HOW LONG IS 1,000 YEARS? (REVELATION 20:2-7)

The above question may seem like a strange one. However, in terms of the “1,000 years” found six times in Revelation 20:2-7, it is still a debated issue. Thus, in a difficult book such as Revelation, “Revelation 20:4-6 is one of the most difficult passages...” (Dodd) Part of the controversy regarding the length of time involved arises from the preconceived eschatological approaches of the commentators who have dealt with this passage. Without describing all that these theologies involve (see my post “Book of Revelation: Theological Stances.”), we can summarize their respective interpretations of “1,000 years” as follows:

Amillennial: This group of interpreters as well as others, beginning at least as early as St. Augustine, read most of what is in Revelation, including the numbers, symbolically and not literally.

    “Hoekema: “The book of Revelation is full of symbolic numbers. Obviously the number 'thousand' which is used here must not be interpreted in a literal sense. Since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression 'a thousand years' as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length.”

    Ruiz: “The period of a thousand years is symbolic both here [20:2-3] and in vv. 4-7, suggesting a temporary time of righteousness and tranquility before the final eschatological consummation.”

Postmillennial: This shrinking group of commentators are divided as to whether the number is meant to be literal or figurative/symbolic.

    Boettner: “It is to last an indefinitely long period of time, perhaps much longer than a literal one thousand years.”

Historic Premillennial: This group is represented by a very impressive number of evangelistic scholars. In general, they are also divided in opinion as to whether exactly 1,000 years will be involved. They tend to not be overly dogmatic on the issue.

    Payne: “...the precise lapse of the years that are involved may be subject to modification...”

Dispensational Premillennial: This probably represents the most popular view among evangelical Christians today, at least among the laity. And they hold to a literal interpretation of most of the Bible, including both words and numbers.

    Walvoord: “While amillenarians and others have tended to view this as nonliteral, there is no evidence to support this conclusion...”

But while they claim to hold to a literal understanding, it is really impossible for them to keep this up consistently. And any study of their writings will soon reveal that what they sometimes call “literal interpretation” in reality means the most “reasonable” interpretation, whether it is strictly literal or figurative. Thus, the dispensationalist John Phillips after first taking it for granted that “1,000 years” is a literal time designation in 20:2-7 then states that the reverence to Gog and Magog in v. 8 are “obviously symbolic.”

Idealist View: And finally, there are those who are sometimes aligned with the amillennialists, at least to some extent. These commentators usually do not see any sort of future timetable in the Book of Revelation but treat the details as only a means of communicating spiritual verities.

    Jensen: “The abundance of life in the age to come is symbolized by thousand.”

    Gunner: The number 1,000 doesn't stand for any time period but is a symbolic way of stating that Satan will be completely bound.

    Ellul: “...we are not at all in the presence of an epoch fixed in advance as far as duration is concerned (the 1,000 years appears to me related to the biblical meaning of the figures 10, 100, 1,000: a long duration, not more)...”

So let us consider the two extreme views here: Walvoord says that there is no reason to expect that “1,000 years” is anything but a literal time frame, while Hoekema says that it is obvious “1,000 years” is to be taken figuratively. Which one is correct?

Figurative View

Articles in various word study books all weigh in on this side of the debate:

    Jenson: “Arithmetical precision is not of great significance in traditional cultures except in specialized genres, such as censuses and military reports.”

    Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “Most scholars doubt that John intends to specify the length of time...To summarize, thousand means “large quantity.”

    Colin Brown: “The plural cheliades ['thousands'] is often used for very large numbers which cannot be measured.”

    Gunner: “...a thousand, ten thousand (Dt. xxxii; Lv. xxvi.8), and forty thousand (Jdg. v. 8) provide instances of round numbers which indicate an indefinitely large number.”

Another powerful piece of evidence supporting a figurative understanding is to simply look (using an analytical concordance) at all the instances in the Bible where the number 1,000 occurs. Statistically, over half of these cases (not including those in Revelation 20) obviously intend the number to be read as simply “a large number” and not to be taken literally. But even more significant is that in all twelve passages (again excluding Rev. 20) in which the number is used to describe a time period, the meaning is figurative, not literal. These Scripture references include Exodus 6:6, 20:6, 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:10, 7:9; I Chronicles 15:15-17; Psalm 84:10, 90:4, 105:8-10; Ecclesiastes 6:6; Jeremiah 32:18; and II Peter 3:8. So right off the bat, one would have to say that one can safely assume that the time references in Revelation 20 should also be taken figuratively unless proved otherwise.

