Short Shot on the Millennium- Did The Millennium Begin in AD 70?
Short Shot on the Millennium: Did The Millennium Begin in AD 70?
In recent times a “new” argument has appeared in eschatological discussions. I have not been able to pin down when this view came to the surface, but I became aware of it the first time on Facebook, when two individuals by the name of Steve Haukhdal and Saul Paul argued for this view. Then, I was somewhat stunned when I examined Kenneth Gentry’s 2024 large, and long anticipated, two volume work, The Divorce of Israel commentary on Revelation. I discovered that Gentry had radically changed his views on the beginning of the Millennium.
Prior to the publication of his new work Gentry posited the beginning of the Millennium, the binding of Satan in the ministry of Jesus. However, he now says the Millennium began in AD 70: “in the complex of events in AD 70 that includes the destruction of the beast and the false prophet, as well as Satan’s own binding.” Needless to say, Gentry’s new view is radical, not to mention non-creedal. (The Divorce of Israel, Vol . I (At worth, Ga: Tolle Lege Press, 2024), 1592).
The question of course is, what is the evidence to suggest that the Millennium began in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem?
Here are the key points that have been offered to me: (Not every proponent of the idea that the Millennium began in AD 70 has offered all of these elements).
☛ Revelation 20:1-4 is focused on the martyrs and their vindication by being enthroned.
☛ Nero was the beast and thus, the enthroned martyrs were created by the Neronian persecution.
☛ Nero persecuted the saints from 64-68. (Approximately 3 ½ years).
☛ Those Neronian martyrs were enthroned and they rule with Christ for the Millennium.
☛ Thus, the Millennium began with the vindication of the (Neronian) martyrs.
☛ Jesus posited the vindication of the martyrs at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
☛ Therefore, the beginning Millennium at the vindication of the martyrs in Revelation 20 was in AD 70.
There are many problems with this argument that the reader needs to be aware of, since it utilizes some truth but actually overlooks many significant and, I suggest, fatal realities. I develop many more of the reasons why the arguments above are false in the upcoming book.
One of the first questions that can be asked is this: It took Israel literally centuries to fill up the measure of their sin by persecuting the saints, including the prophets (Matthew 23:29ff). Upon what basis therefore, can it be argued that Rome / Nero filled the measure of her / his sin by persecuting the saints for less than four years? We can extend this thought a bit more. In Matthew 23, Jesus said that he was going to send his apostles, prophets and wise men to Jerusalem / Israel. His emassaries would be stoned, crucified and slain. By killing his representatives Jerusalem would fill up the measure of her sin. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians (circa AD 49-50) he said that the “Judeans” had slain the OT prophets (notice how Paul “reaches back” into the past and incorporates Israel’s sanguine history into his contemporary situation). They had slain the Lord and were, just as Jesus predicted, killing the apostles and prophets of Jesus. In doing so, they were in the process of filling up the measure of their sin. The point is that the filling up of the measure of her sin was taking a good bit longer than 3 ½ years.
Are we supposed to believe that Rome and Nero filled up the measure of their sin in 3 ½ years, when it took decades- and much longer- for Israel to fill up her sin? One thing is certain. In the historical record of the persecution of the saints found in Acts, Rome was NEVER viewed as an active, hostile, persecuting power. In fact, no foreign power was ever singled out as the chief persecutor of the Lord’s people. In fact, scholars have long recognized that it was Israel and not the Romans who persecuted the early church.
Famous historian and commentator Adolph Harnack said:
“Unless the evidence is misleading, they instigated the Neronic outburst against Christians; and as a rule, whenever bloody persecutions were afoot in later days, the Jews are either in the background or the foreground” (Adolph Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, Harper and Brothers, 1961, p. 57+). Pay particular attention the fact that Harnack actually blamed the Jews for the Neronian persecution. This is significant.
In more modern times, Wright says, “Persecution of Christians did not in fact, initially come from pagans.” He continues, “In fact, the earliest and best evidence we possess for serious and open hostility between Jews–especially Pharisees–and the nascent Christian movement is found in the earliest period for which we have evidence, namely in the letters of Paul. He, by his own admission, had persecuted the very early church with violence and zeal.” (Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 374).
There are at least 30 Bible passages that discuss the killing of the prophets, and not one of them points the accusing finger at a foreign nation let alone Rome as the key player. Little wonder then that Jesus said: “Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem (Luke 13:33).
But this is not even the worst problem for those who suggest that the Millennium began in AD 70.
In Revelation 6 we find the story of the martyrs under the altar. They cry out for vindication and are given white robes. They are told to wait for a little while, until the eschatological full number of the martyrs was filled up. In 6:12ff the answer to their prayer was to be the Great Day of God’s wrath. So, the reception of the robes was not their vindication. They were given the robes while they waited for their vindication at the Day of the Lord.
In Revelation 20 the martyrs are seated on the thrones. And they rule and reign with Christ for the Millennium. At the end of the Millennium, Satan, their great persecutor, is destroyed. That means, does it not, that just like in chapter 6, where the saints were given robes to wait for their vindication, that the martyrs in Revelation 20 were enthroned to await their vindication at the Great Judgment? After all, is not the Great Day of the Lord the time of the judgment? That is what Jesus taught in Revelation 22:12– “Behold, I come quickly and my reward is with me to give to every man.”
Now, if Revelation 6 and 20 are parallel in concept, that means that the enthronement in Revelation 20:1-4 cannot be the vindication of the martyrs. Just as the martyrs in chapter 6 were given robes and told to await their vindication at the Day of the Lord, the martyrs in Revelation 20 were enthroned to await their vindication at the Great White Throne Judgment at the parousia of Christ! Thus, again, both chapters speak of the time in which the martyrs were to wait for their vindication at the Day of the Lord. That time of Millennial waiting was when they, along with Messiah, would “rule thou, in the midst of your enemies” as they awaited the Day of the Lord for their vindication.
This means that Revelation 20:1-4 cannot be parousia of Christ in AD 70 because Christ’s coming was to be the vindication of the martyrs. But to re-emphasize, both the enrobement and the enthronement, being parallel, was the time of waiting for vindication, i.e. waiting for the parousia. It was not the time of the vindication but the time of waiting– the Millennium– for that promised vindication.
There are many, many more reasons why Revelation 20:1-4 while clearly speaking of the enthronement of the martyrs to rule with Christ for the Millennium, it cannot be speaking of the coming of Christ in AD 70. To suggest that Revelation 20:1-4 was the parousia of Christ in AD 70 to vindicate the martyrs is anachronistic. It destroys clear cut narrative of enrobement and enthronement to await vindication.
I produced a YT video on this subject and you can watch it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woY5SflTT28
In addition, be sure to get a copy of the book: The Millennium: Past, Present or Future? by Joseph Vincent. (I contributed to that book also). Also, I am putting the finishing touches, hopefully, on a book on the Millennium. Lord willing it will be published early next year. Stay tuned!
Short Shot on the Millennium- Did The Millennium Begin in AD 70?