Problems with Amillennialism, Part One
Philip B. Brown ( www.newwine.org )

The word “amillennial” means “no millennium.”  Amillennialism is the belief that the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20 is not a literal thousand years, but is figurative.  It’s an arbitrary amount of time, as in the cattle on a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10).  But the amillennial position goes much deeper than simply whether or not the thousand years in Revelation 20 is a literal thousand years.  Amillennialism views the thousand years not only an arbitrary amount of time, but also as a time that is right now currently underway.  Amillennialism views the figurative thousand years as the time between the two advents of Christ.  Premillennialism views the thousand years as a time of Christ’s earthly reign, after He returns, and before the new heavens and the new earth.  These are two fundamentally different ways to interpret Revelation 20. 

Many amillennialists will immediately begin debate against the premillennial position by focusing on the fact that no other Scripture mentions a literal thousand years.  But even if the premillennialists were to hypothetically allow for the thousand years to be an arbitrary amount of time, the issue of whether or not it’s a present or future time would remain unchanged.  The amillennialist must start with the assertion that it’s an arbitrary amount of time, because more than a thousand years have passed since the first advent.  The premillennialist, who believes the thousand years to be in the future, does not have this problem.  When Augustine wrote about amillennialism, he believed the thousand years might in fact be literal.  Back then a thousand years had not yet passed.  So he believed that it could be literal. But he also said it could be figurative.  It was not until 1000 AD that the literal thousand years of Augustine was rejected.

The issues of amillennialism are much deeper than the interpretation of Revelation 20.  One issue is the interpretation of the term, “Kingdom of Heaven,” which was used extensively by Jesus.  What was meant by this term?  The amillennialists hold that Christ was never talking about the earthly rule that the Jews believed the Messiah would have.  Amillennialism holds that “Kingdom of Heaven” is always a spiritual kingdom. Premillennialism, on the other hand, views the Kingdom of Heaven as today spiritual, but literal and natural in the future.  Some premillennialists hold that almost all uses of this term are about the spiritual kingdom, but that this does not deny a future fulfillment in a natural kingdom.  Other premillennialists hold that the term has different meanings in different contexts.  Perhaps the term evolved from natural to spiritual as Jesus’ ministry progressed.  Even though many amillennialists will try to debate against premillennialism by showing all the spiritual-kingdom uses of the term, this does not invalidate premillennialism.  On the other hand, if any use of the term indicates a future earthly reign of Christ, that single verse would invalidate amillennialism.

In other words, will Christ literally reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (1^st Tim. 6:15, Rev. 17:14, 19:16) here on Earth, after he returns?  The religious teaching of Christ’s day was that the Messiah would in fact set up such an earthly kingdom.  No one disputes the fact that an earthly reign of the Messiah is what the disciples had grown up being taught. And no one disputes the fact that Christ did not at that time set up an earthly kingdom.  The real question is whether or not Christ taught that no such kingdom is to ever be set up in the future.  Later on, I will discuss the Kingdom of Heaven in more detail.

Revelation 20 is about the first resurrection, which is followed by a thousand years.  At the start of the thousand years Satan is chained.  He is thrown into the Abyss, with it locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years are over.  Also at the start of the thousand years, John sees the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus.  They come to life and reign with Christ for the thousand years.  John sees thrones on which they sit to judge.  At the end of the thousand years, Satan is released and he goes out again to deceive the nations.  A countless number of people turn against God and march across the breath of the earth and surround the camp of God’s people, the city that God loves.  They are destroyed and then the "rest of the dead … come to life."  Then we have the great white throne judgment. The premillennial position is that all this happens after Christ returns.

The amillennial position is to say that the first resurrection is not physical but spiritual.  The unbeliever is spiritually dead.  When he finds Christ, he is made spiritually alive.  This is seen as the first resurrection.  The coming to life of the beheaded souls is seen as their conversion experience before they had died.  Then the second resurrection is the physical resurrection when Christ returns.  Satan is chained, thrown into the Abyss, with it locked and sealed over him.  But he can still tempt the people of the nations.  He just doesn’t have as much power as he had before the crucifixion.  And the city that God loves is not Jerusalem, but the worldwide city of believers.  They don’t really march across the breath of the earth. And there is no actual city.  They just hunt down and persecute Christians all over the world.  Most premillennialists find this view of Revelation 20 hard to swallow.

But a primary argument given by amillennialists is that the rest of the Bible should be used to interpret Revelation 20, instead of Revelation 20 being used to interpret the rest of the Bible.  This is true even if the interpretation of Revelation 20 would seem hard to swallow.  With this, I agree.  The rest of the Bible must be examined in order to answer the fundamental question:  Is there an earthly reign of Christ after he returns and before the new heavens and the new earth?

The Last Enemy is Death

1^st Corinthians 15 is about the resurrection of the dead.  Paul is preaching as a Pharisee against the teachings of the Sadducees.

1 Corinthians 15:12-13  Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  (13) But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised.

But Paul goes on to say that there is a chronological order to those who are resurrected.  Christ was resurrected first.  But is this an order only two events?  Or does Paul’s order extend to more resurrections?

1 Corinthians 15:22-26  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.  (23)  But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ's, at his coming.  (24) Then the end comes, when he will deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power.  (25)  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  (26)  The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

Verse 23 shows us that Paul is giving us a chronological order of events, which reflect the order in which people will receive their spiritual bodies.  The chronology even makes a distinction between the resurrection of those who belong to him, and the end that will come.  When we read these verses in a natural (chronological) reading, we get the following timeline:

1) Christ's resurrection

2) When He comes, the resurrection of those who belong to him.

