From the advent of Christianity the emphasis was upon the remission of sins and eternal life in Heaven. So general was this view that many non-Christians understood the concept of Heaven as the goal of the Christian, even though they may have had a little ‘sport’ with it by talking about “pie in the sky bye and bye”. In fact, the question, “Will you go to Heaven when you die?” is a meaningful question to most people, whether they believe it or not.
What has become the expectation of many in the last generation or so is the spending of a thousand years upon the earth. Many denominations have this as part of their doctrine and hope. But is it true? There are two main varieties of this doctrine – pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. Pre refers to the idea that Christ will come back to earth before the so-called millennium and reign on the earth for the duration, whilst post denotes there will be a 1000 year utopia and Christ will return after that. Of the two, premillennialism is the most popular. Essentially, this doctrine says that Christ will return to the earth and the rapture will occur (ie. the secret raising of the righteous dead and transforming of living Christians wherein they will all be taken away to Heaven for seven years, during which time the earthy will undergo the Great tribulation). Then the Lord will return with His army of saints and the battle of Armageddon will take place where He will defeat Satan and the forces of unrighteousness. He will then establish His earthly kingdom over which He will rule for a thousand years from the throne of David in Jerusalem. After this will be the Great Day of Judgement and eternity will begin.
The thing common to all millennial theories is the millennial reign. What is a millennium? A decade is ten years, a century is one hundred years while a millennium is one thousand years. There is only one passage where you will find the idea of a 1000 year reign, and that’s Rev.20. If we are going to answer the question of whether Christ will reign for 1000 years on this earth we are going to have to look at this passage, sooner or later.
The first thing we need to understand is that this is in the midst of a book of apocalyptical (figurative) language, and in the midst of a section with figurative language. Note that chapter 20 begins talking about the key to the bottomless pit (cf. the pit in Ch.9), a great chain, and the Dragon, that old Serpent. 12;3,4 describes the dragon as having 7 heads and crowns and ten horns and with his tail he drew a third of the stars of Heaven and cast them to the earth. That’s some tail isn’t it?! And to say it was literal would be some TALE wouldn’t it?!The fastest jet we have is still the ageing SR71 Blackbird. It can do over 3000k.p.h. Suppose we were to crank it up and set sail for the stars (I know it can’t fly in space but let’s suppose), it would take us 1,488,000 years to get to Alpha Centaurus which is the NEAREST star (4.3 light years away). Now this tail is long enough to stretch and lasso 1/3 of all the stars and cast them to the earth – and the earth survives the crash! There’s been a few movies which have dealt with the theme of asteroids crashing to the earth and the resultant damage. Bearing in mind that the stars are like the sun in size and power, what must we conclude with the image of the dragon’s tail and his sweeping 1/3 of the stars of heaven to the earth?! IT’S NOT LITERAL! I’m not saying it has no meaning, but I am saying that the literal meaning is not it!
If the Devil is a literal dragon and the chain is a literal chain, just how big is this chain to be able to bind a dragon with the power to drag 1/3 of the stars to earth???!!! What sort of abyss, or bottomless pit is big enough to hold him? The Grand Canyon couldn’t do it, nor could the Copper canyon in Mexico. And when you have found this abyss what sort of key have you got to do the job?
Now then, why should we insist that the 1000 years are literal? It would certainly not be consistent with the figurative nature of the passage to select this as literal. A man might say, how could 1000 years be anything but literal? We are familiar with Jewish numerology, not to be confused with the occult, but the figurative use of numbers. We are familiar with the numbers, 3, 7, 12 etc. and their uses, even so 1000 is used figuratively. Deut.7:9 speaks of God who keeps covenant to a thousand generations. Does that mean in the 1001 generation He becomes unreliable? Josh 23:10 presents the picture of one Hebrew soldier chasing 1000 enemies, while Ps. 50:10 says that the cattle on a thousand hills belong to God – why not 999 or 1001? We readily see the error in pressing this too literally. However, to fit the theory of the thousand year reign, the 1000 years must be taken literally.
Now, also, to fit the theory Christ has to return to reign on the earth. Read the context and it has nothing about Christ returning to the earth. Read v.4. What does it say? It says “they” reigned with Christ. Who’s the “they”? He says, “I saw the souls of them that we beheaded for the cause of Christ”. Now, how do you literally see a soul? These were those who had been beheaded, and these souls are described as being “in Heaven” (6:9 cf. 8:3, 9:13). There is absolutely nothing in the passage to suggest that Christ and souls have come to earth for a reign.
