The Millennium - Present or Future?.pdf

Transcription

1 From the SelectedWorks of Jordan P Ballard Fall 2015 The Millennium - Present or Future?.pdf Jordan P Ballard Available at:

2 The Millennium: Present or Future? Jordan P. Ballard THEO 997: Interpretive Issues in the Book of Revelation November 16, 2015

3 Contents Introduction The Origin of Millennial Views Premillennialism Amillennialism Postmillennialism Summary Deciding the Issue Framing the Debate on Revelation Key Interpretive Questions Does Revelation 20 involve recapitulation? Is 1,000 years to be taken literally or symbolically? Is Satan presently bound in the Abyss? What is the first resurrection? Conclusion Reference List ii

4 1 Introduction and Overview The question of the interpretation of the Millennium of Revelation 20 has been the subject of debate among scholars for centuries, and this question has received particular attention in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. There are currently three major views on the Millennium: premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. 1 Premillennialism is the view that the text of Revelation 20, when interpreted in a normal, straightforward manner, teaches that Christ will return before the establishment of His 1,000-year kingdom on the earth. There are two general types of premillennialism. Historic premillennialism is the view that the Church will live through the judgments depicted in the book of Revelation before Christ sets up His kingdom. 2 These judgments may describe a certain period of seven years at the end of the Church Age, or they may refer to various types of judgments and persecutions throughout Church history. Either way, Christ will return after the time of tribulation (posttribulationism) and save the righteous, judge the wicked, and then establish His millennial reign. 3 The second type of premillennialism is dispensational premillennialism, which is the view that Christ will return for the Church in the Rapture before judging the world in the period of tribulation depicted in the book of Revelation (pretribulationism). The Church Age is a dispensation, or economy of God (see Eph 3:1-12), which does not abrogate 1 These views are represented in Darrell L. Bock, ed., Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999). 2 See Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, eds., A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to Left Behind Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009). 3 See George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1956); Bob Gundry, First the Antichrist (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997); Douglas J. Moo, A Case for the Posttribulation Rapture, in Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, ed. Alan Hultberg (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), ; idem., The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position. In Three Views on the Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post- Tribulation. Edited by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

5 2 God s future plans for the nation of Israel during the Tribulation and the Millennium. 4 Both historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism affirm that Revelation 20 is to be interpreted in a normal, literal manner, though the two views differ on questions of the relationship of the Church and Israel to the Tribulation and Millennium. 5 The second major view is amillennialism, also called realized or inaugurated millennialism, 6 which is the view that there is no future, millennial reign of Christ on the earth. 7 Rather, the Millennium of Revelation 20 is a description of the Church Age, and 4 See John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord (Grand Rapid: Zondervan, 1955); J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapid: Zondervan, 1958); Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About the Rapture (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981); idem., Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995); Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds., A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992); Paul D. Feinberg, The Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position, in Three Views on the Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulation, ed. Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 45-86; Craig A. Blaising, A Case for the Pretribulation Rapture, in Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, ed. Alan Hultberg (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), There is a third strand of premillennialism which is a subcategory of dispensational premillennialism known as progressive dispensationalism. Proponents of this view do not see such a sharp distinction between the Church and Israel in God s redemptive program, though they still believe that the Church will be raptured before the Tribulation. See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); idem., Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993); Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); Darrell L. Bock, Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism, in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), ; J. Lanier Burns, Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist, in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), Amillennial works include the following: William Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940); Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of the Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942); R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1943); Louis Berkhof, The Second Coming of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953); Herman N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, trans. H. de Jongste, ed. Raymond O. Zorn (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962); William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966); Jay Adams, The Time is at Hand (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966); G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, trans. James Van Oosterom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Robert B. Strimple, Amillennialism, in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), ; Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism:

