Introduction

No matter how much evidence is offered in support of any given truth, opposition will inevitably arise. Some today still believe that the world is flat, while others claim that the Holocaust never happened. Certainly these minorities have valid arguments upon which they can build their case, but this in no way negates the fact that there is a clear answer contrary to their view. Though more ambiguous an issue than the shape of the earth or recent world history, the Bible's teaching on the placement of the Millennial Kingdom is just as clear. While arguments can be made against the premillennial view, the plain truth of Scripture places the kingdom after the Second Coming of Christ.

Summary Defense

Supporting the premillennial view is the testimony of the early church. While amillennialism eventually overtook premillenialism, most amillennialists agreed that the Millennium was occurring during their time and that it would last for a literal 1000 years. That Christ did not return after 1000 years forced most to reinterpret the 1000 years as being symbolic rather than literal. Though it is commendable to change one's views in light of contrary facts, such a change throws into question the entire amillennialist interpretation, which is clearly not as sound as they once thought. Premillennialism has since regained popularity, and though tradition in no way proves a doctrine correct, neither is it something that we would be wise to ignore.

Every book that we have read and studied on the question of the millennium, whether it was favorable or unfavorable to the doctrine, or whether it gave full force and value to the testimony or tried to dissipate its implications, admitted freely that the entire Church of the first three centuries was premillennial, almost to a man.Charles Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism

The premillennial view does not rely on such arbitrary evidence, however; it also has much Scriptural support. A literal earthly kingdom ruled by Christ, such as is promised in the Old Testament (Dan. 7, Ez. 6-7) does not find fulfillment in either the amillennialist or postmillennialist view. God promised a real Davidic reign of the Messiah, and both a present heavenly kingdom and a future, church-driven utopia leave this promise of God empty. Other Scriptural support may be cited: The binding of Satan having not yet occurred and the physical resurrection of the saints (disproving the amilliennialist position), the martyring of the saints before the kingdom (disproving the postmillennialist view), etc. These arguments and others will be considered further in the refutation of both false views.

The plain reading of Scripture suggests a Kingdom following the Second Coming of Christ. A thorough positive argument for this fact would require a verse-by-verse discussion of Revelation and some of Daniel, Matthew, and others. However, because of space restraints, I will now turn to defending the premillennialist view against postmillennialist and amillennialist arguments, offering further evidence for the falsehood of the opposing views.

Refutation of Postmillennialism

Since this debate focuses around the chronological placement of the Kingdom, it makes sense that we should consider seriously all direct references to when the Kingdom would come. This includes John's teaching that Christ would be coming quickly. The postmillennialist would argue that Christ's coming occurs after the 1000 years. Whether this period of time is literal or figurative, it certainly represents a long period of time. The postmillennialist then must argue for a contradiction—that Christ is coming quickly, and that His coming is a long way off!

Yet we need not focus on such specific issues; the whole of Scripture teaches a theology blatantly contrary to that of the postmillennialists. Whereas postmillennialism sees the world as being converted, ushering in a thousand-year utopia, culminating in the return of Christ, the Bible teaches that very few will come to Christ (Mat. 7:13-14). Revelation itself teaches that the Kingdom will be brought about by the intervention of God, not the efforts of men. Paul paints a picture not of an ever-improving utopia, but of a depraved future world which will be hostile to the Gospel (1 Tim. 1:4-5, 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:1-5). Peter and Jude describe the same sort of corrupt world in the end days (2 Pet. 2:1-3, Jude 1:12-19). Revelation agrees, placing the Kingdom as following Christ's intervention in terminating the tribulation. The postmillennialist pipe dream that the world will become a utopia of its own accord requires that the hostile world described in the above verses be reconciled with the "universal submission to the Lord's sovereignty" of Isaiah 11:6-9—an impossible task. Postmillennialists are not the only ones who must reconcile irreconcilable data, however.

Refutation of Amillennialism

Amillennialists believe that the kingdom is a symbolic reference to the present age. If this is the case, then certainly descriptions of the kingdom must also fit modern times. Furthermore, we should expect to find fulfillment of all kingdom prophecies in the present age. Careful observation, however, proves that any such expectations will be severely disappointed.

