Where did the belief in a 1000-year millennial kingdom come from? Well, the theory of a millennial reign
proceeded from Judaism, where the Jews believed that the Messiah would
establish a literal, physical earthly kingdom. However, as Philip Schaff wrote:
Nowhere in the discourses of Jesus is there a hint of a limited duration of the Messianic Kingdom. The apostolic epistles are equally free from any trace of Chiliasm.
At the beginning of Jesus' ministry, He announced, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15).
What time is He referring to? For the good student of the Word, the
answer is simple. Daniel had predicted four empires: Babylon, Persia,
Greece, and Rome. Then, "in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom" (Dan. 2:44). In the days of which kings? In the days of the Roman kings. Jesus later said, "There
are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until
they see the kingdom of god after it has come with power" (Mark 9:1). When the Pharisees asked Jesus about this kingdom, He stated clearly to them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed" and "behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Luke 17:20-21). He said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).
As Karl Hagenbach wrote:
There is no trace of a Millennium in: Clement of Rome (died in 101), in Ignatius of Antioch (died in 115), in Polycarp of Smyrna (died in 155). Iranaeus says that Polycarp taught the things which "he had learned from the Apostles and which the church handed down."
Quite clearly, early Christians did not
believe in a millennial kingdom. So
where did this unbiblical theory and doctrine of a "1000-year millennial kingdom" come from? This Jewish myth was revived by the
ungodly heretic Cerinthus, even before the deaths of all the Apostles. As John Egerdahl writes:
In Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History is preserved a fragment of the writings of Caius, who lived during the close of the second century. This excerpt gives us the following account of Cerinthus' heresy: "But Cerinthus, by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great apostle, also falsely pretended to wonderful things, as if they were shown him by angels, asserting, that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that the flesh, i.e., men, again inhabiting Jerusalem would be subject to desires and pleasures" (Eusebius, bk. III, chp. 28). Eusebius says of Cerinthus, "Being also an enemy to the scriptures, with a view to deceive men, he said, 'that there would be a space of a thousand years for celebrating nuptial festivities. One of the doctrines that he taught was that Christ would have an earthly kingdom'" (Ibid.).
Irenaeus, who was born circa A.D. 120 and who was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of John, states that while John was at Ephesus, he entered a bath to wash, but when he found Cerinthus was there he refused to bathe there, left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, the enemy of truth is within" (Ibid., bk. V, chp. 24). Riggle states, "Let this be a rebuke to modern millennial advocates. They claim their doctrine is well founded in the revelation of John. But John called the founder of their theory, 'that enemy of truth'" (Riggle 1899, p. 26).
William Shedd writes:
Premillenarianism was the revival of the pseudo-Jewish doctrine of the messianic kingdom, as this had been formed in the later periods of Jewish history by a materializing exegesis of the Old Testament (see Neander, History 1.650-51). Its most flourishing period was between 150 and 250. Its prevalence in the church at that time has been much exaggerated. That it could not have been the [universal] and received doctrine is proved by the fact that it forms no part of the Apostle's Creed, which belongs to this period, and hence by implication is rejected by it. "Chiliasm," says Neander (1.651), "never formed a part of the general creed of the church. It was diffused from one country [Phrygia] and from a single fountainhead." In the preceding period of the apostolic fathers, 100 to 150, it had scarcely any currency. There are no traces of it in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. In Barnabas, Hermas, and Papias it is found; but these are much less influential names than the former. The early apologists Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus do not advocate it. Alford (on Rev. 20:4-5) is greatly in error in saying that "the whole church for three hundred years from the apostles understood the two resurrections in the literal premillenarian sense."John Calvin even wrote:
So which view is consistent with the biblical record?Not long after [the days of Paul] arose the Millennarians, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Their fiction is too puerile [childish] to require or deserve refutation.
Post-Millennialism:
This view is the quickest and easiest for us to dismantle. There are two different groups of post-millenarians. The first group believes that the 1000 years are literal and yet future, and that there will be 1000 years of peace and righteousness prior to the second coming of Christ Jesus. The second group believes it is symbolic for a long period of time, which will gradually get better and better before the second coming of Christ Jesus. However, there is nothing in Scripture that depicts or hints at the world getting better before the return of Christ. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary. Jesus asks the question, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). Scripture informs us that men will grow more and more wicked (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-3, 4:3-4). Paul tells us that the day of the Lord will not come until the apostasy takes place (2 Thess. 2:3). So this view is a fail.
Pre-Millennialism:
Historic pre-millennialism and pre-tribulational pre-millennialism both fall together. First, you need to establish whether the only text that speaks of 1000 years is supposed to be literal or symbolic. Second, if there is a literal 1000-year Millennial Kingdom, we have certain passages that we need to deal with. When Jesus Christ returns, He is going to judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31), dividing the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:31-46), and casting the wicked into Hell. There will be nobody that bypasses this judgment, except for the Lord’s elect who will inherit the kingdom. Flesh and blood cannot enter or inherit this kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50). The wicked cannot and will not enter or inherit this kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-20; Eph. 5:3-6).