3) Then the end comes, when he hands the kingdom over to the Father.  At this point he has destroyed earthly governments.  This is stated as all “dominion, authority, and power.”  So this can also include the chaining of Satan.

4) Next he must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet.

5) The last enemy is death.

So Christ must reign during the millennium until death is finally destroyed.  Again, Paul is outlining a chorological order to those who are resurrected and/or receive their spiritual bodes.  It’s “each in his own turn.”  It’s not just Christ and then everyone else.

To interpret these verses the amillennial way, the reigning of verse 25 must be going on right now.  The “for” in verse 25 is seen by amillennialists as a “recap” word that takes verse 25 out of the natural chronological order of events and brings the start of Christ’s reign (in this context) all the way back to Christ’s resurrection.  But the Greek word “gar” is a very common word (1041 occurrences) that is simply a tie-word to the previous sentence.  In this chapter alone, “gar” is used in verses 2, 9, 16, 21,22, 25, 27, 32, 24, 41, 52, and 53.  These are not recaps or summaries. It’s just a word that connects the sentence to what’s just been said.  It doesn’t indicate an end of a chorological listing of events.  This word ties the reign of Christ to the previous sentence, which is about Christ destroying all dominion, authority, and power. 

The word “gar” is usually translated as “for.”  But William D. Mounce (“Basics of Biblical Greek”) indicates that it can also be translated as “then.”  Verse 32, for example, quotes the saying, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”  The “gar” in this verse could have a sense of one thing happening after another as in effect happening after it’s cause.  Perhaps it could be translated as, “Let us eat and drink, then tomorrow we die.”  That’s not to say that “gar” has a strong sense of chronological events.  The Greek word “eita” in verse 24 does strongly mean “then.”  And the word “gar” in verse 24 doesn’t strongly mean “then.”  But by the same token, the word “gar” would not be used break out of a chronological sequence of events.  It would just add a sense of cause and effect from the destruction to the reign. 

The reign of Christ is closely connected, by the word “gar”, to the destruction of all dominions, authority, and power.  The word “gar” establishes a cause and effect between the two.  Christ reigns because he destroys all dominion, authority, and power.  And the destruction is strongly connected with the “end.”  The Greek word “eita” in verse 24 does strongly indicate that the “end” and the destruction both happen chronologically after the resurrection of those who belong to Christ.  The reign of Christ is strongly connected, by the word “gar”, to the destruction and the “end.”  So it follows that the reign of Christ is after the “end.”  Also we should note that generally speaking, when a reign is put into the same thought as conquering, the conquering generally comes first.  A king reigns because he has conquered.

Christ reigns until all enemies are put under him.  The last enemy is distinguished as death.  If interpreted the amillennial way, the last enemy would be destroyed on the same day as all the dominions, authorities, and powers.  So those enemies would also be last.  But Paul is saying that death is the last enemy.  And death is being finally overcome during this reign.  The last enemy is not dominions, authorities, and powers. The reign of Christ is listed as last in the chronology.  And Paul gives the purpose of this reign.  This purpose of this reign is associated with something that is "last".  The fact that the "last enemy" is called "last" shows that Paul was continuing his chronological listing of events.  The dominions, authorities, and powers are also enemies, but they are not the “last” enemies.

Many amillennialists will point to verses 54-55 to say that death is conquered at Christ’s second coming, therefore the last enemy is conquered at Christ’s second coming.  This verse says, “Death is swallowed up in victory.” And, “Death, is your sting? Hades, where is your sting?”  But Paul here is speaking only of those resurrected “who are Christ's, at his coming” (verse 23).  In other words, when each of us, in our turn, receives spiritual bodies, then this quote from Hosea 13:14 can be applied to us.  By contrast the verse, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (verse 32), which was quoted from Isaiah 22:13, might be something that anyone with a corruptible body might say.  Since Jesus was resurrected, the sting of death is gone for him.  When we are resurrected, the sting of death will be gone for us.  But verses 50-55 do not say that all people are changed in this way at the same time.  No, it’s “each in his own turn” (verse 23).

1 Corinthians 15:54-55  But when this corruptible will have put on incorruption, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: "Death is swallowed up in victory."  (55)  "Death, where is your sting? Hades, where is your victory?"

Until after the Second Death of Rev 20:14, death will not have been forever destroyed.  So the last enemy will not have been destroyed.  And as long as the last enemy has not been destroyed, death can still happen. Revelation 20 tells us that a whole lot of death will happen when Satan is released, after the thousand years are over.  And Paul tells us that Christ reigns until death is finally destroyed.

The Chronology of Revelation 19-21

Just as the chronology of 1^st Corinthians 15:22-26 is revealing, the chronology of Revelation chapters 19 through 21 is also revealing.  Revelation cannot be interpreted as strictly chronological.  For example, Revelation chapter 12 is obviously not chronologically between chapters 11 and 13.  However, usually there is a strong indication in the text when there is a new subject, or of a new part of the vision.  For example, Revelation 21:9 says that one of the seven angels came to John and said, “Come, I will show you the Bride.”  This can easily be an indication in a break in chronology.  This can actually say that the New Jerusalem (Paradise) could appear even at the start of it all.  But short of text like this, we should be very suspicious of interpretations that just arbitrarily shift the clock back and forth in order to make it fit.  We saw that amillennialists do this with 1^st Corinthians 15:22-26.  Now, we will see that amillennialists also do this with Revelation 19 to 21.

