Manual on the Millennium

THE MILLENNIUM OF REVELATION TWENTY Introduction: Importance of this chapter The first ten verses of the twentieth chapter of Revelation contain the only mention in the Bible of a millennium. The period of time indicated by the meaning of the phrase, “a thousand years’, is also referred to by Peter in his statement: “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (II Peter 3:8) The word millennium is not used in the Bible, but is a coined word derived from the Latin equivalent of a thousand years of time. The word has obtained the sanction of general usage because it has proved a convenient substitute for the phrase, “a thousand years”. This is the chapter that, for dispensational and premillennial theologians, suggests a theology, as it develops for them the doctrine of last things. Dr. Hamilton calls it “the very citadel of the pre-millennial system, and the norm to which all prophetic passages must be made to conform.”The Basis of Millennial Faith, (p.126) Everything on the subject of eschatology in both the Old and New Testament must fit the framework provided by this chapter. The claim is often made to superior skills in interpretation, and the only possible Christian approach that is loyal to the Bible is by treating selected parts of this passage as literal. This a purely arbitrary claim. All others are charged with “spiritualizing” and thus robbing it of its meaning. In light of these facts, it is important for us to properly interpret this passage before building a system of eschatology. I. Principles of Interpretation The crux of the problem often centers in the principles of interpretation adopted by the individual interpreter. If we do not begin with valid principles of interpretation, we can end up anywhere with our conclusions. A favorite principle of many is called “the golden rule of interpretation” which is: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” This is an oversimplification that is not valid. The Bible has been written in different styles with different methods of presenting its truth and must be interpreted in a way consistent with the method of presentation. There is the frequent use of metaphor, parable and figure. To interpret these literally is to miss the force of the truth for which they are a vehicle. Other important principles which should be observed for proper interpretation of a passage are: (1) The obscure passage should be interpreted in the light of the clear passage,(2) the purpose of the writer,(3) the nature of the literature, and (4) what the message meant to those who first received it. These principles cannot be ignored. This is especially true in relationship to Revelation and the passage before us. We accept this as code language. It is an apocalyptic writing. There is a certain amount of obscurity about such literature. One of its prominent features is the use of “vision” as a literary device by which writers introduce their conceptions. This literature was written in dangerous times. The personal safety of both writer and reader was endangered if their persecutors understood the true meaning of the book. Like parables, it was intended both to reveal and to conceal the truth. The purpose of the writer was not to cover up his message, but to make it increasingly vivid by “unveiling” through signs and symbols. The Christians could understand—the persecutors would not. Symbolism is a system in which qualities, ideas, principles, etc., are represented by things concrete. They are used for the expression of spiritual ideas. The literal truth lies in what is symbolized. The action or truth is what is literal. The symbol means what the action intends it to mean where the writer uses it. He adapts the symbol to suit his message. Our task is to discern what is a symbol and then what that symbol means. George Fletcher makes a good point when he says: “While we should carefully shun all spiritualization, however ingenious, which robs the Word of God of its true force and beauty, we should shun with equal care a false literalism which extracts error out of figurative statements.” (The Millennium, p.14) A close and fair examination of this passage, I believe, will show how absurd and unreasonable the conclusions of the literalist, even if their own principles of interpretation are applied. The truth is that “the plain sense” of this Scripture does not “make common sense” when treated as literal rather than symbolic, which we will proceed to illustrate and explain in section III. The only logical alternative to the dispensational and premillennial systems is what is commonly known as amillennialism. This common label is a misnomer. Amillennialism means “no millennium”. No amillennialist that I know holds to this position. The question concerns the “nature” of the millennium, not the “fact.” The great question is not “when” but “where”—in what realm do the described events take place? Are they in the realm of the natural, or in that of the spiritual? The great sin of the amillennialist is supposed to be that of “spiritualizing” the passage rather than taking it literally—that in spite of the fact that the teaching corresponds perfectly with the teachings of Jesus and Paul. My concern is that, the great mistake of all varieties of the pre-millennial system is to arbitrarily assert that “a thousand years” has to be taken literally in a passage and a book which is manifestly symbolic. A close study of the use of symbolism in this passage will bear that out.