Within Christendom, there are three main beliefs as to the timing of our Savior’s return. And while we all agree that He will return to earth, we just can’t seem to get on the same page as to when. This post will take a quick peek into these different views.
As you read this little post, please keep in mind that we can all love each other with the love of Christ, and still be saved, and still be completely wrong about this. It isn’t this issue that unites us (obviously); it’s the love that we share for our Savior and each other.
There are a couple of ways of approaching the Word of God (and even reality), that must be addressed.
First, Reality
How we view reality greatly affects our understanding of it. Some wish to view life through the lens of their own feelings, thoughts, and preconceptions. This is called being Subjective. On the other hand, others can view life from a different perspective than merely their own point of view. This is called being Objective.
If we only view the Word of God with subjectivity, then we will definitely miss a thing or two. Now don’t get me wrong, the scriptures are most definitely concerned with how we see life from our own perspective. In fact, it is a common practice to see how each verse of the Bible speaks to us individually. It’s called “application”. We read a verse and ask, “How does this apply to me, personally?”. This approach has deep merit and is extremely useful in living out the wisdom of God in our lives.
And yet, if this is all that we do, we run the risk of misinterpreting a message that is strictly informational or historic (even if it hasn’t happened yet, as in prophecy). I mean, some things are just facts. Regardless of how we feel about facts, they still remain unchanged by our feelings about them. Wishing that a fact is not true does not remove the fact from reality.
Conversely, approaching a fact with objectivity will allow the recipient of that fact to take it as it is, regardless of the person’s feelings or prior opinion about it.
Having an objective view on a fact presented in the Bible, and then allowing that fact to influence our feelings in a positive way, is probably the better approach in understanding what God’s message is to us in any given thing. Not doing this can be the root of all kinds of misunderstanding and error. It is imperative that one accepts the facts of the Bible and then adjusts their attitude to fall in line with the message, rather than to allow one’s attitude attempt to change the facts as presented in the Bible. This leads us to our next topic.
Hermeneutics
Sorry, big word alert (one line too late). The way that we interpret the Bible is called “hermeneutics”. The word itself is neither good nor bad; it’s the kind of hermeneutics we use that can be good or bad. Just like, dogma is neither good nor bad; the kind of dogma we hold to is what can be good or bad.
The debate over the timing of Jesus’ return centers mainly around a single chapter in the Bible: Revelation 20. In that chapter, it talks about a “thousand years”.
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit [abyss, or underworld] and a heavy chain in his hand. He seized the dragon—that old serpent, who is the devil, Satan—and bound him in chains for a thousand years. The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. Afterward he must be released for a little while.
Revelation 20:1-3 (NLT)
That’s the first use of this phrase in the chapter. It doesn’t speak about the return of the Lord yet (that comes a bit later – by inference) but it is the first time we see this phrase in our chapter. In fact, it’s used twice here (six times in the whole chapter).
As you read this passage, does it give any indication that the thousand years are anything other than a literal thousand year period (otherwise called “millennium”)? If so, I’m not seeing it.
If we contrast this “thousand years” with the last three words in the passage, “a little while”, then we can easily see which term is specific and which term is not. Let’s pretend that we are taking a test on this passage. There are two questions. The first question goes something like this:
1. How long will Satan be locked up in the abyss?
The second question goes like this:
2. How long will Satan be released after he is let out of the abyss?
Based on the text of the passage, we can easily answer both questions. The answer to #1 is “1,000 years”; the answer to #2 is “for a little while”. But if the question to #2 is “EXACTLY how long will Satan be released”, the answer is “no one knows the exact amount of time”.
This is all very basic to communication isn’t it (and math)? And yet, this is the problem we are faced with when dealing with the way that some people wish to interpret scripture.
And so there are two basic approaches to interpreting the Bible: Exegetic and Eisegetic.
Exegesis (exegetical) hermeneutics will take what is written as it is written. This does not necessarily mean it is taken literally (as in Psalm 91:4 “He will cover you with his feathers. He will shelter you with his wings. His faithful promises are your armor and protection.”) In this example, we don’t interpret it to mean that God has feathers or wings; we interpret it to mean that He will protect those who are His, as a grown bird shelters its chicks. This approach is objective in nature.
Eisegesis (eisegetical) hermeneutics, in contrast, will interpret the text in light of what the reader already believes to be true (whether it is or not). It is a subjective approach to the Bible.
In my humble opinion, the exegetical approach is always the superior method. I call my own hermeneutic method a “plain meaning” approach. It is exegetical, rather than eisegetical. It takes into account all of the literary devices (allegory, metaphor, poetry, hyperbole, colloquialism, literal meaning, etc.) as well as cultural, spiritual, and biblical context (what does the whole Bible say about this – how does it fit into the overall message?).
