Few theological issues generate such vigorous debate as does eschatology—the study of last things. The major doctrinal views historically include:

• Postmillennial
• Preterist
• Premillennial
• Amillennial

In each case—except for the Preterist view—the timing of the return of Christ is in view in relationship to the millennial (1,000 year) reign of Christ on the earth which some believe is in view in Revelation 20:1–4:

Notice the repetition of the phrase “thousand years”—that thousand years is at the root of the millennial debate. The challenge before the lay reader of the scriptures is that each of these views claims to have scriptural support for their positions and a scheme by which they believe the scriptures to be more understandable. The most important factor in this debate—which has gone on for decades—is that all of these views, aside from the preterist position, disagree on the logistics or mechanics of how the return of Christ will happen. But they all absolutely agree that his return is certain. Let’s briefly look at each view of Christ’s return:

Preterism: This view, named from the Latin term praeter meaning past, has associated the Second Coming of Christ with events that took place in the first century. Seeing the events of the cross, Jesus being glorified, and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as fulfilling these promises, this view holds that most or all second–coming prophecies have already been fulfilled.

Postmillennialism: The word post (after) attached to the word millennial means after the millennium. As we have seen, the term millennium refers to the belief in a literal 1,000 year kingdom of Christ on the earth, but in postmillennialism it has often referred to a golden age of peace and prosperity where “Christian ethics prosper.” This was a view that was somewhat popular at the dawn of the twentieth century, but largely was set aside following the devastation of World War I. It was hard to believe that the kingdom had in fact come with the level of atrocity that occurred during that so–called “war to end all wars,” though it is also still held among a group known as “Christian Reconstructionists.”

Premillennialism: As post refers to after, pre– brings the idea of before. This view presents that Jesus will return physically to the earth prior to the 1,000 year kingdom’s establishment. While there are several different subsets within premillennialism, the basic concept is pretty straightforward. First, there will be a literal kingdom on earth for a literal 1,000 years, and, second, this literal kingdom will be preceded by Christ’s literal return to the earth.

Amillennialism: As attaching post– and pre– to words adjusts that word’s meaning, so does attaching the letter a. In Latin, a negates the word so that atheism (a theos) is a position that believes there is no God. Hence, those who hold to an amillennial perspective subscribe to the view that there will be no literal thousand–year kingdom. Christ will return and that return will signal the end of history and the beginning of the eternal state. For the Amillenialist position, the 1,000–year reign is symbolic like much of Revelation and points to the general prosperity and wonder of the new world after the final resurrection.

Each of these major streams of thought has numerous subsets of specifics that relate to how their perspective understands the millennium, and each has, either historically or currently, been embraced by solidly evangelical theologians—and, aside from the Preterist view, all of these positions hold that Christ’s return is imminent. Since his second coming could come at any moment, Christ followers should endeavor to be always ready for his return.

Since his second coming could come at any moment, Christ followers should endeavor to be always ready for his return.

• Facebook
• Twitter

Scholar Alan S. Bandy wrote on the Gospel Coalition website:

The question of the millennium is an in–house family debate among Christians and requires diligent study coupled with a willingness to engage robustly in biblical text and its interpretation. The differences between these views are the result of hermeneutical, exegetical, and theological perspectives of Revelation 20 and are not a matter of heresy vs. orthodoxy. The hermeneutical questions one may resolve include how to interpret the language and imagery of Revelation, whether to take numbers as literal or figurative, and how to approach the relationship between the Old Testament in the New Testament. Exegetically, there are differences in how one views the relationship between Revelation 19 and 20 if they are chronologically successive or recapitulative. Theologically, how one views the relationship between Israel and the Church, the nature of prophecy, and the order of eschatological events will determine their hermeneutical and exegetical decisions. The various views, if not anything else, provide ample evidence of the difficulty and complexity of interpreting Revelation 20 and related passages, and this warrants a healthy dose of humility when approaching it.