End Times: Premillennialism or Amillennialism?
In the ongoing debate between premillennialism and amillennialism, the most fundamental disagreement concerns the thousand-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20. Premillennialists believe the thousand years refers to a future reign of Jesus on earth, an intermediate kingdom between His Second Coming and the final consummation. But amillennialists believe it describes the current reign of Christ throughout the present age. For this reason, while premillennialism affirms an earthly kingdom between the present age and the eternal state, amillennialism denies this intermediate kingdom, arguing instead that the present age will be followed immediately by the new heavens and new earth.
One of the most difficult problems for amillennialism involves the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20:4-6. In this passage, the apostle John describes individuals who “came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (v. 4), designating this coming to life as “the first resurrection” (v. 5). According to premillennialism, this is the first of two physical resurrections in Revelation 20, resurrections that are separated by a thousand years.
The first is a resurrection of the righteous—the faithful believers who are martyred during the Tribulation and raised at the return of Christ (v. 4)—and the second is a resurrection of the wicked who will stand before the throne of final judgment after the millennial reign of Christ (vv. 11-15). As John writes: “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed” (vv. 4-5).
In contrast, amillennialism teaches that the “first resurrection” is not a physical resurrection that takes place at the beginning of the thousand years, but rather a spiritual resurrection that takes place throughout the thousand years. More specifically, amillennialists interpret the “first resurrection” in one of two ways. According to some, it refers to the regeneration of believers at the point of conversion, a spiritual resurrection that occurs throughout the present age as those who were previously dead in their sins are made alive in Christ and live to reign with Him during the millennium.
In contrast, amillennialism teaches that the “first resurrection” is not a physical resurrection that takes place at the beginning of the thousand years, but rather a spiritual resurrection that takes place throughout the thousand years. More specifically, amillennialists interpret the “first resurrection” in one of two ways. According to some, it refers to the regeneration of believers at the point of conversion, a spiritual resurrection that occurs throughout the present age as those who were previously dead in their sins are made alive in Christ and live to reign with Him during the millennium.
According to others, it refers to the believer’s entrance into the intermediate state at the point of death. As one amillennialist explains: “The first resurrection occurs when [the believer] departs this life and is immediately ushered into the presence of Christ to reign with him.”
There are many difficulties with the amillennial view(s) of the first resurrection,[1] but for now, I’d like to focus on one that doesn’t get very much attention, and that involves the duration of the saints’ reign in verses 4-6. When John describes the resurrected saints as reigning with Christ “for a thousand years” (Rev 20:4, 6), he uses what Greek grammarians call an accusative of time, which indicates that these saints will reign for the entire extent of the thousand-year period.
There are many difficulties with the amillennial view(s) of the first resurrection,[1] but for now, I’d like to focus on one that doesn’t get very much attention, and that involves the duration of the saints’ reign in verses 4-6. When John describes the resurrected saints as reigning with Christ “for a thousand years” (Rev 20:4, 6), he uses what Greek grammarians call an accusative of time, which indicates that these saints will reign for the entire extent of the thousand-year period.
This sounds kind of technical, but it can be illustrated very simply by pointing to John’s use of the same accusative of time (“for a thousand years”) in verse 2, where he describes Satan as bound and imprisoned for the entirety of the millennium. The clear implication of this accusative of time in verses 4 and 6 is that the believers who come to life in the first resurrection will begin their reign at the same time—at the very beginning of the thousand years—and they will reign together with Christ for the entirety of that period.[2] As it says so plainly, even in the English translations: “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (Rev 20:4; NASB, ESV).
And why is this a problem for amillennialism? Because neither of its two views of the first resurrection is compatible with John’s description of the saints being raised at the start of the millennium and reigning together for the entirety of the thousand years. According to the view that the first resurrection equals regeneration, believers are regenerated throughout the thousand years so that the entrance of these saints into their reign is distributed throughout the millennium.
And why is this a problem for amillennialism? Because neither of its two views of the first resurrection is compatible with John’s description of the saints being raised at the start of the millennium and reigning together for the entirety of the thousand years. According to the view that the first resurrection equals regeneration, believers are regenerated throughout the thousand years so that the entrance of these saints into their reign is distributed throughout the millennium.
