I simply think the stronger argument is that we should believe the literal version of Rev 20 and accept the outline in the Jewish Prophets concerning the hope of the Messianic Kingdom. The Jewish Hope combined with literal interpretation of Rev 20 overrules, for me, 2 Peter 3.
Nowhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament supports your interpretation of Revelation 20. It is a totally non-corroborative theory. Neither the Law, the prophets, Christ or the New Testament writers, taught a future age in between this age and the age to come, between time and eternity. That is a Premil invention. They all actually thought the opposite. They taught about a d ay coming when Jesus would appear in all his final matchless power and glory to terminate time and the bondage of corruption, sin and sinners, Satan and his devils.
To best understand the Old Testament prophets and their prophecies, it is both wise and smart to start with the fuller revelation and see how they were viewed and interpreted by Christ and the New Testament writers. We can then work back the way and let clear, explicit and fulfilment interpret the vague, shadow and symbolic, not the other way around. Most Bible students do the opposite. They start by speculating what they think the Old Testament prophet meant. False doctrine is often what results.
Whilst the Old Testament mentions end-times and the second coming, it is often written in veiled and incomplete detail, mixed and interspersed with ancient events and other historical detail. It is also presented in types and shadows.
A lot of Christians today overlook this reality and therefore have a bias and faulty perspective of natural Israel. They make the mistake of viewing physical Israel today through Old Testament glasses. They fail to see that the Old Testament dispensation has gone forever and the New Testament era has fully and wholly superseded it. The old system has been totally dismantled and abolished because it was only ever intended to be a temporary covenant with an expiration date. Its conclusion occurred when Christ died on the cross. We see that with the ripping of the curtain in the temple at the very moment Jesus breathed His last breath (Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46). It therefore has no further purpose for time and eternity.
Ignorance of New Testament truth leads many to a distorted and erroneous understanding of Old Testament truth. Ironically, and paradoxically, especially allowing for how they describe themselves, many Futurists choose to live in the past. They understand ethnic Israel today in an old covenant sense, rather than a new covenant context. It is as if the old covenant is still active and valid and the new covenant has yet to arrive. Futurists seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize the seismic shift that occurred through the introduction of the new covenant. When pressed, they continually run back to the Old Testament for some type of support for a favored place for national Israel, a return of the Jews to their ancient land boundaries, the reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus, including a rebuilt physical temple, animal blood sacrifices, and a restored Old Testament priesthood. They have to pitch their tent in the Hebrew Scriptures because they have absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament for their theological model.
Sensible and enlightened Bible scholars place greater emphasis on the New Testament because it is the fuller revelation and it is where we now reside. God’s truth has been a gradual progressive unfolding and unveiling of truth to mankind from the beginning. The change and advancement that came with the New Testament era did not jettison the old Hebrew promises but rather fulfilled them. The doctrinal light became a lot clearer with Christ’s appearance and vivid illumination of the whole dynamic between the Old and the New Testament and the first and second advents. Our Lord removed the existing vail, dispelled the religious mist and has shed much-needed light on God’s redemptive plan.
That is why theologians insist: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” Steve Lehrer wisely advises: “read the old covenant Scriptures through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures” (New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered). The New Testament is latent in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament.
As Reformed Theologian Vern Poythress explains: “The significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment … In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything” (Understanding Dispensationalists).
If the Bible student fails to grasp the whole inter-relationship between the Old and New Testament then surely, they are going be all over the place when it comes to quite a number of subjects in the Bible. But equally, it would be very difficult to comprehend the whole interconnection between the Old and New Testaments without understanding the actual relationship between Israel and the Church.