Is the millennium literal or figurative?

The term a “thousand years”‎ occurs in our chapter six times (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).‎ Three out of the number are connected with Satan; two of them assert the reign of the saints with Christ; the sixth intimates the period between the resurrection of the saints and that of the wicked. All these six occurrences of the period a thousand years refer to the same time, but, of course, viewed in different connections, and, in our judgment, should be regarded not in any symbolic sense, but as describing an exact and literal denomination of time. The term THE MILLENNIUM as a designation referring to the period of the Lord’s reign — public and personal with His saints — over the earth is gathered from this chapter. According to Jewish reasoning the six millenniums drawing to a close answer to the six days in which the heavens and earth were made, the seventh sabbatic day of rest looking‎ forward to that long and blessed Sabbath of a thousand years. “There remaineth therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9, R.V.).‎ ‎

Next follows a brief but vivid sketch of the reign for a thousand years. We need not discuss whether it be a thousand years symbolically or literally. Not that I doubt it is to be taken literally. The important point to see and maintain is that it is a long, though limited, time; distinguished in character from what went before, as well as from what follows itself. It is Christ's reign with the glorified saints for a certain defined period (not through eternity). There are striking changes as to conditions and circumstances, but still substantially the heavens and earth that now are; creation delivered from the curse; Satan bound; man blest; the glorified saints in their proper heavenly place; Israel in the inner earthly circle, and the Gentiles in the outer circle; all this combined and going on through the millennium. How it all differs from the old Chiliastic scheme is manifest. Indeed, I am not surprised that grave men rose up against the notion that the Lord Jesus should again live as a man on the earth during the thousand years. Such a view is both unscriptural and repulsive; though it was sorrowful that, in discarding the chaff, Origen and others lost so much of the wheat. But the thoughts of good men like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others, were clogged with elements which ruined their testimony to a great extent, and gave occasion to the philosophising reaction which allegorised almost all. Scripture does not such violence to the spiritual instincts of the children of God, and enables us to hold fast what is good, while we refuse the evil.

Rev. 20:5. — “The rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed.” That a literal resurrection and a literal reigning are meant seems unquestionable. Why depart from the simple and obvious meaning of the words, and suppose a resurrection and a reign of principles? It is persons and not principles which are before us in the text. It is surprising that such a far-fetched and unnatural theory should find support in certain quarters generally considered sober and orthodox.‎

Here an angel comes down out of heaven. This angel, in the prophetic vision, has the key of the abyss and a great chain hanging on his hand (verse 1). He is seen laying hold of "the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan," the well-known enemy of God and man; and then follows the use of the key and the chain, the key for shutting him up and the chain for binding him fast. Obviously these are figures, but they are familiar to the simplest mind. There is no one, however ignorant about some things, who need misunderstand what is meant. The Spirit of God takes advantage of the commonest things of every-day life to describe an act of judgment that is about to be accomplished in His providence by and by. God intends to restrain Satan, and will not suffer his going about to deceive the world as he does now; but it will be only for a season (verses 2, 3). He is not thrown into the lake of fire at once, but is a prisoner in the bottomless pit, which is the expression of the place, under the control of Satan ordinarily, that will then be made the place of his confinement. (Compare Revelation 9, 11 and 17.)

It is certain from God's word that Satan is not yet shut up; on the contrary, that he goes about now seeking to deceive and to destroy souls. The New Testament always supposes this. It is perfectly clear that Satan is an enemy still at large; that he is active in his rebellion against God, in the falsehood that he spreads among men, and in the death and ruin that he causes everywhere. But this is to close when, for a certain limited time, the earth will be freed from his deceits. This is all that I need to draw from the passage. I am not going to discuss whether the thousand years are to be taken literally or mystically; for this is a question of detail and degree only. But beyond a doubt the period has a beginning and has an end; nor can it have begun yet, because Satan is not bound. The New Testament epistles suppose that Satan still carries on his devices, hinders the work of God, has to be resisted, and is going about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. So that there must be a vast change when the time comes for his restraint. And God will have to cast His people upon other parts of His word, which would not apply to the past or the present. The saints then will be in many respects in a totally different state. In that day Christ will be reigning over the earth, having it under His direct control; and assuredly the change will be incalculably great. Satan too will be bound, and God's people then will not require the same discipline through the word of God as those do now who have to encounter the assaults of Satan and his accusations. God will deal with them according to the condition in which they will be placed, and for which His word provides.

And note well, what many have overlooked, that in Rev. 12, which (6) speaks of the 1260 days and "a time, times, and half a time" (14), this very period is described in ver. 12 as "but a short time." Now in a prophecy where times and seasons are spoken of definitely and in their relative proportion, this is evidently of the utmost importance. It is not a possibly long while made short by the power of faith, as Christ's waiting to the Christian, but an absolute statement which could hardly be if 1260 years were meant. In the same book the reign of the saints with Christ is declared to be 1000 years. Why not "days" if this always be the symbol? If "days" mean "days," all is clear and consistent.