Revelation 19 is obviously about the return of Christ and the destruction of the beast and the false prophet.  Now remember, that in the original Greek text, there were no chapter or verse numbers.  Try reading the text without chapter or verse numbers.

Revelation 19:19 - 20:3 ESV  (19:19)  And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army.  (19:20)  And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.  (19:21)  And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.  (20:1)  Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain.  (20:2)  And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,  (20:3)  and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

If you were not real familiar with the text, you could have difficulty in saying where chapter 19 ends and chapter 20 begins.  The beast and the false prophet are defeated and thrown into the lake of fire.  Those who fight at Armageddon are slain.  And Satan is thrown into the bottomless pit and chained for a thousand years.  Do you see the natural flow of events?  Yet amillennialists tell us that Satan was chained two thousand years ago at the cross.

Amillennialists tell us that Revelation 19 is about the judgment day.  Then Revelation 20 is about the church age.  Then the end of Revelation 20, and into Revelation 21, is about judgment day and eternity again.  Even with the understanding that Revelation is apocalyptic literature, this kind of interpretation is unduly forced.  It’s not what the author intended.

The Binding of Satan

Does Scripture really teach that Satan’s power was limited after the crucifixion?  Revelation 20:2-3 says he is thrown into the Abyss.  It is locked and sealed over him.

Revelation 20:2-3  He seized the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole inhabited earth, and bound him for a thousand years,  (3) and cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were finished. After this, he must be freed for a short time.

This is very strong language that does not seem to indicate a partial restriction of Satan’s powers.  Compare this with 1 Peter 5:8-9:

1 Peter 5:8-9  Be sober and self-controlled. Be watchful. Your adversary the devil, walks around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.  (9) Withstand him steadfast in your faith, knowing that your brothers who are in the world are undergoing the same sufferings.

Revelation 20 says Satan was bound so that Satan can no longer deceive the nations.  Compare this to 2 Corinthians 4:4:

2 Corinthians 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.

Ephesians 2:1-2  You were made alive when you were dead in transgressions and sins,  (2) in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the children of disobedience;

A present-day interpretation of Revelation 20:2-3 is simply not compatible with the rest of New Testament Scripture.  Do amillennialists have another verse that they use to argue Satan was bound?  Yes, they use Matthew 12:29.  But as we will see, this is taking the verse out of context. Here is the verse:

Matthew 12:29  Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and plunder his goods, unless he first bind the strong man? Then he will plunder his house.

This is the only verse that amillennialists use to try and collaborate in their claim that Satan has been bound.  Is there any mention of the crucifixion in the context of this verse?  No, the context is about Christ healing a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute.  Jesus is simply saying that the demon in the man had to be cast out before the man could be healed. Jesus is not saying that Satan was bound so that he could no longer deceive the nations.

In order to see this, we need to walk through the context of the passage to see that Jesus was talking about healing and casting out demons.  The following walk-through of Matthew 12:25-38 makes it clear that Matthew 12:29 is about the need to cast Satan or a demon out of the man before he could be healed.  You will also see some of the New Wine System, with regard to the unpardonable sin, within this walk-through.

As we will see, this passage of Scripture is talking about the unpardonable sin.  The Holy Spirit is performing miracles that prove God’s presence in Jesus.  The Pharisees know this is God’s power, before their very eyes.  Yet they deny the work of the Holy Spirit.  They deny God’s miracles. The untrained people see that God is doing these miracles.  However, the trained Pharisees’ love for their own power is greater than any desire to see God’s work, even when it’s undeniably in front of their eyes.

Matthew 12:25-27  Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  (26)  If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?  (27)  If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.

With these verses, Jesus begins his arguments against the unpardonable claim of the Pharisees.  Satan cannot drive out Satan.  Jesus is being sarcastic when he asks, “By whom do your children cast them out?”  The Pharisees had not been casting out demons.

Who are the “children” of the Pharisees?  Why will these “children” be their judges?  When or where will this judging take place? Perhaps out of confusion, the NIV translates “your sons” as “your people.”  But most translations stick with the word given in the Greek.  Jesus asks, “By whom do your children cast them out?”

The “children” of the Pharisees are their students.  In many cases, their literal sons probably carried on in their father’s footsteps, and become the next generation of Pharisees.  Their sons would naturally put great faith in their teachings.  Yet, the Pharisees denied that Jesus is the Messiah.  Some would commit the unpardonable sin.  Others might simply sin by remaining silent.  At least in silence, they would not be committing the unpardonable sin.  In the age to come, when Christ returns, some of their students will be their judges.  For example, Paul was a Pharisee.  He was one of their students.  Those with an [agape] love for Christ cannot remain silent.  In the age to come, those who will have matured in Christ, with a Purpose Driven Life, will be the priests and kings over those who remained silent.

Matthew 12:28  But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you.

Take careful note of this verse.  Jesus is saying that it’s the Holy Spirit that casts out the demons.  Not He Himself.  This will be important when we look at the verse on the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Also, if the Holy Spirit is casting out these demons, it’s proof that the presence of Jesus is the presence of the Kingdom of God.  This goes back to the claim that Jesus is the Messiah.  If the kingdom of God had come upon them, it was because the Messiah had come.  So again, the claim that Jesus is the Messiah challenged the authority of the Pharisees.

Matthew 12:29  Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and plunder his goods, unless he first bind the strong man? Then he will plunder his house.

