The Shortcomings of Premillennialism
In this post, I want to discuss the problems I found with the interpretation that I was first taught (premillennialism), which led me to venture into alternative readings in search of an interpretation that could explain all that we find in Rev 20 and the rest of the Bible. Another alternative, postmillennialism, will not be discussed here. With all published interpretations by credentialed NT scholars, I have never found the postmillennial reading of Rev 20 (or the system) plausible, even though I appreciate some of the system’s theological values. So, while I don’t intend to be dismissive, in order to keep these posts focused where most readers are, I will not engage postmillennialism. The discussion of the problems with premillennialism in this post will pave the way for my positive explanation of the imagery in Rev 20 in the posts that follow.
Premillennialism Defined
Premillennialism is the view that Jesus will return, arrest and imprison Satan, effect a partial resurrection to establish a world-wide, but temporary (usually thought to be literally 1,000 years) kingdom here on earth. This reign will come to an end when Satan is released and allowed to inspire a rebellion against Jesus and his people. This rebellion is quickly stamped out. Then, there is a second, this time universal, resurrection, followed by the judgment of the ungodly, and the new creation, which is the eternal state. This system is based largely on what its proponents believe is the literal (and obvious) meaning of Rev 20 along with many OT passages that express the hope of a universal earthly kingdom (e.g. Isa 65–66; Ezek 40–48; Zech 14) in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Abraham (Gen 12) and David (2 Sam 7).
My Journey From Premillennialism
I cut my teeth on the Bible in a strongly dispensational premillennial church. This wasn’t the scholarly dispensationalism of Dallas Theological Seminary, where I received my seminary education. This was the popular-level, Left Behind, “let’s see if we can figure out who the Anti-Christ is,” prophecy conference once a month, the rapture is happening next Tuesday, kind of dispensationalism. I’m not trying to be insulting, but it was really like this. There were many wonderful things about this church and the tradition it hails from. Most formatively for me, this community drilled into my head that the Bible is God’s authoritative word and that I needed to go where it leads me if I wanted to know God and follow Jesus faithfully. So, while I think some of the theology I was taught there is foreign to anything we find in scripture, I’m thankful for the love of the Bible this community cultivated in me. Once I left this church, I soon found myself unsatisfied with the case they made for their belief in a pre-tribulation rapture (which I had been zealous to defend before). I was quickly convinced that there is no biblical basis for this teaching, which no one believed before the late 19th century. Although it became very popular in the 20th century in the US, you will hardly find credentialed a NT scholar advocating it in publications today, even among those who teach at institutions that require their faculty to affirm belief in it. It is recognized by virtually every NT scholar who publishes peer-reviewed works that the prooftexts used to make the argument (e.g. 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4) do not refer to an invisible return of Jesus to secretly rapture of the church, but to the resurrection hope of believers at the parousia to judge unbelievers and consummate the new creation.
Still, after becoming convinced that a pre-tribulation rapture isn’t biblical, I maintained my belief in premillennialism for a little while, because I was taught that other views argued through “spiritualizing” biblical prophecy, which meant degrading the Bible’s authority. The non-dispensational variety is often labeled “historic premillennialism” because it was espoused by influential early church fathers (e.g., Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; though the blanket claim that “all the early fathers were premillennial” is incorrect). However, the more I read, the more I learned that many people who held as high a view of the Bible as I do, but who could read it in the original languages (as I was learning to by this time), and published influential peer-reviewed research on the relevant texts, found tremendous problems in the premillennial reading. I also learned that premillennialism, although ancient, and probably the view held by the majority of Evangelicals today, is not the view most Christian theologians throughout history have held. So, I thought it was important to consider the problems they see in premillennialism and listen carefully to the arguments for alternative readings of Rev 20, so that at least I wouldn’t be guilty of dismissing them based only on a hopeful and blissful ignorance. But, when I heard the arguments I was faced with many insurmountable problems with the premillennial view that I couldn’t unhear. Soon, I became convinced that premillennialism lacks explanatory value in Rev 20 and biblical eschatology more broadly.
Problems with Premillennialism
Let me explain the three problems that seemed most powerful here.