Only God’s children will inherit and enter this kingdom, which means there is only righteousness in this kingdom, as the Scriptures teach. Because there is nobody except the righteous in this kingdom, the concept of there being a rebellion against Christ at the end of it is extremely problematic. You end up with a second fall of man—glorified man—into sin: the righteous, redeemed, blood-bought saints of the Lord Jesus rebelling against their redeeming Lord and Saviour. This implies that His blood was not sufficient enough to cleanse us from our wickedness, even with our glorification, and implies that God is not powerful enough to keep us. This is heresy! So this view is a fail.
Amillennialism:
This view is the most consistent with what the Scriptures reveal. It is also the view that has been predominantly held by the church throughout her history, seconded only by historic pre-millennialism, although "Amillennialism was not recognized as a distinct position until around the turn of the twentieth century. Until then, amillenarians called themselves post-millennial because they believed Christ would come back after the millennial age, but they were different from traditional postmillenarians in that they did not believe in an earthly millennial age yet to dawn." (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, p.31)
Apart from Revelation 20, there is not a single passage in Scripture that describes a 1000-year kingdom here on Earth. When we look at the language of Revelation 20, we may note that everything in that passage is symbolic. We cannot translate the first bit symbolically and the last bit symbolically but choose to translate the 1000 years as literal. It does not work that way. Since Scripture does not support a literal 1000-year kingdom, this view would be the correct one.
Lewis Sperry Chafer argues, "This view interprets many passages in the Old and New Testaments that refer to the millennial kingdom as being fulfilled in a nonliteral way." No, Amillennialism interprets them in a very literal way, a way the Dispensationalist is incapable of doing in their literalistic approach because they deny the literal fulfillment in place of their fictionalization. To recapitulate, it is taught by Dispensationalists that Ezekiel 40-48 refer to the Millennial Kingdom and the Millennial Temple; but the literal and correct interpretation is that these chapters spoke in regard to the times and temple that would come after their Babylonian captivity.
Pre-Millennialism:
Historic pre-millennialism and pre-tribulational pre-millennialism both fall together. First, you need to establish whether the only text that speaks of 1000 years is supposed to be literal or symbolic. Second, if there is a literal 1000-year Millennial Kingdom, we have certain passages that we need to deal with. When Jesus Christ returns, He is going to judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31), dividing the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:31-46), and casting the wicked into Hell. There will be nobody that bypasses this judgment, except for the Lord’s elect who will inherit the kingdom. Flesh and blood cannot enter or inherit this kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50). The wicked cannot and will not enter or inherit this kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-20; Eph. 5:3-6).
Only God’s children will inherit and enter this kingdom, which means there is only righteousness in this kingdom, as the Scriptures teach. Because there is nobody except the righteous in this kingdom, the concept of there being a rebellion against Christ at the end of it is extremely problematic. You end up with a second fall of man—glorified man—into sin: the righteous, redeemed, blood-bought saints of the Lord Jesus rebelling against their redeeming Lord and Saviour. This implies that His blood was not sufficient enough to cleanse us from our wickedness, even with our glorification, and implies that God is not powerful enough to keep us. This is heresy! So this view is a fail.
Amillennialism:
This view is the most consistent with what the Scriptures reveal. It is also the view that has been predominantly held by the church throughout her history, seconded only by historic pre-millennialism, although "Amillennialism was not recognized as a distinct position until around the turn of the twentieth century. Until then, amillenarians called themselves post-millennial because they believed Christ would come back after the millennial age, but they were different from traditional postmillenarians in that they did not believe in an earthly millennial age yet to dawn." (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, p.31)
Apart from Revelation 20, there is not a single passage in Scripture that describes a 1000-year kingdom here on Earth. When we look at the language of Revelation 20, we may note that everything in that passage is symbolic. We cannot translate the first bit symbolically and the last bit symbolically but choose to translate the 1000 years as literal. It does not work that way. Since Scripture does not support a literal 1000-year kingdom, this view would be the correct one.
Lewis Sperry Chafer argues, "This view interprets many passages in the Old and New Testaments that refer to the millennial kingdom as being fulfilled in a nonliteral way." No, Amillennialism interprets them in a very literal way, a way the Dispensationalist is incapable of doing in their literalistic approach because they deny the literal fulfillment in place of their fictionalization. To recapitulate, it is taught by Dispensationalists that Ezekiel 40-48 refer to the Millennial Kingdom and the Millennial Temple; but the literal and correct interpretation is that these chapters spoke in regard to the times and temple that would come after their Babylonian captivity.
If Dispensationalists, Zionists, Pre-Millennialists, and Jewish Restorationists bothered to do their homework and research things correctly, paying attention to not only Scripture, but also history, they would not make such colossal blunders in their belief systems. The Pro-Judaic Restoration theology is unbiblical and anti-Christ. This does not consent to hating the Jews, from whom salvation came through Christ Jesus, a Jew. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that both Jew and Gentile are come to salvation by faith in Christ the exact same way. If Jew and Gentile do not come through Christ, then they are condemned to eternity in Hell. Scripture is Christ-centric—not Judeo-centric. It was never about Israel; it was always about Christ Jesus!