What (or who) is the “strong man’s house?”  Who is the “strong man?”  How does this parable relate to the healing of the blind man, with the demon?  How does this parable argue against the idea that Satan could drive out Satan?

Amillennialists, since Augustine, have used this verse to explain, in Revelation 20, how Satan could currently be chained, so that he could deceive the nations no more.  Such an explanation is necessary for them to say that the future and literal reign of Christ will not take place.  They say that Christ chained Satan at the cross.  However, nothing in the context of this verse is about the cross.  This verse is in the context of the healing of the blind and mute man, who had a demon.

The strong man’s house is the body of the blind and mute man. The strong man is Satan, or the demon inside the man.  The demon had to be bound before Christ could heal the physical problems of the man’s house. Christ is arguing that Satan would not bind himself.

Matthew 12:30  "He who is not with me is against me, and he who doesn't gather with me, scatters.

This is the bottom line.  There are only two groups here. Everyone must make a decision to be either for or against Christ.  The miracles Jesus performed produced this division in the ones who saw the miracles. Seeing the miracles forces everyone to decide for themselves.  Eventually, everyone must decide to be with Christ or against Christ.

Many will stay in the middle during his or her entire lifetime.  However, eventually God’s miracles will force everyone to be either for or against Christ.  If this doesn’t happen now, it will happen in the age to come.  In the age to come, when Christ returns, the kingdom will be undeniably everywhere.  Everyone will be forced to be on Christ’s side, or against him.  Those who decide to be against Christ, in the face of undeniable proof, will be committing the unpardonable sin.

Matthew 12:31-32 ESV  Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.  (32)  And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Remember our important verse?  Verse 28 tells us that it’s the Holy Spirit that does the miracles.  It was not Jesus himself.  When the Pharisees said it was by the power of Beelzebul, they were attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Beelzebul.  Saying a word against the Son of Man can be forgiven.  But seeing the miracles, and still denying God’s power is unpardonable.

Notice that Jesus is warning about this sin in the present age, and in the age to come.  The age to come is when the Messiah literally rules the world.  They knew that Jesus is the Messiah.  Jesus was saying that even when He literally rules, in the future, that this sin will be unpardonable.

Some may think that the age to come might be the Church Age. However, Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 clearly place the age to come as the time of eternal life.  The age to come is the millennial reign of Christ.

If actual miracles are not enough, then it’s impossible to bring the person into repentance.  These Pharisees were more concerned about their selfish power than to publically recognize the Messiah, even in the face of this proof.  And they knew that healing on the Sabbath proves Jesus to be Lord of the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:33  "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit.

Here Jesus continues to argue against what the Pharisees had said.  Jesus had been doing good works in healing the people.  How can this good fruit come from a bad tree?

Matthew 12:34-37  You offspring of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.  (35) The good man out of his good treasure brings out good things, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings out evil things.  (36) I tell you that every idle word that men speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.  (37)  For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Does this mean that Christ will weigh all our good words against all our bad words?  Is Jesus saying that if our good words outweigh our bad words, then we are saved?  What happed to salvation by grace alone?

Or can we interpret this verse more in line of the context of verse 30?  Because of the miracles of God, everyone will eventually decide for themselves to be with Christ, or to be against Christ.  If they are against Christ, they will deny the undeniable works of God, and come up with something crazy like the miracles are the works of Satan.  Thus, everyone will be judged by their words.  Their words reflect what is in their hearts.  Their words reflect their decision to be for or against Christ.  For those who have not yet heard about Christ, or for those who have not been forced to make that decision, death is not the end of the journey towards salvation.  They will still be judged by their words for or against Christ.

Matthew 12:38  Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you."

Why would the Pharisees say such a thing when they had just seen this miracle, a miracle so undeniable that they had said it was the work of Beelzebul?  Could it be they are fearful of being wrong?  Could it be they are in denial?  Could it be they are afraid?  People can always find some way to explain away any kind of proof that God may give.  Here, they were trying to convince themselves that Jesus is not the Lord of the Sabbath, because the signs were somehow not great enough.  If Jesus had done an even greater sign, they would have still attributed the work of the Holy Spirit to Beelzebul.

This concludes this walk-through of Matthew 12:25-38.  It should be clear that in this context Matthew 12:19 is only about casting Satan or a demon out of the man before he can be healed.  To say this verse is about the binding of Satan after the crucifixion is to completely take this verse out of context.  Jesus healed this man before the cross.  This verse is talking about casting the demon out of a specific man and not out of the nations.  So this verse should not be used to justify the claim that Satan was chained or bound at the cross, that the he could no longer deceive the nations.

Amillennialists always are quick to point out that nowhere else in Scripture does it say that Christ will have an earthly reign for a thousand years.  This is true.  Revelation 20 is the only place that says the Messianic Age is to be a thousand years.  However, Scripture is full of teachings that there will be a Messianic Age.  So what do amillennialists do?  They say that Satan was bound at the crucifixion.  Where is that taught elsewhere in Scripture?  Scripture teaches just the opposite.  The amillennial system simply is not compatible with the rest of Scripture.  Amillennialists should consider the New Wine System as an alternative.

