This page is under construction…it is in draft form. Please bear patiently. Sentences are often half formed as I post quotes and thoughts etc without always clearly marking them until the final version.

A summary of the major views can be found at https://endtim.es/1000-years. This page goes into more detail about Amillennialism for those interested.

Amillennialism is the belief that there is no earthly 1000-year reign of Christ. However, due to its interpretive method, there is considerable disagreement within the Amil camp on how many passages ought to be understood, and this makes it a difficult position to hold still for analysis. There is considerable overlap between Amil and Postmil. Amil holds that Augustine, Calvin, and Warfield as adherents, despite Post-mil also claiming such men.

Unlike Postmil, Amil does not usually hold that the majority of the world will be converted before the return of Christ

History of Amillennialism

While there is scant evidence of Amillennialism in the early church, Augustine (AD354-430) undoubtedly systematised the approach. His writings are unclear on many issues that later theologians clarified. He argued that the 1000-years was not primarily temporal or even chronological, but rather symbolic. Amillennialism and Postmil were not significantly distinguished until the 19th century.

Similarities with Postmil

1. The second coming of Christ will inaugurate the final state of all men. This is followed immediately by the general resurrection and judgement of all men; there is no transitional period, no earthly, personal reign of Jesus.
2. The 1000 years of Revelation 20 are symbolic and not literal time references. The postmil believes in an earthly reign of Christ but from heaven during this time. Some postmil hold that the saints reign vicariously for Christ.
   The two resurrections mentioned in Revelation 20 are not both physical resurrections (although some amil argue only the first is spiritual and the second physical, while others argue both are spiritual).
3. Old Testament prophecies are less literal than most premillennialists believe. Amil and Postmil believe these prophecies are fulfilled in the history of the Church or new earth.

Basic Ideas of Amil

Satan is completely bound and unable to deceive

Revelation 20 talks about a 1000-year reign of Christ and the saints. During this time, the Bible says that Satan will be bound in the Abyss and unable to deceive the nations (verse 3). The Amillennialist argues that the 1000-years represents the completeness and finality of the binding. Premillennialists point to a number of passages that explicitly say that Satan is operating unbound today (Revelation 12; Revelation 2:13; 1 Peter 5:8; Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 2:11, 11:14, 12:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; 1 Timothy 1:20, 5:15). In Revelation 6:9-11 dead saints plead with God to end the persecution of the saints and to bring judgement, and God tells them to wait. These are the same dead saints who will be described in Revelation 20:4-5 on thrones with Christ for 1000 years. For the Premillennialist, this is evidence Satan is not bound; for the Amillennialist, this is evidence that Satan is bound.

1000 years and two resurrections

⁴…They came to life [the first resurrection] and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. ⁵ The rest of the dead did not come to life [the second resurrection] until the thousand years were completed.

Revelation 20:4-5

The start and end of the 1000-year reign is marked by two resurrections. Amillennialists say the first resurrection is spiritual, and the second resurrection is either spiritual or physical. Most regard the second to be physical. The reasoning goes like this:

Revelation 20:6 – “…over whom the second death has no power”. It is argued that John used a Greek literary device: a chaismos. If the 2nd death is spiritual it is reasoned the first resurrection is the antidote to it, and therefore is also spiritual (i.e., conversion – Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-10; Colossians 3:1-4; 2:13). If the 1st death is physical, the 2nd resurrection is therefore physical and the 1st resurrection is spiritual, therefore the 2nd death is spiritual.

This argument assumes both:

1. Conversion is a spiritual resurrection; and
2. The second death is spiritual death

Is conversion a spiritual resurrection?

The term “spiritual” is often used as a placeholder word for anything non-physical. It is important to distinguish between a “spiritual truth”, and something that occurs with your actual spirit. I use ‘spiritual’ only when speaking about actual spirits. A “spiritual truth” not involving your actual spirit, is symbolic, figurative or metaphorical truth.

Jesus says we must be born again (John 3:3). Scripture does not say our spirits were alive and then died when we sinned, and must be made alive again, but rather: our spirit is just as dead as Adam was after being formed and before having the breath of God quicken him. Just as Adam was made alive (born) our souls are also born as God quickens. Scriptural references to being “made alive” such as Ephesians 2:3-5, and Colossians 2:13 should be understood as being born again, not as a resurrection.

Passages such as Romans 6:1-11 are clearly figurative, with literal references. For example, Romans 6:5 “For if we have been united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be in the likeness of his resurrection.” Jesus neither died spiritually nor was spiritually resurrected. Being united with Christ in the likeness of his death can only be figurative: for Christ neither died spiritually, and we, not having died physically or spiritually, have not shared in the likeness of his death, nor the future promise that we will participate in the likeness of his resurrection which was physical and not spiritual: a future event, not a present reality.

No doubt Amillennialists will dive into word searches and produce references such as Romans 7:9-11 arguing that we have died spiritually, and are in need of a spiritual resurrection. But since sin does not spring to life in any sense except metaphorically, the passage is clearly metaphorical and not talking about spiritual or physical death.

 And sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind. For apart from the law sin is dead. ⁹ Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life again ¹⁰ and I died.

Romans 7:8-10

Paul uses this metaphorical rhetoric on several occasions: Eph 2:1-10. Above I mention the importance of distinguishing “spiritual” from metaphorical etc. Verse 6 is an important demonstrative case.

⁴ But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love that he had for us, ⁵ made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by grace! ⁶ He also raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus

Ephesians 2:46

Are we seated with Christ spiritually? Is your spirit seated with Christ in heaven waiting for you to join it? The answer to both is no. It is a symbolic, or positional reference, not a literal reference to your spirit. A similar reference is found in Colossians 3:1-4 which mentions believers both dying and being raised with Christ in a metaphorical sense.