But some are fond of thinking “I am entitled to my opinion about it” (as well as other passages). “Can’t I just be free to make my own interpretation of the passage since it is figurative? My guess is as good as yours?” Bear in mind that the writer (John) had something in mind when he wrote with the language he used. Note Isa. 11:6ff and compare it with Isa. 35:8-10. If these are literal then we have a contradiction. They are both passages alluding to the nature of the Messianic reign, but the one passage has co-existing wild animals and the other has an absence of them. Both speak figuratively of peace. Many believe that utopian conditions on earth are necessary proof for the existence of Christ’s kingdom. Why? Who was reigning when the world was characterised by turmoil before Christ? Was it not God? Yes! (1 Chron. 29:23). Now we must use simple passages to interpret difficult passages. No difficult passage is going to contradict a first-principle truth. No figurative passage can be used to overturn a literal, plain passage. Whatever my interpretation, it must not conflict with the plain simple teaching of the rest of scripture.
If millennialism is true, certain things follow. It would follow, for instance, that God God failed to honour His promise. The theme of John the Immerser’s preaching was the kingdom of Heaven is near (Matt.3:1), as was that of Jesus (Matt.4:17; Mark 1:15). The apostles were promised the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19,) and it would arrive in their lifetime (v.28). Did Paul con the Collossian Christians with affirmation of their being in the Kingdom (Col. 1:13) and did John lie when he said he was in the Kingdom (Rev. 1:9)?
If millennialism is true it denies Christ is now reigning. Christ was born to be King (Matt.2:2; 12:15; 18:37). According to Peter’s inspired sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 Christ had been raised to sit on David’s throne (which is God’s throne – 1 Chron. 29:23) (vs. 30-33). This position was confirmed by Christ Himself in Rev. 3:21. Now, according to the prophecy recorded in Zech.6:13, Christ would be a priest on His throne. Is he a priest now? Absolutely (Heb. 8:1). Where is He now? On the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven (1 Cor. 15:57 – the Father is excepted from being under Christ’s rule – hence the right hand of God). Zech 6:13 is fulfilled in Heb.8:1. He is a priest forever (Heb. 7:17,21,24,28). At His coming He will raise the dead and deliver the Kingdom back to God (1 Cor. 15:23,24), and so He will step down from being King (v.28). There is no place for Him to be King reigning on earth. In fact, He can’t be King on earth (Jer. 22:30 cf. Matt.1:12). Note also again, Heb. 8:1-4. Remember Heaven is the throne and the earth is but the footstool (Isa. 66:1), so why do people expect Him to rule on the footstool? Remember also that Jesus never intended an earthly kingdom (John 18:36).
If millennialism is true, it belittles the church. We can make all the fun we like about members of the church. We are oh so very human, but this must not blind us to the status of the church. It is not a stop-gap measure, or as some believe, Plan B because Plan A failed. In Matt.16:18 Jesus spoke of His church which would never die, and this called-out group was nothing less than the Kingdom (v.19), but some would point out this was before the tide of human opinion turned against Him. Yet Eph. 5:25-27 describes the church as His bride and that He gave Himself for her. Previous, in Eph. 1:18-23, the church is described in glorious terms, and read it to see if this is failure, Plan B.
It is true that the Jews rejected Him. God knew that from eternity (Rev. 13:8). Read Isa. 53 to see the suffering Saviour. Yet he came preaching repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. Yet he came to His disciples saying some of you shall not die till till you have seen the Kingdom of Heaven come with power. The rejection of the Saviour was foreknown by God (Acts 2:23; 3:18) and He worked it to His own choosing and plan (cf. Rom. 11). The Jew who rejected Jesus was as a branch broken off from the tree. The Jews rejection of the gospel resulted in the gospel being taken to the Gentile who was as a wild branch grafted into the tree. This provoked jealousy in the rejected Jew in the hope he might repent and be grafted in again (cf. Rom. 11:30,31). Paul’s response? – see vs. 33-36. That is not a God playing catch-up, or flying by the seat of His pants, or wringing His hands in desperation wondering what He can do and then ultimately saying to His Son, Come home for a while Son and we’ll have a pity party, lick our wounds, and we’ll regroup and have a go again later. No, what happened was all part of the eternal purpose of God – Eph. 3:10,11.
In 600 B.C. Jeremiah foretold of a new covenant (31:31-34). Heb. 8:6-13 shows that this covenant is the new, superior covenant of Christ, ratified by His blood. This covenant therefore was not a hasty adjustment made in the first century because of Jewish rejection by Christ. Heb. 13:20 further describes it as the eternal covenant, implication being that it will not give way to some newer covenant at some future time of some fanciful reign of 1000 years of Christ on earth.