This article has been written by a reader as part of a series of studies that present varied interpretations of different aspects of eschatology. It is an area where there are many different viewpoints, and we want to encourage healthy and constructive discussion and thought. We encourage readers to reflect on the various studies put forward, and we very much welcome comments that are made in a respectful and thoughtful manner that reflects the brotherly love we should have for one another. If you wish to contribute an article to this particular series, then you can find our guidelines here. This is the first in a series looking at the interpretations of the millennium. You can find the others here. 

In these two articles, I will be explaining the different views which Christians hold on the subject of the millennium, and examining the evidence for and against each one. Please note, these articles are designed for readers with little knowledge of this subject, in order to give them a basic understanding; they are not designed for theology students! Those who wish to study the subject in greater depth are advised to read David Pawson’s book When Jesus Returns, or other relevant material.

The word ‘millennium’ comes from the Latin ‘mille’ – thousand, and ‘annum’ – year. According to a straightforward reading of Revelation 19-21, Jesus will return to earth in triumph at the end of the great tribulation, defeat his enemies, and reign over the entire world for a thousand years, assisted by his saints. This will be followed by the final judgment of the wicked, and the creation of the new heaven and earth. There are three basic ways of understanding the thousand-year reign:

• The A-millennial view: The Greek prefix ‘A’ – non, as in ‘atheist’. There are two versions of this – ‘sceptical’ and ‘mythical’. Both reject a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. The sceptical view, held by most liberal theologians, is that virtually all of Revelation was relevant only to the first century, and has little to do with the end times, apart from assuring us that Christ finally triumphs over the devil (if he exists!), or that good triumphs over evil. The mythical view is favoured by many evangelical church leaders in the UK. ‘Mythical’ does not mean untrue, but, like a parable, is something which teaches truth without being literally true. The thousand-year reign of Christ is understood figuratively as the entire church age, during which Jesus reigns from heaven, in the hearts and lives of believers. His kingdom is spiritual, rather than earthly or political. He will return in power and glory, to wind up the present age and usher in the new heaven and earth, but not to reign over the old one. A-millennials vary in their understanding of the tribulation, but few, if any, believe in a pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ of the church.
• The Pre-millennial view: ‘Pre’ – before, as in ‘premature baby’. The original understanding of this, known as classical or covenantal pre-millennialism, was that Jesus will return, bodily, in person, at the end of the tribulation, before the millennium, to conquer his enemies and fully establish his earthly kingdom. He will reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem, over the whole earth, assisted by his saints, for a literal thousand years. This will be followed by the final judgment and the creation of the new heaven and earth. Just under 200 years ago, a new version of this view appeared, known as dispensational pre-millennialism. This will be explained later.
• The Post-millennial view: ‘Post’ – after, as in ‘post-mortem’. Jesus will return after the millennium. There are also two variants of this view: spiritual and political. At first, it was believed Christ would rule spiritually, through his church, for a thousand years, and then return. (The pope is said to be ‘the vicar of Christ on earth’ – his earthly representative). After more than ten centuries had passed, and Jesus had not reappeared, the thousand years were reinterpreted to mean the entire church age, however long that may be, so in practice, this view differs little from a-millennialism. Political post-millennialism is the belief that the church will eventually grow sufficiently large and powerful for Christians to be able to take control of (almost) all of the world’s national governments and major institutions, and thus establish world-wide ‘Christendom’, the kingdom of God on earth. Even unbelievers will be brought under submission to Christ, and in this way, he will rule politically, through his church. After ten centuries of peace and prosperity, Jesus will return, and the church will hand over the kingdom to him, before the final judgment and the creation of the new heaven and earth. Some post-millennialists concede that the ‘thousand years’ may simply represent a long period of time.

Thy Kingdom Come

There can be no doubt that first century Jews were expecting their Messiah, when he came, to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel and reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem (Isa 9:7; Lk 1:32). His kingship, however, would extend over the entire world, with Israel having a position of leadership among the nations (Isa 2:1-4; Mic 4:1-5; Ps 2:6-9; Ps 72:8-11). This must surely have been what came to the minds of the disciples when Jesus taught them to pray, “Thy kingdom come on earth”.

Shortly before his ascension, those disciples asked Jesus, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). This was not, as some have suggested, ‘the wrong question’.

Shortly before his ascension, those disciples asked Jesus, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). This was not, as some have suggested, ‘the wrong question’. Jesus did not rebuke them for being slow to understand the Scriptures, as he did the two on the Emmaus Road (Lk 24:25). He did not say, ‘Have you dimwits still not grasped that the kingdom is not going to be restored to Israel?’ Behind the disciples’ question were four assumptions: i) Israel once had a kingdom; ii) Israel lost that kingdom; iii) the kingdom will be restored to them; iv) the Messiah, whom they now recognise is Jesus, is the one who will restore it. Jesus fully accepted those assumptions, but said the timing was in the Father’s hands. In the meanwhile, the disciples had an important task, which was to be his witnesses from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth!

In their preaching, the apostles were clearly looking forward to the time of Jesus’ return, when God will “restore everything, as he promised through his holy prophets” (Acts 3:21), that is, the Davidic kingdom will be re-established. Paul said he was in chains “because of the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20).