Jesus only talks about conversion/salvation as a new and spiritual birth and not a resurrection. Therefore the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20, cannot be a spiritual resurrection.

Is the second death a spiritual death?

The second key assumption for the Amillennialist is whether the second death is a spiritual death. If the second death is not spiritual, according to their own reasoning, the first resurrection cannot be spiritual and must be either physical or symbolic.

This is an important time to remind readers that the soul, is not the spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12). God has said that the soul that sins, shall die (Matthew 10:28). The soul appears tied to the body, whereas the Spirit does not appear tied to the body.

Does the unbeliever have a spirit that is alive? If not, how can they have a spiritual death?

While the Amillennialist claims the second death is spiritual, is this just assumed or is it borne out by Scripture? Is the nature of the second death physical, spiritual, both, or neither?

¹⁴ Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

Revelation 20

But what does that mean? Other passages that speak to this death include:

⁴³ “And if your hand causes you to fall away, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, the unquenchable fire….⁴⁷ And if your eye causes you to fall away, gouge it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, ⁴⁸ where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. ⁴⁹ For everyone will be salted with fire.

Mark 9:43-49

“As they leave, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me; for their worm will never die, their fire will never go out, and they will be a horror to all humanity.”

Isaiah 66:24

Worms are a reference to physical death (Job 24:20; Isa 14:11; 51:8; Acts 12:23). The second death does not appear to be a “spiritual” death, but a prolonged, eternal, physical death sentence.

Jesus’ references in Mark 9 above refer to a physical body in the lake of fire. If we take 1 Corinthians 15:22 at face value “For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive,” unbelievers will receive a resurrected body like Christ’s, whose bore the marks of his crucifixion. Meaning the physical body of all will be resurrected and either with Christ in Paradise, or in hell in flames.

Jesus’ description in Luke 16 of a rich man in flames, appears this is a physical reality of torment:

²⁴ ‘Father Abraham!’ he called out, ‘Have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this flame!’

Luke 16

There is no description given by Jesus or the Apostles that suggests the second death, the lake of fire, is spiritual; in fact, many passages make it clear that this is a physical torment. Therefore, the argument by the Amillennialists that the second death is spiritual is contradicted by Scripture, and the rest of their reasoning that the first resurrection is spiritual is unfounded.

To put this to rest, Revelation 20:6, “over such the second death has no power“, is explained in Romans 6:9, “because we know that Christ, having been raised from the dead, will not die again.” Jesus died physically, and was raised physically; at no time did he die or get raised spiritually. “For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive,” this includes the unbeliever who will also receive a new body but will have a physical, eternal second death in the lake of fire. For those in Christ, they will never be sentenced to the lake of fire, for their names are in the book of life.

Exegetical support of the nature of the two resurrections

Although we have invested considerable time in the scriptural support for the logic being whether there are two different types of resurrections, some time should be invested in the exegetical support. It is worth noting Scripture only mentions and promises a physical resurrection.

Premillennialists argue that the word “they lived” (ἔζησαν) in the first resurrection is the same word used in “the rest of the dead did not come to life (ἔζησαν) until the 1000 years were ended.” There is no indication that the resurrections are of a different quality or nature. The phrase suggests they have the same type of resurrection as the first. This is acknowledged by amillennialist James A. Hughes who argues they are both spiritual, because to admit that the first is physical destroys Amil’s entire foundation.

Without going into great detail about Hughes’s arguments, for the interested, a summary can be found here (p. 79-83). But to summarise, Hughes recognised that the two resurrections should be of an identical nature, as are the two deaths. Going into great detail, he argues that the first resurrection is spiritual (the ascension of the soul [sic] into heaven), and the second is also spiritual, but basically hypothetical. He argues the entire passage is talking about disembodied souls and does not mention our physical resurrections.

The support for the Amillennial two-types-of-ressurections argument is evidently quite thin, with many passages appearing to directly argue against the understanding of the nature of the resurrection, and even some amillennialists contradict fellow amillennialists, arguing that the two resurrections must be the same. The decision to interpret the two resurrections as being of different nature, or that they are both spiritual is not because the text requires it, but because of the commitment to the belief that the 1000-year reign is not physically with Christ on earth.

Logical reasoning

From Scripture, the unbeliever (“rest of the dead” – 1st death) participates in the 2nd resurrection and 2nd death. The dead saint (1st death) only participates in the 1st resurrection. The first resurrection must be physical, since the saints, having participated in the first, do not participate in the second resurrection. If the 1st resurrection is not physical, there is no description of saints receiving their physical bodies in Revelation 20. The unbeliever cannot have a spiritual death (not having been spiritually alive and never will), which means that the second resurrection is physical and that the second death is also physical.

Nature of the Millennium

Most Amillennialists see the book of Revelation as comprising of multiple sections, each section describing the period between the ascension and Christ’s return, and Revelation 20 is understood as one of such iterative descriptions. Thus, in their view, the 1000-year reign is a present reality, and passages are interpreted to bring this to the fore.

Since this passage is the only passage in Scripture that mentions a specific time (cf. Daniel 7:12), the possibility should be considered that like many things in this book, this time reference is also symbolic. However, the Pre-millennialist argues that there are other passages that do discuss Christ’s reign on earth (Daniel 7, Isaiah 66, Zechariah 14, etc), but not in such explicit terms. If the 1000-years is symbolic, what does it represent? Warfield essentially argues that it represents perfection and completeness. Premillenialists find this argument unsupported in Scripture and hardly conclusive to make the foundation of an important doctrine.

Amillennialists argue that prophecies the premillennialist points to as unfulfilled before Christ’s return, instead argue there are spiritual fulfilment, or where they were literal, they were soon fulfilled after Jesus’ ascension.