Revelation 13:5. Vol. III. 200, 244. — I do not think that there is so much inconsistency as might seem at first sight in taking the 1260 days mystically and the 1000 years literally; and for this reason, among others, that the book of Revelation, like many previous prophecies, admits of a two-fold application. One is the protracted Protestant scheme, when the long period may have its place; the other is the grand future crisis after the Church or heavenly saints are translated to the Father's presence, and God begins to resume His dealings with Israel and the nations in the way of testimony and judgment before the Millennium commences, when the days will be literal days. Obviously, this double accomplishment concerns the early and middle part of the book and not at all Rev. 20.

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." People say that this is figurative language; and it is granted that it is so, at once. No doubt the key of the bottomless pit, and the great chain in the angel's hand, and the binding of Satan, and the setting of a seal upon him, are all figures. But what are they figures of? Are they expressions without meaning because they are figurative? Or is the meaning necessarily uncertain and indefinite? What do they all teach us, but that Satan will be forcibly restrained, and that in his own abyss, for a thousand years? So restrained that he shall deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years are fulfilled. What difficulty is there in understanding the force and meaning of figures like these?

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." Observe these last words, my brethren "This is the first resurrection." There may have been figures employed in the passage; no one questions it. But when the Holy Ghost is pleased to interpret the figurative language He has employed — when He is pleased to tell us what it means — are we to evade the force of all He says, by making His interpretation figurative also? "This is the first resurrection," is the Holy Ghost's explanation of the figures or symbols by which it had been set forth. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years." Nothing can be more evident than what the simple, definite impression of this language would be on any mind not prepossessed with thoughts of another character. The way in which it is commonly sought to evade the plain, obvious meaning of the passage is by explaining it thus: that the resurrection of the martyrs, which John beheld, denotes a revival of the principles for which they suffered; that, having suffered death for Christian principles, the revival, and universal spread and ascendency of these principles, is set forth by the symbol of those who had been beheaded living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. Such is the popular interpretation of this passage. But it breaks down at every point. Those who have been beheaded are those who reign. Are they principles or persons that have been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God? Then again, supposing that the reign of principles might be set forth by the resurrection and reign of those who had been martyrs for them, how are we to account for their priesthood? "They shall be priests of God and of Christ." As one has said, in substance, somewhere, "You may speak of the reign of principles; but can you make principles into priests as well?" Then again, "on such the second death hath no power." What is the second death? It is explained in verse 14 to be "the lake of fire." And could there be any question of the second death, the lake of fire, having power over Christian principles? The lake of fire is for the punishment of evil persons; and it is one element in the blessedness of those who have part in the first resurrection that "on such the second death hath no power." Then further, the first resurrection is so linked in this chapter with what all admit to be a literal resurrection of dead bodies at the end of the thousand years, that you cannot explain away the one without explaining away the other. When John has witnessed the vision in verse 4, which is explained to him in verse 5 to be "the first resurrection," we are told of certain who have no part in it; "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." In the verses which ensue we have a rapid glance at the events which occur when the thousand years are expired — Satan is loosed — the nations are again deceived — fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys them — the devil who had deceived them is cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet are (having been cast there alive a thousand years before, see chapter 19:20); and then what follows? "And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Is this figurative too, my brethren? If so, where is there Scripture authority for the doctrine of the resurrection at all? And if this be not figurative, why should the account of "the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter be set aside as figurative? If it be allowed, which it must be, that the resurrection of the wicked dead at the close of the chapter is a literal, actual resurrection of dead bodies, on what principle can it be maintained that the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter is figurative, and denotes the revival of dead or dying principles? What says the Holy Spirit? "This is the first resurrection." "But the rest of the dead lived not again," etc. The rest of the dead what? — principles? — or persons? Surely the "rest" must bear some relation to those from whom they are distinguished.

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." People say that this is figurative language; and it is at once granted that it is so. No doubt the key of the bottomless pit, and the great chain in the angel's hand, and the binding of Satan, and the setting a seal upon him, are all figures. But what are they figures of? Are they expressions without meaning, because they are figurative? Or is the meaning necessarily uncertain and indefinite? What do they all teach us, but that Satan will be forcibly restrained, and that in his own abyss, for a thousand years. So restrained that he shall deceive the nations no more, till a thousand years are fulfilled. What difficulty is there in understanding the force and meaning of figures like these?