Many amillennialists have rejected dispensational premillennialism because it’s rather clear from Scripture that Israel is the Church.  This is fundamental to covenant theology, which goes hand-in-hand with amillennialism.  Alternately, historic premillennialism does allow for Israel being the Church.  However, amillennialists who happen to be knowledgeable about historic premillennialism tend to object to the idea that sin would remain in the world after Christ returns.  Amillennialists view Christ’s return as bringing this world of sin to an end with the wrath of God.  But what if the Messianic Reign of Christ is climatic in God’s redemptive plan?  What if people from every nation, tribe, people, and language is just the tip of the iceberg in the number of people that God intends to save by faith in Jesus Christ? What if Israel, (which is the Church,) is the only the firstfruits of the entire harvest (Rom. 8:23, 2 Thess. 2:13, James 1:18)?  This is the New Wine System, as presented in my book, “New Wine for the End Times.” 

Natural Interpretation

Literal interpretation is when you restrict the interpretation to the definitions of the words, and the grammar used in the sentences. Natural interpretation is when you allow for idioms, symbolism, figurative speech, and anything else that comes to mind when you hear the words.  For example, when we read that Charles was at the end of his rope, does it mean that he is literally holding onto the end of a rope?  If a foreigner comes from China and hears these words, unless he has really studied American idioms, he will have no idea what is meant.  Unfortunately, it’s not important what pops into our own minds when we hear the words.  What’s important is what would have popped into the minds of audiences of the time of its writing.  Fortunately, we have primarily the Old Testament, and secondarily other texts outside of Scripture to help us understand what would have popped into their heads when they read the words.

When words like "Sodom" are used in Revelation, we don’t have to assume that it’s really the ancient city of Sodom.  That’s natural interpretation.  Sodom was a city that was clearly destroyed by God's wrath.  This thought immediately comes to mind.  No text is ever going to be a hundred percent literal.  (Especially when the text itself says it's figurative, as it does in the case of the text referencing Sodom and Egypt.) It's like showing cards with pictures and saying the first thing that comes to your mind.  It's like saying the first word that comes to your mind when you hear a word.  Natural interpretation is not a mathematical-like literal examination of the word definitions and the grammar.  (Of course those are important.)  Any natural interpretation can include symbolism.  "The Lamb of God" is symbolism, but because of all the prior teaching of Scripture, Christ quickly comes to mind when we hear these words.

We must understand ancient Chiliasm in order to understand what thoughts would naturally have come to mind when the words of Revelation were read.  Revelation was not intended to be a hard-to-understand text that only highly educated scholars could understand.  In Revelation 1:3 we read, “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.”  In other words, there were some who were blessed by reading the book, and there were others who were also to be blessed by just hearing it read.  Probably most of them didn’t even know how to read.  John intended Revelation to be understood by the masses.  The amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 is very hard to understand.  It’s something the masses would have not understood. But the Chiliast interpretation of Revelation 20 is easy to understand.  It has a natural interpretation that comes to mind quickly.

Most scholarly amillennialists today know about early Jewish Chiliasm.  They use that to attack Christian Millennialism, saying that people like Barnabas, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr were unduly influenced by it.  But knowing that Jewish Chiliasm existed prior to the writing of Revelation, would the author of Revelation have written such a hard-to-understand description of a spiritual resurrection that would so easily be confused with Jewish Chiliasm?  The amillennial position is in direct contradiction to what would have been naturally understood in that time and culture.  The author of Revelation would have never picked words that have this natural interpretation, if his true meaning is in direct contradiction to the very natural meaning.

Natural interpretation doesn't include complicated and hard-to-understand interpretations, given the knowledge of the reader.  Since the word "resurrection" is most often used in Scripture to mean the physical resurrection, and since that word was used right after words like "beheaded" and "souls", the natural interpretation is that of a physical resurrection.  It takes a lot of explaining for anyone to see Revelation 20's more complicated amillennial interpretation.  So it's not natural.  Satan is chained for a thousand years.  He is thrown into the Abyss, with it locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years are over.  With this much detail about the chaining of Satan, the natural interpretation is not that Satan is simply restrained a little bit more than he was before the crucifixion.  When a countless number of people turn against God and march across the breath of the earth and surround the camp of God’s people, the city that God loves, the natural interpretation is not one that doesn’t include an actual city.  The masses of less educated people who were to hear the book read would never have understood it in the amillennial way.  They would have understood it as a literal reign of Christ after the resurrection on the last day.  And Revelation 1:3 makes it clear that Revelation was written for the blessing of the masses.

Now there may be a lot of stuff in Revelation that on first impression leaves people scratching their heads.  This is where more in-depth symbolism is used that may require some study.  But Revelation was not written to mislead the masses.  The less-obvious portions of Revelation should not lead us to reject the natural words that have easy-to-understand natural meanings. To John, who really knew the Old Testament Scripture, I would venture to suggest that all of Revelation was very natural to him.  Revelation is not so hard to understand once you see how it fits with the Old Testament.  So we should start with the natural interpretations that we do easily understand, and then dig into the parts that are harder to understand by finding the symbols in the Old Testament.  All of Revelation will work out naturally, when this is done.  All of Revelation has a consistent theme, supported by natural language that is built up within the various sections like chapters of a book that has one major theme.

The Believer’s Authority Over the Nations

The seven letters to the seven churches each promise a reward, related to salvation, to those who overcome.  In other words, all who believe and trust in Christ get these rewards.  All true Christians get these rewards. This reward reads as follows:

Revelation 2:26-27   He who overcomes, and he who keeps my works to the end, to him I will give authority over the nations.  (27)   He will rule them with a rod of iron, shattering them like clay pots; as I also have received of my Father:

Those who overcome will rule over the nations.  All true Christians will overcome.  So who are the nations over which we will rule? Some amillennialists have said that this verse is talking about ruling the nations currently – not after Christ returns.  But the verse says, “to the end.”  In other words, we must “overcome” and do Christ’s will “to the end.” Only then do we receive authority over the nations.  Also, all the other rewards in these seven letters are things we get after Christ returns, or after we die.  Some may argue that Christians rule from heaven after they die.  But this is not supported elsewhere by Scripture.  Unless you are Catholic and believe in the Catholic tradition of Sainthood, there is no evidence of dead saints ruling from heaven.  So the question remains.  Who are the nations for which we rule after Christ returns?