Next to discuss is the matter of genre: “...certain important principles can guide one's exegetical conclusion. Perhaps the most important of these is to take into account the genre of literature of the passage. Poetry and apocalyptic use many different types of images. If a text is highly figurative in general, and if other numbers are used figuratively in the text, then that would predispose the reader to treat a number as symbolic.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Since Revelation (Apocalypse) obviously fits the definition of an apocalyptic text, chances are that the language used in that book is symbolic or figurative in nature, including the numbers. But although almost all scholars agree that poetic and apocalyptic literature needs to be interpreted differently than the historical books and epistles in the Bible, dispensationalists remain unconvinced. So let's turn to the literal view now to see what proofs they have to offer to the contrary.

Literal View

Walvoord's Arguments #1 & 2: “...the fact that it [thousand years] is mentioned six times and is clearly described as a period of time before which and after which events take place lead to the conclusion that it means a literal thousand-year period.” These are actually two rather weak arguments.

The fact that events happen before and after this time says nothing regarding the actual length of “1,000 years.” At most, it could be used for an argument supporting the idea that some sort of time period is in mind, expressed either literally, figuratively, symbolically, or as an approximation.

Next, just because something is mentioned multiple times has nothing whatsoever to say as to whether it is literal or figurative. And actually, this argument boomerangs on itself since the number of times a particular word is used in a biblical passage often has strictly symbolic significance, as my many years of analyzing the literary structures in the Bible have demonstrated. For example, if a word is repeated exactly seven times in a passage, it often signifies completion or perfection. In fact, the whole Book of Revelation is based upon series of sevens (See “The Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”) Also, several times in the Bible, a word will be used exactly 12 times in a passage that concerns the people of God and their actions. In the case of Revelation 20, the fact that “thousand years” appears six times has the same significance as the notorious case of the beast's number 666. Six is one short of perfection and thus symbolically represents imperfection. In other words, “one thousand years” does not represent the end or perfection of history, but only an intermediate step, an imperfect time period.

Walvoord's third argument is even more flawed than his first two: “Since other time designations in Revelation are literal (e.g., '42 months,' 11:2; 13:5; '1,260 days,' 11:3: 12:6) it is natural to take ' a thousand years' literally also.” This is a classic example of circular reasoning since he has never proved that those other time indications are literal, and in fact can't do so. Actually, it is almost certain that these other time indications are figurative also since 42 months = 1,260 days = half of seven years. In other words, 3 ½ is a symbolic way of expressing a time that is short in duration and will not last forever. The OT occasions where 3 ½ days or years occurs are all times of testing for believers but also periods of witness. Daniel 12:7, 12 provide other examples. Also, during the time of Elijah, God withheld rain from the land for 3 ½ years.

And to make it four strikes against Walvoord's contention, he finally states, “If the term 'a thousand years' designates a nonspecific but long period of time...then one would expect John to say simply that Christ would reign 'a long time,' in contrast to the 'short time' of Satan's release (20:3).” In the first place, why would one expect John to state the fact simply when virtually nothing else in the whole book is just stated simply? That is the very nature of apocalyptic literature – to use pictures and symbols to indirectly explain something that is really beyond human understanding. Secondly, to address his point where he contrasts the references to “thousand years” with the simple statement in Rev. 20:3, Ruiz points out that this passage in Revelation is a pointed reference back to Daniel 7:25 where the ultimate evil king is allowed to exercise his powers for a time, two times, and half a time (yet another way of expressing the limited symbolic period of 3 ½ years).

In addition to considering the literary genre of a passage, another standard test for distinguishing figurative from literal language in the Bible is to consider the immediate context for examples of obviously figurative language. In fact, Revelation 20 is filled with objects and incidents that one would be hard pressed to consider in a strictly literal manner. These include a chain strong enough to bind Satan, a literal pit in the ground that somehow has no bottom to it and can be sealed with a lock and key, an earth with four corners to it, Gog and Magog which even one dispensationalist commentator admits have to be figurative, as many warriors as there are grains of sand in the sea, a lake of everlasting burning sulfur, the earth and heaven running away from the One seated on a white throne, and literal books containing the deeds of all mankind which need to be consulted before deciding everyone's fate.

The dispensationalists brag that they are the only group that reads the Bible in a strictly literal way. But not only is that patently not true, it is nothing whatsoever to brag about. They bring everything down to their level of understanding by doing so and in the process run the risk of totally leaving out the spiritual message that God is communicating through His word.