For the first two to three centuries, pre-millennialism appears to have been the dominant view. According to the late David Pawson, those who held it included Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp (who was a disciple of John), Irenaeus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr.¹ The church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340) records that Papias (c. 60-130), who may also have met the Apostle John, stated, “There will be a certain period of a thousand years, after the resurrection from the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in a material order on the earth.” Eusebius also says that Justin Martyr associated the thousand-year reign with the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.²

This understanding began to change when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. With much of Europe, the Near East and North Africa ‘Christianised’, it appeared that the church had conquered the world, though many would say it was the other way round!

This understanding began to change when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. With much of Europe, the Near East and North Africa ‘Christianised’, it appeared that the church had conquered the world, though many would say it was the other way round! Post-millennial doctrine is mainly attributable to Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430), who was greatly influenced by the Greek allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, rather than the Hebraic way of accepting its plain sense unless there are good reasons not to.

The Rise of Post-millennialism

In A.D. 325, the Council of Nicaea, decreed that, since Israel had rejected their Messiah, God had rejected Israel, and replaced it with the Gentile church. Having severed its Hebraic roots, the church became so anti-Semitic that the thought of Jesus reigning, in person, in Jerusalem, became anathema. Instead, they interpreted Revelation 20 to mean he would reign for a thousand years, through his church. Thus, for many centuries, post-millennialism was orthodox doctrine in the established church, although there were always small pockets of believers who held to the pre-millennial view.

Political post-millennialism developed as explorers and missionaries spread (their version of) the Gospel around the globe, raising hopes that, once enough people had been converted, the church itself would be able to establish the kingdom of God on earth. However, after several wars and revolutions on both sides of the Atlantic; two world wars; increasing liberal theology in the church, and the decline of Christianity in western nations, this hope faded, and post-millennialism became a minority view.

Political post-millennialism developed as explorers and missionaries spread (their version of) the Gospel around the globe, raising hopes that, once enough people had been converted, the church itself would be able to establish the kingdom of God on earth. 

It has experienced something of a revival, in recent years, with the rise of the Restoration movement and Dominion theology, with its belief that the church was given a mandate to go out and “take the world for Jesus!” However, critics point out that Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18:36), implying that the church was never intended to possess temporal power. Furthermore, if a majority of the world’s population must be converted before the millennium even begins – and there is no sign of that happening in the foreseeable future – it would seem to be a case of ‘the triumph of hope over experience’. The second coming is a very long way off!

Revival of the Pre-millennial View

While the pre-millennial view had never completely disappeared, from the mid-nineteenth century, it experienced a resurgence among many evangelicals, when John Nelson Darby, principal founder of the Exclusive Brethren movement, taught it as part of his Dispensational interpretation of Scripture. This differed from the classical pre-millennialism of the early church, with several embellishments, and a different understanding of the place of Israel. Darby divided history into seven eras or ‘dispensations’, in each of which, he said, God related to humans in a different way. The sixth of these became known as the ‘church age’, or ‘dispensation of grace’, extending from Pentecost to the supposed pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ of the church.

Darby rejected Replacement Theology, recognising that God has not rejected Israel, but that they still have a prophetic role to play in his end-time purposes. However, he deviated from God’s Word when he called the church age ‘a parenthesis’, saying that, before the rise of the antichrist, Jesus will come and snatch up the church to heaven, where it will be kept safely for seven years, while God returns to focusing his attention on Israel, using the tribulation to discipline them and bring them back to himself. The 144,000 Jews of Revelation 7 become an army of evangelists, who go on a world-wide campaign, bringing myriads of other Jews and many Gentiles to faith in Christ – all of which is eisegesis – reading into Scripture things it does not say!

Furthermore, Darby said the seventh ‘dispensation’ is the millennium, during which the church, whom he called “God’s heavenly people”, will reign in heaven, while Israel, whom he called “God’s earthly people”, will reign with Jesus on earth. Thus, he tore asunder what God, in Christ, has joined together (Jn 10:16; Eph 2:11-22; Rom 11:11-24).

Darby took his Dispensational doctrine to the USA, where he convinced Cyrus Scofield it was correct. Scofield incorporated it into the notes of his very popular study Bible, and since those notes are often indistinguishable from the inspired text, the doctrine became accepted as ‘gospel truth’ by millions of evangelical Christians, especially in the USA, though it is also taught by some Christian leaders in the UK and elsewhere. Sadly (in the opinion of many), missionaries have spread it across the globe.

Darby’s novel version of pre-millennialism caused many Bible-believing theologians to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’. Rather than returning to the classical version, most evangelical leaders in the UK subscribe to a-millennialism. They may look forward eagerly to Christ’s second coming, but believe things will then move swiftly to the final judgment and the creation of the new heaven and earth. Jesus will reign for eternity in the heavenly Zion, but not, first, for a thousand years in the earthly Jerusalem.

In Part 2, we will consider the evidence for and against the different views.

End notes:
1 When Jesus Returns, David Pawson, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., p.259
2 A New Eusebius, SPCK, J Stevenson, p.48