What hermeneutic leads to amillennialism?
Question 1122
Amillennialism is the view that there is no future literal thousand-year reign of Jesus on earth. Instead, the millennium of Revelation 20 is understood symbolically, referring either to the present Church age or to the reign of deceased believers with Jesus in heaven. How does someone arrive at this position? What hermeneutic, or method of interpretation, leads to amillennialism? Understanding this helps us see why sincere Christians reading the same Bible can reach such different conclusions about prophecy.
The Amillennial Approach to Revelation
Amillennialism treats the book of Revelation primarily as symbolic and apocalyptic literature rather than as a chronological outline of future events. While premillennialists read Revelation as describing what will happen in sequence, amillennialists see it as depicting spiritual realities using vivid imagery.
The thousand years of Revelation 20 is understood as a symbolic number representing a complete but unspecified period, not a literal one thousand years. Numbers in apocalyptic literature often carry symbolic significance. Seven represents completeness, twelve represents God’s people, and a thousand represents a vast or complete number. The binding of Satan (Revelation 20:2) is interpreted as having occurred at Jesus’ first coming, limiting Satan’s ability to deceive the nations during the Church age (cf. Matthew 12:29; Luke 10:18; John 12:31).
Kim Riddlebarger, in A Case for Amillennialism, argues that the structure of Revelation supports this reading. He sees the book as recapitulating the same period from different angles rather than presenting a strictly chronological sequence. The millennium, on this view, is another way of depicting the present reign of Jesus and His people between His two advents.
Spiritualising or Typological Interpretation
The hermeneutic that leads to amillennialism involves a more spiritualised or typological reading of Old Testament prophecy. Promises made to Israel are understood as finding their fulfilment in the Church, which is seen as the true Israel, the continuation and expansion of God’s covenant people.
This approach points to New Testament passages that seem to apply Old Testament Israel language to the Church. Paul calls believers “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). Peter applies “chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9) to Gentile Christians. The author of Hebrews interprets the Old Testament promises in terms of the heavenly Jerusalem and the eternal rest (Hebrews 12:22-24).
Anthony Hoekema, in The Bible and the Future, argues that the New Testament reinterprets Old Testament prophecy in light of Jesus. The land promises find their ultimate fulfilment not in a piece of real estate in the Middle East but in the new creation. The throne of David is the throne on which Jesus now sits at the Father’s right hand. The temple is the people of God indwelt by the Spirit.
The “Already/Not Yet” Framework
Amillennialism relies heavily on what scholars call “already/not yet” or “inaugurated eschatology.” The kingdom of God has already been inaugurated in Jesus’ first coming but is not yet consummated until His second coming. There is no intervening earthly millennium because the kingdom is already present in spiritual form.
Jesus announced that “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15) and that it “has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28). Paul says God “has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Colossians 1:13). Believers are already raised with Christ and seated with Him in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). The millennium, amillennialists argue, is this present spiritual reign.
The consummation comes at Jesus’ second coming, which is a single event, not separated by seven years from a prior rapture. At that moment, the resurrection, final judgment, and eternal state all occur together. There is no gap between the present age and eternity.
The Priority of the New Testament
Amillennialists tend to give hermeneutical priority to the New Testament when interpreting Old Testament prophecy. The principle is that the New Testament interprets the Old, so clearer New Testament teaching should govern our understanding of more symbolic Old Testament passages.
From this perspective, when we read Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48) or the millennial passages in Isaiah and Zechariah, we should not expect literal fulfilment in an earthly millennium. Instead, we should see them as pointing forward to spiritual realities now being fulfilled in Jesus and the Church, or to be fulfilled in the eternal state.
This contrasts with the dispensational approach, which maintains that the Old Testament should be interpreted on its own terms first, and that New Testament revelation adds to but does not cancel or reinterpret the literal promises made to Israel.
Historical Development
Amillennialism has deep historical roots, becoming dominant in the Church from the time of Augustine in the fifth century. Augustine, in City of God, rejected the “carnal” millennial expectations of earlier Christians and interpreted the thousand years as the present Church age. The first resurrection (Revelation 20:5) he understood as spiritual regeneration, not bodily resurrection.
This became the standard view of medieval Catholicism and was largely retained by the Protestant Reformers. Luther and Calvin were essentially amillennial. The Westminster Confession of Faith, while not explicitly addressing the millennium, is compatible with amillennialism and was so interpreted by many of its framers.
Amillennialists argue that their view has the weight of church tradition behind it, while premillennialism, especially in its dispensational form, is a more recent development. Of course, historical prevalence does not prove correctness, but it does show that amillennialism is not a marginal position.
Problems with the Amillennial Hermeneutic
From a dispensational premillennial perspective, there are significant problems with the amillennial approach.
First, it is hermeneutically inconsistent. The same interpreters who read the first coming prophecies literally (the virgin birth, Bethlehem, the suffering servant) read the second coming prophecies symbolically. What principle determines when to take prophecy literally and when to spiritualise it?
Second, it requires the Church to replace Israel in God’s programme. But Romans 9-11 seems to maintain a distinct future for national Israel. Paul insists that God has not rejected His people (Romans 11:1) and that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26) when the Deliverer comes from Zion. This is difficult to explain if Israel has been permanently replaced by the Church.
Third, it does not do justice to the Old Testament promises on their own terms. God made unconditional covenants with Abraham and David. He promised a land, a throne, and a kingdom. These promises cannot be simply transferred to spiritual realities without changing their meaning.
Fourth, the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 is described in terms too strong to fit the present age. Satan is thrown into the abyss, shut, and sealed so that he “might not deceive the nations any longer” (Revelation 20:3). Peter describes Satan as actively prowling like a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). This hardly sounds like a bound adversary.
Conclusion
The hermeneutic that leads to amillennialism involves a symbolic reading of Revelation, a typological interpretation of Old Testament prophecy, the priority of New Testament over Old, and the already/not yet framework of inaugurated eschatology. It has strong historical support and is held by many thoughtful Christians.
However, from a dispensational perspective, this hermeneutic is inconsistent and fails to honour the literal promises God made to Israel. A consistent literal interpretation leads more naturally to premillennialism, with a real future for Israel and a literal thousand-year reign of Jesus on earth.
The differences are not trivial, but they need not divide believers in an ultimate sense. We can disagree charitably while being committed to studying Scripture carefully and being ready for Jesus’ return, whenever and however it comes.
“Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God… They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” Revelation 20:4
Bibliography
- Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
- Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003.
- Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.
- Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958.