To get around this, many amillennialists will claim that this verse is talking about the destruction of the nations when Christ returns.  The KJV uses the word ‘power’ instead of ‘authority’.  And it uses the words ‘iron rod’ instead of ‘iron scepter.’  Thus they see Christ as destroying the nations with an iron rod by “dashing them to pieces like pottery.”  But will we personally be destroying the nations with an iron rod?  Is this really our reward for overcoming?  If so, I think I would decline that reward.  I don’t want to be personally involved in killing sinners.  The Judgment of the nations is reserved for Christ.  Christ will not be giving us the ‘power’ and task of personally destroying the nations.

Christ will “rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery.”  This is a quote of Psalm 2:9.  The context here is Psalm 2:6-12.  David (or Christ) is being promised that the nations will be his inheritance and possession.  It’s taking about rule, not destruction.  Another verse, Psalm 31:12, also uses this imagery of broken pottery.  It’s taking about breaking one’s spirit.  It’s not talking about physical destruction.

Psalms 2:6-9  "Yet I have set my King on my holy hill of Zion."  (7) I will tell of the decree. Yahweh said to me, "You are my son. Today I have become your father.  (8)  Ask of me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.  (9)  You shall break them with a rod of iron. You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

In the discussion of this verse, some amillennialists make reference to Revelation. 19:15, which speaks of Christ ruling with an iron scepter (or rod).  This is in context of Armageddon, where they claim that everyone on the earth is killed.  True, all those in this battle are killed. But is everyone in the world killed?  The context of this battle remains as being just the battle, except for possibly verse 18, which says, “all people, free and slave, small and great.”  The Greek words for ‘all’, ‘free’, ‘slave’, ‘small’, and ‘great’ are adjectives.  Only adjectives are given in the Greek. In English, it’s like the movie title, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”  No noun is given.  In these cases, the translator usually adds the word ‘people’ or ‘men’.  But in this case, adding the noun tends to shift the context to the entire world.  If we leave the word ‘people’ or ‘men’ out, like it’s done in the Greek, then the context tends to remain with the battle.  In other words, a better translation of verse 18 would be, “so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of [them] all, free and slave, small and great.”  Kings, generals, mighty men, horses, and riders, by context, are all at this battle.  The context of the unsupplied noun should also remain in the same context.  Revelation. 19 does not teach that everyone in all the nations is destroyed.

There is another verse in Revelation that speaks of Christ ruling with an iron scepter.  This verse does not indicate the destruction of the nations.  The male child is born a King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 19:16).  As Rev. 12:5 says, He rules from his throne.

Revelation 12:5  She gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. Her child was caught up to God, and to his throne.

It’s also helpful to point out that the word ‘rule’ in these verses is literally ‘Shepherd.’  It’s the same Greek word as in Matthew 2:6, where Matthew is quoting Micah 2:52 about a ruler who will come from Bethlehem and will Shepherd the people of Israel.  Does a Shepherd destroy his sheep? Jesus will ‘Shepherd’ the nations with an iron scepter.  Does this mean he will destroy his sheep?

So Revelation 2:26-27 is in agreement with the natural chronological view of 1^st Corinthians 15:22-26.  When Christ returns “those who belong to him” are resurrected and received spiritual bodies.  They are given authority to rule over the nations.  But for the nations, there is still the possibility of sin and death.  The last enemy is not destroyed until after the reign of Christ.  And Christ shares this reign with those who are in him and who overcome.

Natural Kingdom and Spiritual Kingdom Verses

It’s not too hard to search through the New Testament and find all the verses that refer to the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God.  The Kingdom of Heaven occurs 31 times in Matthew, and does not occur in any other New Testament book.  The Kingdom of God occurs 4 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 31 times in Luke, 2 times in John, 6 times in Acts, and 8 times in Paul’s letters.  Paul also refers to the Kingdom of Christ once in Ephesians.  There doesn’t seem to be any difference in meaning between the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Christ.  All three terms mean the same thing.

The Jews were expecting to see a natural kingdom when the Messiah came.  They were expecting Israel to be that natural kingdom.  When Scripture uses one of these three terms, is it talking about the type of natural kingdom that everyone was expecting?  Or do these verses instead speak of a spiritual kingdom of heaven that is not of this world?  Amillennialists make lists of these verses and observe that more of them are teaching about a spiritual kingdom.  So they conclude that Christ was teaching against the natural kingdom that everyone had expected.  But is it an either-or situation? Could Christ have been teaching about a spiritual kingdom that is in place now, without teaching against the natural kingdom that is still to come?  Perhaps the natural kingdom the disciples were expecting is still to take place. Perhaps in teaching about the spiritual kingdom of heaven, Jesus was teaching about how we must be born again before we can enter that future natural kingdom (John 3:3).

Can the Kingdom of Heaven be both spiritual and natural?  Can the natural be a fulfillment of the spiritual? 