3 Doctrines
The three main doctrines that we come across regarding the return of Jesus are these: Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism. Since they are all different, and only one can be correct, if any of them is, then two of them must be wrong.
Definitions of the positions:
Premillennialism says that the Lord will return to Earth prior to His thousand-year reign on Earth. It is the only exegetical (objective) interpretation of the three.
Postmillennialism basically says that the thousand years are not a literal 1,000 years, but an unspecified period of time in which the Church reigns over the earth while Jesus is in heaven. This time began after He ascended into heaven and will end when He returns. Adherents believe that Christianity increases on Earth (along with goodness and righteousness) until the Lord’s return. This interpretation is subjective (eisegetical). As we can observe in the world today, Christianity is on the decrease, not the increase.
Amillennialism basically says that the 1,000 years does not exist literally on Earth. They take this to be a spiritual notion and not a literal one. Everything that is mentioned about this time in the Bible is allegorical and has no factual, literal manifestation upon our planet. Both goodness and evil increase until the Lord’s return. This interpretation is also subjective (eisegetical).
The Biblical Message
When we examine the biblical text that addresses the thousand-year period, known as “The Millennium”, here is what we read (picking up where we left off above):
4 “Then I saw thrones, and the people sitting on them had been given the authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus and for proclaiming the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his statue, nor accepted his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5 “This is the first resurrection. (The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years had ended.) 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years.
7 “When the thousand years come to an end, Satan will be let out of his prison. 8 He will go out to deceive the nations—called Gog and Magog—in every corner of the earth. He will gather them together for battle—a mighty army, as numberless as sand along the seashore. 9 And I saw them as they went up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded God’s people and the beloved city. But fire from heaven came down on the attacking armies and consumed them.
10 “Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
Revelation 20:4-10, (NLT)
It would be easy to write an entire book on just this one topic. But to keep this post in a more casual form (and length), let’s just look at which interpretation makes the most sense, based on what the text actually says.
“Then I saw thrones, and the people sitting on them had been given the authority to judge.” This seems to be referring to the 24 Elders who sit on thrones in heaven (see Revelation 4:4). That makes it more literal.
“And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus and for proclaiming the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his statue, nor accepted his mark on their foreheads or their hands.” This group of people are believers who are killed during the Great Tribulation (see Revelation 13:12, 16-17; 14:9-11; Matthew 24:15; and Daniel 9:27). A beheading is a physical, literal event – not allegory.
“They all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” As Christians, we believe in a bodily resurrection of the dead saints. That is a major part of our faith. It is dogma (unnegotiable). Why are some believers accepting the resurrection as literal and not the thousand years? After all, which is the more difficult thing to believe? Humans have seen far fewer resurrections than accounts of history that lead to there being thousands of years that have passed. It is a far-gone conclusion by the masses that Earth has experienced thousands and thousands of years of history. Why this thousand years is forced into the category of allegory is beyond my understanding. “Reign[ing] with Christ for a thousand years” is in context of a much larger teaching from the scriptures. There are many verses that lead us to understand that this reign is on the literal earth (1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4; Revelation 19…) just to list a few. And these verses in Revelation 20 show us a literal thousand-year reign when He does return.
Still, as already mentioned, I take the adherents of the postmillennial and amillennial positions to be just as saved as I am. Such a stance, however ill-conceived, does not remove them from the brotherhood. Therefore, they are just as beloved as any other follower of the Savior. But I have a hunch that He isn’t so thrilled about their false notions.
When doctrine is false, it is like a little bit of rust. It doesn’t ruin the integrity of the metal at first, but after a time it very well might. Perhaps the one who teaches such a doctrine is secure in his/her faith, but there is no way of knowing how such a false idea can influence the faith of others — especially if their faith is tenuous to begin with.
Unfortunately, when it comes to prophecies that have not yet come to pass, there is much confusion within the Church. When we look at all of the many prophecies that have already been realized (especially concerning Jesus), they all have come to pass in exactly the manner as foretold. Why would we expect those that have not yet been fulfilled to be any different?
My personal belief is that the Lord will return exactly when the Bible says He will – just before the millennium, after the Tribulation, during His wrath, when He will rule on Earth as its King. I encourage the reader to stick to a method of interpretation that is objective (taking the Word for what it says) as opposed to a subjective one (trying to force the Word into saying what we want it to say).
With nothing but love for my brethren who hold to either an amillennial or postmillennial return of the Lord,
Gary
