How I Became An Amillennialist

The current state of eschatological studies within evangelicalism is quite polarized. Describing yourself as either a Premillennialist, Postmillennialist, or Amillennialist can carry an incredible amount of theological baggage. Our hermeneutical methods are automatically exposed, and somehow we get labeled as either "spiritualizing" the text, or taking it too literally. Recently, I've been spending some time studying this issue and although I don't think that I understand everything that pertains to each view, I've come to a personal conclusion after weighing the evidence.

Like most American evangelicals, I grew up attending a dispensational church. I also attended a Christian high school that taught basic Dispensationalism. This is usually enough to create any evangelical into a dispensationalist, but throw in reading the increasingly popular end-times series, Left Behind, and you have all the necessary pre-requisites to be a full blown pretribulational premillennial dispensationalist. Obviously, when you're a dispensationalist nothing is more abhorred then Amillennialism. I too was there. I hated Amillennialism. I viewed it as liberal theology like most do (never mind the historical precedence), and I thought that it essentially threw away the book of revelation and simply turned it into a giant symbolic analogy of the present age in an arbitrary fashion. Amillennialism, I thought, was a horrible position to hold.

My own wanderings in eschatology over the past year have lead me towards an Amilleninal conclusion, despite my prior assessments. The first problem came with pretribulationalism. After studying the "rapture" I realized that it is always in relation to Christ's physical return. Despite the arguments about imminence, I realized that 1 Thess 4, and Mt 24 give us no understanding of a "secret" return. Without going into detail here, I quickly rejected the notion of a pretribulational rapture. I realized that the view of a pretribulational rapture is actually more tied to ecclesiology then it is to eschatology. This seemed highly problematic to me. The only reason the pretrib rapture exists in theological studies is because of a staunch dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Something that I have now rejected for a covenantal approach to their relationship (cf. Ro 2:29; Ro 9:6-8; Gal 3:15-29; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:11-22; Phil 3:3; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Heb 8:6-13).

In accepting Covenant Theology, I became afraid about how this would affect my eschatology. I knew that Dispensational Premillenialism was out as an option, but Historic Premillenialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism were still left to study. Initially Historic Premillenialism seemed good because it embraces a posttribulational rapture, and covenant theology. However, my problems further extended into areas of the resurrection, judgment and the end of the age. Historic Premillenialism gave insufficient answers to these questions. How can there be two resurrections? Two judgments? Or a thousand year transitional period before the age to come? Outside of Revelation, I found the NT writers teaching that the resurrection, judgment, and end of the age all happening at Christ's return. This posed as an incredible problem for any form of Premillenialism. Because of these thoughts, I started to seriously doubt Historic Premillenialism.

So I decided to study Amillennialism. I knew that Amillennialism would have a lot of explaining to do for me to accept it... and to my surprise it exceeded all of my expectations. At the outset I determined that unless Amillennialism gave a sufficient answer to my problems then I would turn to Postmillennialism, or embrace a form of eschatological agnosticism. My initial problems with Amillennialism were threefold. How could this present age be the millennial reign of Christ? How could Satan possibly be bound in this age? And How Does the Amillennialist explain the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:5?

Although there are other important texts to this study (Mt 24; Ro 11; Dan 9; 1 Thess 4; 2 Thess 2; 1 Cor 15, etc…), everything ultimately hinges upon Revelation 20. Therefore, I will only deal with this particular text. I obviously won’t be able to do this issue justice at any length, so I will give a simple explanation based upon my recent studies. I’ve come to conclude that the answer to the daunting system of eschatology within Revelation can be answered in one word: Recapitulation.

Dispensationalist's view Revelation 19-20 in a chronological fashion. However, there is good reason to believe that the two chapters describe the same event from different perspectives. The battle described in Rev 19 after the second coming of Christ is one in which Christ destroys the nations in his judgment. Following this incident is the millennial reign of Christ, according to dispensationalists, which is followed by yet another major battle. However, it makes more sense to view these battles as the same event. A few reasons suggest this. One: the battles of Rev 16, 19 and 20 use imagery from the same event described in Ezekiel 38-39. Demonstrating that these major battles are not sequential but recapitulated. Two: If Christ has already judged the nations and destroyed them in Rev 19, where do the nations come from to fight Christ once again in Rev 20 and why would Satan be bound so as to not decieve them? Especially since 19:18-21 describes the completeness of the battle in all-inclusive terms. Three: In revelation there are references to battles in general terms in chapters 9, 11, 12, and 13. Yet, in the last three times a battle is described (16, 19, and 20), a definite article is used in the Greek text. These chapters are the last three times a battle is described and the only time the word battle is used with a definite article in Revelation. Four: Since Rev 15 tells us that 7 bowls will be poured out for the completion of God’s wrath, and because Rev 19:11-21 marks the end of God’s wrath against the world, then Rev 20:7-10 must be recapitulated with the battle of Rev 19. All these reasons were very convincing to me.