When Jesus died on the cross, he paid the price so that the natural kingdom can come (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). So spiritually, the kingdom has been won and Christ sits on the throne in heaven. Spiritually, it's a done deal.  But naturally, Satan is still prince of this world.  Sin still rules the world.   The kingdom exists literally only in our hearts and in heaven.  Something can be spiritually true, but not yet naturally true, when from God’s perspective it’s a done deal.  Yet from our natural perspective, it’s still to be fulfilled in the future.

Salvation works in the same way.  The kingdom of heaven is very much like salvation.  We were saved (Justification), we are continuing to be saved (Sanctification), and we will be saved (Glorification).  All three can be found in Scripture.  Spiritually, we are saved. It's a done deal. But naturally we are still waiting on immortal bodies.  In a literal since, we are to be saved from death.  So in a literal since, we are not yet saved.  But when we have immortal bodies, we will be saved from sin and death.  Likewise, the kingdom of heaven is here-and-now spiritually.  It became a done deal at the cross. But naturally it's not yet here.

John 3:3 is a good verse to see both aspects of the kingdom of heaven in one verse. "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."  Here is that word "see." No one can "see" the kingdom without being born again.  But Luke 17:20-21 says that no one can observe the kingdom in our hearts.

We must interpret Scripture in the way the audience would have understood.  Nicodemus was a Pharisee and would have understood the kingdom to be the Messianic reign.  When Nicodemus didn't understand how he could go back into his mother's womb, Jesus said, "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?"  Jesus was being kind Nicodemus.  He wasn't being sarcastic.  Jesus was speaking of OT Scripture about being born again, of which Nicodemus was not aware.  Jesus was talking about the earth giving birth to her dead (Isaiah 26:16-21).  In other words, at the resurrection we will literally be "born again."

Later on, this idea of "born again" was applied to salvation in all three stages.  We are "new creatures."  Spiritually, this is true.  But we won't be naturally born again until the resurrection. When Christ returns, we will be "born" into new spiritual bodies. The metaphor from Isaiah of the pregnant woman and her birth pains was continued after this in taking about the resurrection (Matt. 24:8, John 3:3-10, 16:19-24, Rom. 8:22, Gal. 4:19, 1 Thess 5:3, Rev 12:2).

Verses 5 and 6 say, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."  So you have to have a spiritual body in order to enter the natural kingdom of God.  And you have to be spiritually born again in order for the kingdom of heaven to be in our hearts.  The Holy Sprit is spiritually in us now, and the Holy Spirit will give us spiritual bodes when Christ returns.  Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Verse 8 says, "The wind blows wherever it pleases.  You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."  Taken literally, if you have to have a spiritual body you can literally "come and go like the wind, so that no one can tell from where it is you are going."  Jesus demonstrated this after His resurrection with his spiritual body when he would appear in the middle of locked rooms.  So naturally, this is a description of spiritual bodies.  But spiritually, this verse can be interpreted to mean that the Holy Spirit leads us in ways that others don't understand.

Verse 12 says, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"  The earthly things are about the natural kingdom of heaven that will come, and the natural "born again" event that will take place when the earth gives birth to the dead.  The heavenly things are the spiritual aspects of what it takes to walk the path of salvation.

So the Kingdom of Heaven is both earthly and heavenly in this one verse.

My Kingdom is Not of This World

When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, he said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).  Jesus was not going to build up an army against Rome.  Amillennialists are quick to point out all the verses that teach the kingdom of heaven is here and now.  His ability to drive out demons was proof that the kingdom of heaven had come (Matt. 12:28, Mark 1:15, Luke 10:9-11, 11:20).  Christ is currently sitting on his throne in heaven (Matt. 28:18, Acts 2:33, Heb. 12:2).

Currently, the kingdom of heaven is not in the word.  It’s in heaven and it’s in our hearts (Luke 17:20-21).  But when speaking to Pontius Pilate, did Jesus say that his kingdom would never, in the future, be of this world?  While speaking to Pilate, was Jesus addressing the issue of the end-times, as he did in the Olivetti Discourse?  He uses a present tense verb when speaking to Pilate.  To apply this statement to the end times is taking it out of context, as well as changing the verb tense.  At the seventh trumpet of Revelation, the angel clearly states, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever” (Rev. 11:15).  Was not Jesus praying for this very thing when he prayed, “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10)?

The Kingdom of Heaven Parables

Jesus used many parables to speak about the nature of the kingdom of heaven.  Jesus was not going to usher in a literal kingdom of heaven at that time (Luke 17:20-21).  His purpose was to teach how we much become new creatures before we will be able to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3). Jesus was constantly talking about the kingdom of heaven with parables.  These parables taught us how our hearts must be changed before we can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Do any of these vast numbers of verses deny a literal kingdom of heaven after the resurrection?  In Luke 21:29-31, Jesus told his parable about the second coming.  He said when we see all these things happening, we are to know the kingdom of God is near.  In other words, Jesus is saying the very thing amillennialists must deny.  The kingdom of God is currently not of this world (John 18:36).  But after the resurrection, the kingdom of heaven will come.  Luke 21:29-31 makes this clear in speaking of a future kingdom that has not yet come.  Today we have a spiritual kingdom of heaven in our hearts.  So the only kingdom of heaven that will come in the future must be a natural and literal kingdom of heaven.  In other words, Jesus never taught the disciples that their belief was incorrect.  They were right that the kingdom of heaven would come as a natural and literal kingdom.  The only issue that he was trying to correct was the issue of when it would happen, and of the need for our hearts to be ready.