Revelation 20:3 declares that Satan will be bound in the abyss for the 1000 years, and verse 7 states that he will be loosed again at the end of that time. Amillennialism would require that Satan is bound in the present age, yet Peter clearly says that Satan is on the prowl, looking for someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). In response to this, amillennialists may argue that Satan is only bound in the sense that he cannot deceive the nations. This is a legitimate argument based on Scripture (Rev. 20:3, 7-8). However, the plain reading of Satan being bound, locked and sealed away (20:2-3) contradicts the plain meaning of Satan being on the prowl. It is possible, then, that the mention of Satan's deceiving the nations is not to define the nature of Satan's being bound, but to emphasize one of his key roles in the culmination of world history. The assumption that Satan is presently bound fails to explain why the nations are even now being deceived. The faithful remain a minority, as they did before the incarnation of Christ, suggesting little change with Satan free or bound—assuming the amillennialist interpretation. What role would Satan play in the future, if the nations are already deceived, pitting themselves against the true God?

Revelation 16 teaches that the three evil figures—Satan, the beast, and the false prophet—are instrumental in gathering the nations against God. Amillennialists use this to argue against the premillennial position that the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire a thousand years before Satan, thus disproving (they believe) the premillennialist position that Satan still awaits two future defeats. However, this misunderstands the premillennialist view, which claims that Revelation 13:11-14 makes it clear that Satan is deceiving people through the beast and false prophet before the kingdom. Thus the battle of Armageddon marks the end of the Tribulation—a separate battle from Satan's final defeat, which occurs 1000 years later at the end of the kingdom. We read in 19:20 that only the beast and prophet are cast into the lake of fire and sulfur at the battle of Armageddon. Satan is not mentioned here—rather than being thrown into the lake which is eternal torment (Rev. 20:10), he is simply cast into the abyss (20:1,2), which is temporary. Amillennialists, assuming Satan and his two cohorts are cast down to the same place at the same time, also assume that Satan isn't mentioned as being thrown into the lake simply because he is dealt with in the next chapter. Whereas all three deceive the nations for Armageddon, only Satan himself is loosed in 20:7 for the final defeat, after which he is cast down to the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and false prophet already suffer, and this will be his eternal home (20:10). There is a distinction between the abyss and the lake of fire and sulfur, as noted above. This distinction alone disproves the amillennialist position that there is only one future defeat of Satan.

The amillennialist must believe that Satan's being in the lake of fire for eternity is only a "binding" from deceiving the nations!

It should be noted that the amillennialist, as indicated above, believes that Satan was cast down to the lake of fire with the beast and false prophet. This means that Satan's final home is the same as his present temporary state of binding. That is, the amillennialist must believe that Satan's being in the lake of fire for eternity is only a "binding" from deceiving the nations!

Though contradictions abound in the amillennialist take on Satan's eschatological activity, such a view of the millennium also conflicts with present reality. If we are presently experiencing the millennium, then we should see the wolf reside with the lamb, lions eating straw, and "universal submission to the Lord's sovereignty" (Isaiah 11:6-9). Hardly can this be said, even in the most figurative and hyperbolic terms, of today's world! In response to this, the amillennialist argues, based on a single verse (Rev. 12:12), that the kingdom is heavenly (Therefore you heavens rejoice!), not earthly. The rest of the verse, however, says, "woe to the earth and the sea." It also says that Satan "knows that he only has a little time." Time until what? Until he is bound! Satan is busy making the most of his time right now—he is not bound in the abyss! Scripture also clearly teaches an earthly focus, such as Christ coming to earth to defeat the nations (Rev. 19:11-21) and the saints being on Earth (20:9). Further, the reign of the saints is not in heaven, but "they will reign on the earth" (5:10). The prophecies can only be fulfilled in an earthly kingdom. This is a fatal flaw in the amillennialist view—if the kingdom is not in heaven, the amillennialist argument falls apart at the seams.

Lastly, an oft-overlooked problem with the amillennialist's dating of Revelation comes from Paul's letter to the church at Ephesus, written in the very early 60s (60-62). In this letter, Paul speaks of the church's faith in Christ and love for the church (Ephesians 1:15-16). But if the amillennialists were correct, Christ would have spoken to the church at Ephesus less than 10 years later (actually, no later than AD 63, so between 1 and 3 years later), saying that they had fallen from their first love and were in need of repentance. That's quite a change from Paul's high praise of the Ephesian church, and one should wonder how such a change would occur so quickly.

Conclusion

The amillennialist and postmillenialist views both fail at reconciling their interpretations with the entirety of Scripture. Though the arguments can be compelling, the effect only lasts so long as they go unanswered (Prov. 18:17). Whether the 1000 years is literal or figurative, the Bible is clear that Christ's kingdom will see His ruling on the earth for a time, after which all things will be made anew, and Satan will be finally defeated.