Inducement number three comes from the key passage on the millennium, which happens also to be the only passage in the whole Bible that speaks of its ‘thousand years’ duration. This passage, of course, is Revelation 20. The time period of a ‘thousand years’ occurs six times in the course of its fifteen verses. The first two mentions are about the length of time that Satan is bound; the third and fifth concern the length of time that certain souls reign with Christ in heaven; the fourth addresses a literal bodily resurrection some time after this millennial period; the sixth points to Satan being loosed when that millennial period expires. I have already shown the inducement to believe that the focal point of this millennium is heaven where saints reign with Christ until his second coming to earth; and I have already shown that this period of time is the Church age when the nations outside of Israel are permitted, because of Satan’s binding, to come to Christ unhindered. Each one of these two inducements topples, all by itself, the citadel of a literal millennium of peace on earth. The third inducement, like the first two, is strong enough on its own to show the literal millennium to be the mirage that it is. The literal millennium is merely a mirage, a tottering citadel, a castle in the air, midsummer madness—any metaphor like that will do. This third inducement is really the foundation for understanding the nature of the millennium. It concerns the interpretation of apocalyptic literature.
One fact that I learned early on in my faith—and it is a fact that is acknowledged by virtually every Christian believer—is that the book of Revelation is the most symbolic book in the Bible. This is saying a lot because the Bible, from beginning to end, uses symbolic language copiously, even when it comes to what the Bible is mostly about: Jesus Christ. He is called bread but he is not literally bread; he is called a shepherd even though he was never one literally; he is called a lamb, a lion, a fountain, a rock, a vine, and a branch even though he was not, and is not, any of those in any literal fashion.
How did I ever come to the conclusion, though, in the face of popular opinion amongst Christians, that the thousand years of Revelation 20 are symbolic years? About twenty years ago I began to do critical book reports on many of the books that I read. Nothing has helped me more to judge the merit of authors and of received opinions than that firsthand exercise. To read reviews may be helpful; but to write reviews is where confidence comes from about whether books are either commendable or discreditable. While working on a book report on M. R. DeHaan’s book, The Second Coming of Jesus, I put one of his assertions to the test of the chief rule of interpretation: the use of Scripture to interpret Scripture. About the thousand years in Revelation 20, he says that ‘a thousand years means a thousand years.’ After researching the use of the number thousand in the Bible, I wrote my findings down in my report. So, gleaning from some of that: Let us turn to the figure one thousand and see if it’s true that, in Scripture, ‘a thousand years means a thousand years,’ like he says. If ‘a thousand’ is sometimes figurative, it is possible, is it not, that this number is intended figuratively in the most figurative book in the canon; that is, in the Apocalypse? Job 9.3: “If he will contend with him [God], he cannot answer him one of a thousand.” This ‘thousand’ is a figurative number used to convey the concept ‘never,’ or ‘no, not ever.’ Psalm 50.10: “The cattle on a thousand hills.” This ‘thousand’ is used figuratively to signify ‘everything.’ Psalm 84.10: “For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand.” This ‘thousand’ is a figure of speech denoting an indefinite number of days. Psalm 91.7: “A thousand shall fall at thy side.” This is not literal speech, but symbolic speech about spiritual conquest. Psalm 105.8: “He commanded to a thousand generations.” This ‘thousand’ involves a figurative way of stressing the certainty of God’s covenant promises. Ecclesiastes 7.28: “One man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.” This is a figurative way of warning men that immoral women abound. Song of Solomon 4.4: “Thy neck is like a tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers.” This is a romantic way, a symbolic way, a figurative way (certainly not a literal way) of praising a woman for the beauty of her neck. 1 Samuel 18.7: “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” This means that Saul was less valiant than David was; there is nothing literal there. And, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past” (Psalm 90.4.) This is a symbolic way of stating the eternal perspective of God. A thousand does not always mean a thousand in poetical books and even historical books. Must ‘a thousand years’ necessarily mean exactly a thousand years in the Apocalypse, then? Must a thousand mean a thousand in the most figurative book in the Bible?...If ‘thousand’ or ‘thousands’ is meant in a figurative way so many times in the Bible, then it is plausible, and even probable, that the ‘thousand’ years mentioned in the book of Revelation is to be taken figuratively as well.
If premillennialism hinges on anything, it hinges on the literal interpretation of the number thousand in Revelation 20—the literal interpretation of the number thousand in the most symbolic book in the Bible’s compendium of sixty-six. What justification is there for taking this number literally? If we keep in mind the figurative character of the Apocalypse and at the same time apply the most basic rule in all of hermeneutics, which is to interpret Scripture by Scripture, a literal interpretation of ‘a thousand years’ in Revelation 20 is off the table. This rule does not contradict the maxim mentioned below because the use of figurative speech in the Old Testament to identify and interpret figurative speech in the New is not the same thing as a passage in the New Testament interpreting a passage in the Old. Technique is not the same thing as the decipherment of prophecy.