First, when we look at other eschatological discourses in the NT (as well as the OT), we don’t find anything that looks like the premillennial system. You will look in vain at texts like Mark 13 (and it parallels in Matt 24–25 and Luke 17; 21), Rom 8, 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4, 2 Thess 1–2, 2 Pet 3 for a temporary earthly reign of Jesus, sandwiched between two partial resurrections, and interrupted by a satanically inspired rebellion in defiance of Jesus’ physical reign on earth. Instead, despite some creative efforts, what you find in these texts is simpler. Christians persevere in this age in the hope that Jesus will return, raise all the dead in a single universal resurrection event, judge the wicked, vindicate his people, and share life with them eternally in the new heavens and new earth. 1 Cor 15 is especially instructive. In vv. 20–26, Paul describes the future resurrection of those who belong to “Christ, the firstfruits,” which is followed immediately by “the end” (v. 24) when Jesus gives the Father his kingdom after having subdued every enemy, the last of which is death—based on Isa 25:8, also alluded to in Rev 20:14, after the millennium. For Paul, the “death of death” happens at the resurrection, not 1,000 years later. The resurrection immediately inaugurates the eternal new creation kingdom. This is clear when we go on to vv. 50–57. The “kingdom of God” (v. 50) refers to the eternal state. It’s interesting that “flesh and blood” (referring to unresurrected humans) cannot inherit this kingdom, while premillennialism requires that unresurrected people inhabit the kingdom based on their reading of Rev 20. However, for Paul, this categorically cannot happen. The kingdom of God, in its consummated state, is the new creation, which will be enjoyed only by God’s resurrected people (v. 52), beginning immediately after death is annihilated (vv. 53–56). Although some have tried, there simply is no room here to fit a 1,000-year kingdom, as premillennialists understand it.
Second, much of the premillennialist case rests on a chronological understanding of Rev 19–22, where Jesus returns (19:11–21), imprisons Satan (20:1–3), and resurrects his people alone and establishes the millennial earthly kingdom (20:4–6). This is followed by Satan’s release and rebellion (20:7–9) and concluded with a lengthy vision of universal resurrection, judgment, and new creation (20:10–22:5). While this argument seems strong at first, it creates has problems that are seldom acknowledged by premillennialists. I already referenced 1 Cor 15:50, which says that unresurrected people cannot inherit the kingdom. But the premillennial reading this section requires that they do, since otherwise there is no one but resurrected believers in the millennium for Satan to deceive. However, according to Rev 19:11–21, when Jesus returns he kills everyone except his people who he has returned to save. In Rev 19:17–18, an angel calls the vultures to feast on “the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty…and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.” Least we think this isn’t universal, v. 21 says “the rest [of unredeemed humanity] were killed with the sword coming out of” Christ’s mouth. There is no neutrality in Revelation that could leave open the possibility that some unbelievers are not judged in this parousia scene. Everyone either follows Jesus to the death and received ultimate vindication when he returns or they take the mark of the Beast and will suffer judgment (Rev 13:16–17; 14:9–11; 20:4). But, this means there can be no unresurrected, unbelieving nations for Satan to deceive in Rev 20, if the millennium vision is chronologically subsequent to Jesus’ return as depicted in Rev 19. When you read even the best premillennialist commentaries on Rev 19 and 20, you see that this is a problem they have a very hard time solving. As I’ll argue in a later post, there are compelling reasons to take Rev 20 as a recapitulation of Rev 19 (two complementary perspectives on what will transpire at the parousia), because of these problems and based on John’s use of the OT here and for the broader structure of Revelation.
Third, the OT passages that are often thought to present a hope that looks like the premillennialist expectation are not referenced in Rev 20. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that such passages are mentioned in Revelation (a book littered with OT allusions), primarily in depictions of the new creation, especially in Rev 21–22 follow the vision of the millennium. This makes Revelation tremendously valuable for establishing a biblical eschatology since he plots so much OT material in relation to Jesus’ death, resurrection, exaltation, and second advent (see Brian J. Tabb, All Things New: Revelation as Canonical Capstone, NSBT 48, InterVarsity, 2019). If John saw the prophetic hopes of the kingdom of God fulfilled in the new creation and not the millennium, then that should impact our interpretation of Rev 20 and the theology we derive from it.
I’ll build on these points in my positive case.
Conclusion
These are the main issues that led me to search for a better way of reading Rev 20. All interpretations have some degree of difficulty. However, I believe the reading I will propose in the following posts has less significant issues than the problems with premillennialism that I’ve explained here. While further critique of the premillennial reading will be unavoidable, I will focus my attention on providing a positive case for my celestial millennial understanding of Rev 20:1–6.
Jesus and Paul and the New Testament 