In this scenario, those saints who are saved during the present age do not reign for the entirety of the thousand years—as John says they will—and some of them do not begin their reign until the millennium is almost over. Similarly, according to the view that the first resurrection refers to believers entering the intermediate state at the point of death, the entrance of these saints into their reign is also distributed throughout the millennial period. In this scenario, believers do not live in heaven and reign with Christ for the entire thousand years, and some of them do not begin their reign until the millennium is nearly completed. Again, neither of these scenarios is compatible with John’s description in Revelation 20:4-6.
If John had intended to communicate that these saints would reign during or within the thousand years (which would be compatible with the amillennial view)—rather than throughout the entire extent of the thousand years—a genitive of time would have been more appropriate. As it stands, the apostle’s use of the accusative of time (“for a thousand years”) not only presents a problem for both amillennial views of the first resurrection, but it also fits perfectly with the premillennial view of martyred believers coming to life in the first resurrection—a physical resurrection—and reigning with Christ for the entirety of the thousand years.[3]
One reason this argument is so persuasive is that it’s not susceptible to the typical amillennial response that premillennialists are ignoring the apocalyptic genre of Revelation 20. In other words, the amillennialist cannot escape this difficulty by appealing to the symbolic nature of Revelation, for John’s use of the accusative of time is not imagery but rather a grammatically precise explanation of the significance of what he saw in his vision. If the first resurrection refers to the regeneration of believers throughout the thousand years—or the entrance of believers into life in the intermediate state throughout the thousand years—why would John depict them as coming to life at the beginning of the millennium and reigning together with Christ throughout the entire period of time?
If the amillennialist is to provide a compelling interpretation of Revelation 20, he must be willing to wrestle seriously with these kinds of questions.
[1] For an in-depth discussion of these difficulties, see Matt Waymeyer, “The First Resurrection in Revelation 20,” MSJ 27/1 (Spring 2016) 3–32.
[2] As Charles Powell notes, “All other occurrences of groups or plural subjects with the accusative of extent of time in the New Testament have the entire group beginning and ending the period of time together” (e.g., Matt 20:6; John 2:12; Acts 21:7; Rev 2:10; 9:10).
[3] For more on the significance of the accusative of time and how it differs from the genitive of time, Greek students may find it helpful to consult Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 201-3; F. Blass, F. and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 88–89; and A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 469–71.
If John had intended to communicate that these saints would reign during or within the thousand years (which would be compatible with the amillennial view)—rather than throughout the entire extent of the thousand years—a genitive of time would have been more appropriate. As it stands, the apostle’s use of the accusative of time (“for a thousand years”) not only presents a problem for both amillennial views of the first resurrection, but it also fits perfectly with the premillennial view of martyred believers coming to life in the first resurrection—a physical resurrection—and reigning with Christ for the entirety of the thousand years.[3]
One reason this argument is so persuasive is that it’s not susceptible to the typical amillennial response that premillennialists are ignoring the apocalyptic genre of Revelation 20. In other words, the amillennialist cannot escape this difficulty by appealing to the symbolic nature of Revelation, for John’s use of the accusative of time is not imagery but rather a grammatically precise explanation of the significance of what he saw in his vision. If the first resurrection refers to the regeneration of believers throughout the thousand years—or the entrance of believers into life in the intermediate state throughout the thousand years—why would John depict them as coming to life at the beginning of the millennium and reigning together with Christ throughout the entire period of time?
If the amillennialist is to provide a compelling interpretation of Revelation 20, he must be willing to wrestle seriously with these kinds of questions.
[1] For an in-depth discussion of these difficulties, see Matt Waymeyer, “The First Resurrection in Revelation 20,” MSJ 27/1 (Spring 2016) 3–32.
[2] As Charles Powell notes, “All other occurrences of groups or plural subjects with the accusative of extent of time in the New Testament have the entire group beginning and ending the period of time together” (e.g., Matt 20:6; John 2:12; Acts 21:7; Rev 2:10; 9:10).
[3] For more on the significance of the accusative of time and how it differs from the genitive of time, Greek students may find it helpful to consult Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 201-3; F. Blass, F. and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 88–89; and A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 469–71.
Author Cripplegate