Nothing gives me confidence about what the nature of the millennium is more than the figurative use of the number ‘thousand’ in the Bible. These ‘thousand years’ in Revelation 20 are no more literal than the chain that is used to bind the devil, than the horse that Jesus is said to ride upon, than the mark on peoples’ foreheads, than the camp that is compassed about, or the rod of iron that the nations are ruled with. What about apocalyptic language in the Old Testament? The same common sense rule applies there; and the examples in the New Testament for interpreting this language corroborate the allegorical meaning of the millennium and annihilate any justification for literalizing it. That the New Testament interprets the Old Testament is a well-known maxim. Here is my impromptu iteration of that maxim, in as few words as possible: The Old Testament foreshadows the New; the New casts light on the Old. Here is how T. D. Bernard says it concerning the epistle to the Hebrews: “…the ‘perfection’ of Christian doctrine was attained by the reading of the Old Testament in the light of the (elementary) knowledge of Christ; in other words, that the complete exposition of the Gospel was the result of a combination of the facts and the words of the old dispensation with the facts and the words of the new, a combination effected in the minds of the Apostles under the teaching of the Holy Ghost, who thus brought to light the meaning and the scope of his own earlier inspirations, preserved in the Law and the Prophets” (T. D. Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, p. 253.) Just as the Holy Ghost ‘brought to light’ the Old Testament by ‘the light of the knowledge of Christ’ in the New for the composition of the epistle to the Hebrews, we gain understanding of the darker passages of the Old Testament through the light of New Testament inspiration. That the New Testament interprets the Old Testament is a well-known maxim; and this maxim is not without its models.
The epistle to the Hebrews is a major model. Here are two miniature models. (1) When the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak in tongues because of his influence, to the amazement of visiting Jews from the nations where they had been dispersed, Peter said this: “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2.16.) What was spoken by the prophet Joel? Peter tells us: “And it shall come to pass in the last days…your sons and your daughters shall prophesy…I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (verses 17-21.) What are the signs and wonders, represented by blood, fire, and vapor? Verse 43: “And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.” And the fulfillment of this passage from Joel was made possible by Jesus Christ fulfilling his mission, which involved the performing of ‘miracles and wonders and signs’ (verse 22.) This passage from the book of Acts shows us how to interpret apocalyptic literature. The uttermost idiom is used for the greatest works of divinity; no greater work has ever been done than what which has to do with Jesus Christ. We find ourselves, in the book of Joel and in the book of Acts, then, in the mysterious wheels of apocalyptic language, as if we were in the crescendo of the book of Revelation long before we get there. Finding ourselves in the midst of apocalyptic locution before we get to the Apocalypse proper helps us to understand what is coming many books later; and it is meant to make us expectant. (2) The next model that I will show of the New Testament interpreting something cryptic from the Old is found in Acts 15 where James (it is disputed which James) quotes a passage from the prophet Amos about the rebuilding and setting up of the tabernacle of David that is happening in James’ own day. What could this mean? The fulfillment: Acts 15.16, 17: “After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” The prophecy that was foretold: Amos 9.11, 12: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.” So what is the fulfillment in James’ own day of this rebuilding that is alluded to, according to New Testament inspiration? It has to do with the Gentiles coming to faith and into the kingdom: “that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things” (Acts 15.17.) James is here using Amos to explain the conversions among both Jews and Gentiles that have been going on in James’ day. We see, therefore, that what in Old Testament prophecy is apocalyptic or ceremonial, has often to do, in fulfillment, not with material things like bricks and stone, but with the gospel being received; in other words, with what has come to be known, in latter days, as revival—revivals like the ones recorded in the book of Acts during the apostles’ days. Passages in Zechariah and Ezekiel, therefore, that seem to predict a golden age such as the millennium, with a reinstituted sacrificial system and a material temple to go with that, really point, either to the effects of the gospel being poured out or to the new heaven, new earth, and New Jerusalem that the book of Revelation predicts; it may be that they refer to both.
The doctrine of the millennium, because so many authors have invested so much time and reputation in it and made so much money by it, is a thorny subject to take an unpopular view on. Darts are often cast into the sides of persons who refuse, on interpretive and exegetical grounds, to fall in with the premillennial dogma. It is a subject that, because of its treatment as a sacred cow, is not usually handled by premillennialists sine ira et studio (without either anger or partiality) towards persons who will not conform. That said, my calling the premillennial dogma ‘midsummer madness’ or ‘a sacred cow,’ comes close, maybe, to crossing the line that they commonly cross. But if the authors who teach the millenarian view are not mad, their view does seem like madness once its dominion has been traversed and it is looked at from the more spiritual stance of bucolic amillennialism.