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." Observe these last words, my brethren: "This is the first resurrection." There may have been figures employed in the passage: no one questions it. But when the Holy Ghost is pleased to interpret the figurative language he has employed — when he is pleased to tell us what it means — are we to evade the force of all he says, by making his interpretation figurative also? "this is the first resurrection," is the Holy Ghost's explanation of the figures or symbols by which it had been set forth. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Nothing can be more evident, than what the simple definite impression of this language will be, on any mind not prepossessed with thoughts of another character. The way in which it is commonly sought to evade its plain obvious meaning is by explaining it thus: that the resurrection of the martyrs, which John beheld, denotes a revival of the principles for which they suffered. That having suffered death for Christian principles, the revival and universal spread and ascendancy of these principles is set forth by the symbol of those who had been beheaded, living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. Such is the popular interpretation of this passage. But it breaks down at every point. They who have been beheaded are they who reign. Are they principles or persons that have been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God? Then again, supposing that the reign of principles might be set forth by the resurrection and reign of those who had been martyrs for them, how are we to account for their priesthood? "They shall be priests of God and of Christ." As one has said in substance somewhere, "You may speak of the reign of principles; but can you make principles into priests as well?" Then again, "On such the second death hath no power." What is the second death? It is explained in verse 14 to be "the lake of fire." And could there be any question of the second death, the lake of fire, having power over Christian principles? The lake of fire is for the punishment of evil persons; and it is one element in the blessedness of those who have part in the first resurrection, that "on such the second death hath no power." Then further, the first resurrection is so linked in this chapter with what all admit to be a literal resurrection of dead bodies at the end of the thousand years, that you cannot explain away the one without explaining away the other. When John has witnessed the vision in verse 4, which is explained to him in verse 5 to be "the first resurrection," we are told of certain who have no part in it; "but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." In the verses which ensue, we have a rapid glance at the events which occur when the thousand years are expired — Satan is loosed — the nations again deceived — fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys them — the devil who had deceived them is cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet are (having been cast there alive a thousand years before, see Rev. 19:20); and then what follows? "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Is this figurative too, my brethren? If so, where is there Scripture authority for the doctrine of the resurrection at all? And if this be not figurative, why should the account of "the first resurrection" at the beginning of the chapter be set aside as figurative? If it be allowed, which it must be, that the resurrection of the wicked dead at the close of the chapter is a literal actual resurrection of dead bodies, on what principle can it be maintained, that the first resurrection at the beginning of the chapter is figurative, and denotes the revival of dead or dying principles? What says the Holy Spirit? "This is the first resurrection." "But the rest of the dead lived not again," etc. The rest of the dead what? — principles? - or persons? Surely "the rest" must bear some relation to those from whom they are distinguished.

It is no longer a question either of celebrating the preliminary ways of God's government, or of the war with the Beast and kings of the earth. Accordingly we have the power of evil restrained beyond all example; and ruling in righteousness as never seen before. There are thrones filled with persons come from heaven in the train of Christ, who now reign along with Him. The language of symbol is as definite as any other. There is no lack of precision, but the very reverse. Peculiarly compact energy attaches to symbolic language.

But there is, in the details which come next, much of interest and consequence to observe, in that an accession follows of the souls of those beheaded on account of the witness of Jesus, and on account of the word of God. These are the martyrs of Rev. 6:9-11, long before seen under the altar, and poured out like burnt-offerings to God. They had cried to the Sovereign ruler to avenge their blood on their foes, but were told they must wait a little for others, their fellow-bondmen and their brethren, to be killed as they were. Here accordingly we have them all. For there is added another company of faithful men who suffered when the Beast set up his worst and final pretensions. But these would not do homage to the Beast, or his image, nor would they receive the mark. These compose the third class here spoken of. We can understand the special mention of these two sections of the saints who suffered after the rapture to heaven. For they did not live for the power and glory of the kingdom. But if they died for Christ, God takes care they shall not lose, but share the first resurrection. They thereby become saints of the high places.

This is, no doubt, a view of the millennium quite new to most of our readers. We will not pass upon them the reflection which would be implied, in seeking to rebut a principle by which Scripture language is made to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. Such a principle is not to be met by argument, but by the moral reprobation which attaches to the calling good evil, and evil good. But we are as yet only on the threshold of our author's system. The thrones, and sitters on them, to whom judgment was given, are the powers that be, employed as executioners of Satan's malice, in persecuting the saints to death? The saints reigning, be it remembered, and Satan bound all the while! "The rest of the dead" who rise not, till the thousand years are finished, are "the great body of truly living souls brought to God," during the little season in which Satan is loosed from his prison and goes forth to deceive the nations of the earth afresh! The ten centuries preceding the Reformation are suggested by Mr. W. as "the longer, the millennial period pourtrayed in the passage before us," while it is intimated that the "three centuries which have rolled away since that epoch," have borne the marks of "the little season" which was to succeed the millennium.

Such is the "New Testament Millenarianism" of the Bampton Lectures; a system commended to us by the lecturer, as one which does "not dislocate the whole frame-work of Christian truth," which he alleges is done by expecting a pre-millennial advent of our blessed Lord. To set aside such an expectation, is the great object of his book. In this object, his reviewers of the London Quarterly, and the British and Foreign Evangelical, are heartily agreed. But as to the interpretation of Rev. 20, they are wide as the poles asunder. Mr. W. declares it already fulfilled: the London Quarterly maintains "that the scenes which this Scripture pourtrays are yet future," and addresses itself to the inquiry, "Is it to be interpreted literally or figuratively?" Nor is the enquiry prosecuted far, before the conclusion is arrived at, and stated thus, "We have no hesitation in saying, that the only consistent interpretation is the figurative one, which recognises the revival of the early martyrs and confessors in their spirit and character." The British and Foreign Evangelical, while dealing most tenderly with Mr. W.'s millennial theory, is yet obliged to say,