Of course the disciples were always hopeful that Jesus would go ahead and set up a natural kingdom.  Just before Jesus ascended into heaven, the disciples ask Jesus when it would happen (Acts 1:6-7).  Jesus replied saying that it was not for them to know the times or dates in which it will happen.  Again, Jesus does not deny that it will happen.  The disciples were not to know the day or the hour of Christ’s return.  But after Christ returns, there will be a natural kingdom of heaven.  At the Lord’s Supper, Jesus vowed not to drink wine again until he drinks it with us in the Father’s kingdom.  In other words, that will be the victory celebration after the resurrection.  It’s the wedding feast spoken of in Matthew 25:1-12 and Revelation 19:7.  Today, the kingdom of heaven is not of this world (John 18:36).  But at that unknown time, it will be.

Christ’s kingdom will never end (Luke 1:32, Heb. 1:8).  Some amillennialists, including Calvin, have criticized millennialism by pointing this out, saying that millennialists limit the kingdom to a thousand years. But no millennialist today would believe it’s limited. After the thousand years, we have the final judgment, and then the new heavens and the new earth. The kingdom just continues right on into eternity.

The Promise to David and Mary

This promise to Mary in Luke 1:32 not only tells us that Christ’s kingdom is eternal, it also tells us that it’s a fulfillment of God’s covenant with David.  Today, Christ sits on his throne in heaven.  So today, this is a partial fulfillment of that covenant.  But we must interpret Scripture in the way the author and his readers would interpret Scripture. David sat on an earthly throne.  And God’s promise to Mary reads very much like an earthly rule.  It’s stated as being a rule over the house of Jacob.  Would not Mary have interpreted this promise as an earthly rule?  Would not David have interpreted this covenant as an earthly rule?  After all he was sitting on an earthly throne.  And he was promised that his son would continue to sit on his throne forever (2^nd Samuel 7:11b-16, 2^nd Chronicles 21:7, Psalms 89:3-4, Jeremiah 33:20-21).  We can spiritualize this promise. But it’s not what David and later Mary would have understood.  So it’s not a good exegesis of Scripture.  When the Lord’s Prayer is answered, for his kingdom of heaven to become the kingdom of earth, then the promise to David and Mary will be kept in the way they would have understood it to be.

Also, Isaiah specifically saw the covenant with David as being an earthly kingdom, because he said the “government will be on his shoulders.”  He said the increase of this government would have no end. Isaiah said Christ would reign on David’s throne.  Did David have a throne in heaven?  Isaiah said Christ would reign over David’s kingdom.  Was David’s kingdom in heaven?  All this is in a very familiar Christmas verse (Isaiah 9:6-7).  Isaiah made this very clear.  It’s a natural rule.  But amillennialists take great liberty in making Isaiah say something that I’m sure Isaiah did not intend to say.  And no New Testament verse denies that there will be a literal earthly kingdom after Christ returns, just as Isaiah describes.

Isaiah 9:6-7  For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  (7)  Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, on the throne of David, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from that time on, even forever. The zeal of Yahweh of Armies will perform this.

Twelve Thrones for the Twelve Disciples

An obvious aspect of a natural earthly kingdom is natural rule and authority.  In Matthew 19:23-30, Jesus speaks of the difficulty for rich men to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Jesus is talking about how worldly possessions will prevent the change in hearts that are necessary in order to enter the kingdom (John 3:3).  The disciples respond saying that they have left everything in order to follow Jesus.  He then tells them that “at the renewal of all things,” each of them will sit on a throne and will rule the twelve tribes of Israel.  Is this a natural rule?  Given the fact that the disciples were expecting a natural kingdom of heaven, would not they interpret this as a natural kingdom?  Yet this natural kingdom is not a kingdom that is currently of this world (John 18:36).  It’s a natural kingdom that comes into the world “at the renewal of all things.”  Interpreting this verse the way the disciples would have surely interpreted it, the disciples will get literal thrones from which to rule a natural kingdom.  By combining Matthew’s account of this and Mark’s account of this, it becomes even clearer (Mark 10:23).  Mark’s account does not mention the twelve thrones.  But Marks’s account makes it clear that the eternal life that’s promised is in “the age to come.”  So the twelve thrones are also in “the age to come.”  We should always interpret Scripture based on the culture of the time, and in the way the audience would have naturally understood the speaker.

Matthew 17:10-13  His disciples asked him, saying, "Then why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"  (11)  Jesus answered them, "Elijah indeed comes first, and will restore all things,  (12)  but I tell you that Elijah has come already, and they didn't recognize him, but did to him whatever they wanted to. Even so the Son of Man will also suffer by them."  (13)  Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptizer.

Elijah Will Restore All Things

Amillennialists might argue that the disciples are currently ruling on twelve thrones from heaven.  But this to be “at the renewal of all things.”  After seeing Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples asked Jesus about Elijah.  Was not Elijah to come first?  Jesus explained that John the Baptist was Elijah.  Yet Jesus also said, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things” (Matt. 17:11).  The phrase, “will restore all things” contains a future-tense verb.  Elijah had already come, but had not restored all things.  Yet Elijah will come, and will restore all things.  There are two comings of Christ, and also two comings of Elijah.  When all things are restored, the disciples will sit on thrones and rule Israel.  In the very next verse, Jesus goes on to say, “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (Matt. 19:30).  The disciples were willing to be last by giving up all they had to follow Christ.  So they will be first in the future Kingdom of Heaven.

Don’t miss Part Two of Problems with Amillennialism

Philip Brown
www.newwine.org