be your hermeneutic, not for interpreting the Bible and not for interpreting your life. It is adding and taking away from this book. It adds concepts that are not taught by it and it takes away the true message that has nothing to do with these concepts. What we really need is to understand John's message as our entire hermeneutic of the Bible because that is actually what is taught here. Jesus wins. So if you're tired, if you're outcast, if you're hungry, if you're thirsty, if you're killed, you can endure it because Jesus and those who have the testimony of receiving Him and obey the Word of God win. So we acquire wisdom to rule the world to come now. We acquire the love that will fill that world now. We become like the Lord who will rule that world now.
Revelation isn't the witch's crystal ball that shows us specific details of events. It's our ruby slippers that get us home. So take off your green-glazed glasses, realize where you are, and start tapping those shoes instead. I promise you. Far better than an uninspired speculative theology, the real message of the book will get you home.