Therefore, if the battles of Rev 19 & 20 are recapitulated then the thousand-year reign of Christ is the present age. This would make sense because we are told multiple times that Christ is currently seated at the right hand of the throne of God, indicating that he is reigning, and because Rev 19 describes the judgment that Christ brings at his second coming. The implications of this would mean that Satan is currently bound. This idea isn't as problematic as it initially sounds. Not only do the NT writers demonstrate this idea generally all throughout their writings with the great spiritual victory that Christ won against the forces of Satan, but also Christ himself had some interesting things to say.

In Mark 3:27, after casting out a demon, Christ said, “But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man.” Likewise, In Luke 10:17-18, after the seventy-two returned to Christ and announced that the demons are subject to the name of Christ, Jesus told them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven.” Clearly, the symbolic idea of being bound by a chain in Rev 20 demonstrates that the Gospel of Christ will advance and so will his Kingdom. Another thing to consider is that Rev 20:3 tells us that Satan is bound from deceiving the nations. Therefore, Satan is bound in relation to the expansion of the Gospel. There is no doubt that he is still the prince and power of the air, and the god of this world, but his relation to the expansion of Christ’s kingdom is that he is bound from deceiving those nations that Christ commissioned his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to. Because of the binding of Satan during this age, the four living creatures that encircle the throne of God in Rev 5:9 are able to sing, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe, and language, and people and nation.” Truly, the binding of Satan is in effect, and the Gospel is expanding to the nations. (Paul also speaks of the restraining aspect of evil in 2 Thess 2:3-8, which ends in Christ’s coming and the ultimate destruction of evil. This passage would then further tie the battles of Rev 19 & 20 together!)

The last question that I needed answered was the idea of the first resurrection in Rev 20:5. According to Dispensationalists, the first resurrection occurs at the commencement of the millennial reign of Christ, in which believers are resurrected, and the second resurrection occurs at the end of the millennium, in which those who come to Christ during the millennium are resurrected along with the rest of the reprobates. Not only is the idea of two resurrections nowhere to be found in the bible outside of this passage, which ought to indicate something on its own, but there is contextual evidence which should not lead us to believe that the two resurrections are sequential, but of different kinds. Rev 20 contrasts the first resurrection with second death. The second death is not the second sequential death of man, but a different kind of death: a spiritual death. This would seem to make sense for the first resurrection as well, since those who participate in the first resurrection will not face the second death, as Rev 20:6 tells us. Therefore, the first resurrection is not the first set of bodily resurrections followed by another set of bodily resurrections, but is instead a different kind of resurrection. The first being spiritual, the second being bodily. This makes sense when you consider that the thrones mentioned in 20:4 are for those beheaded for their testimony of Christ. These thrones are not earthly, but heavenly. They are for the saints. With this in mind, and the multiple passages in the NT that tell us that the bodily resurrection occurs after Christ’s physical return, it further adds support to such a conclusion.

There is obviously so much more to discuss in relation to this view of eschatology. Our opinion of the nature of Israel, and our view of dispensations also determine what we believe about eschatology. There simply is too much that pertains to our eschatological views. Although I haven’t addressed those issues in this study, the arguments in favor of recapitulation in Revelation are staggering. Since Rev 20 is the only passage that teaches the millennial reign of Christ, then how we understand this passage is obviously the linchpin of our personal eschatology. In conclusion of this study, Satan is most certainly bound to the Kingdom of God, which Christ oversees from the right hand of the throne of God. Most importantly, Christ is sovereignly reigning over the history of this world during this “thousand year” period. It seems appropriate therefore, to understand that the thousand years began at Christ’s resurrection. Consider the words of Peter for further support to this wonderful truth about Christ’s exaltation!

1 Peter 3:22 "[Christ] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, powers, and authorities having been subjected to him."

Also consider the words of the author of Hebrews,

Hebrews 1:8-13 "But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions. And, You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end. And to which of the angels has he ever said, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?"