6 3 Christ presently rules over the kingdom of God from heaven through His Word and His Spirit. Because of Christ s work on the cross, Satan is now bound in the sense that while he is still active in deceiving unbelievers and opposing Christians, his power and authority over the nations as a whole and over Christians individually has been limited. Some amillennialists believe that there will be a time of future tribulation and apostasy, as well as a future, personal Antichrist, 8 while others believe that the book of Revelation symbolically depicts events occurring throughout the Church Age. 9 At the end of the present age, Satan will be released to deceive the nations once more, and Christ will return in one phase to destroy the wicked and deliver the righteous. This will be followed by the general resurrection of the just and unjust, the final judgment, and the eternal state. Postmillennialism is the third major eschatological view, and it shares much in common with amillennialism. 10 Like amillennialists, postmillennialists believe that Revelation 20 is to be interpreted symbolically as a description of the Church Age. Satan is currently bound in the Abyss (though still active), and Christ will return in one phase Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapid: Baker, 2003); Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2013). 8 E.g., Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, E.g., G. K. Beale, who states that no specific prophesied historical events are discerned in the book [of Revelation], except for the final coming of Christ to deliver and judge and to establish the final form of the kingdom in a consummated new creation though there are a few exceptions to this rule [Rev 2:10, 22; 3:9-10] (Beale, Revelation, 49). 10 Recent postmillennial works include the following: Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1958); John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960); Rousas J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970); Peter Toon, Puritans, the Millennium, and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology 1600 to 1660 (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1970); J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974); David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth: Dominion, 1987); Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, second edition (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997); R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta: American Vision, 1999).

7 4 before the eternal state. 11 The major difference is that postmillennialists believe in the triumph of Christianity in the present age. The Gospel will spread throughout the world and will transform societies so that there will be a golden era of peace, prosperity, and righteousness. 12 Christ rules at the right hand of the Father from heaven, and the saints currently reign with Christ in a spiritual sense whether they are in heaven or on earth. 13 After the world is Christianized, which may take thousands of years, 14 then Christ will return to usher in the eternal state. Although there are various differences in these three eschatological views, the major question is whether the Millennium describes the present or the future age. Premillennialists posit that the Millennium is yet to come in the future after Christ returns to the earth. The Church Age is not the Millennium. Amillennialists equate the Millennium with the present era of Christianity. Postmillennialists agree with amillennialists that the Millennium is the same as the Church Age, but they also believe 11 Many postmillennialists take a preterist view of the book of Revelation, which means that they think that Revelation was written about (and chronologically prior to) the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Virtually everything in the book except for the final release of Satan, the return of Christ, the final resurrection/judgment, and the eternal state has been fulfilled. It should be noted that partial preterists actually affirm two comings of Christ one in AD 70 and one in the future. Not all postmillennialists are preterists, though. One can be a postmillennialist and interpret Revelation as symbolically depicting the Church Age instead of the destruction of Jerusalem. One can also be a preterist without being a postmillennialist, though the two often coincide. For examples of a preterist view of Revelation, see Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., A Preterist View of Revelation, in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), For a critique of preterism, see Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Great Tribulation--Past or Future?: Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999); Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, eds., The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003). 12 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Postmillennialism, in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), Boettner, The Millennium, 29; cf. Gentry, Postmillennialism, 55.

8 5 that there will be a golden era of peace and prosperity at the end of the Millennium once the world has been Christianized. How does one decide which view is correct? One important consideration is the history of interpretation. What did the early Church think about the return of Christ and the Millennial kingdom? As the survey below reveals, premillennialism was the predominant view of the Church Father, and amillennialism and postmillennialism did not arise until later. Given this historical fact, it is the contention of this author that the burden of proof rests on the non-literal interpretation of Revelation 20, and as this paper will demonstrate, the amillennial/postmillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 founders in dealing with key exegetical issues in the text. Premillennialism, on the other hand, not only represents the earliest Christian interpretation, but it also reflects the normal, straightforward reading of Revelation 20 and requires no strained interpretations. The Origin of Millennial Views Premillennialism Most scholars acknowledge that premillennialism, or chiliasm, was the dominant view of the early Church. 15 The earliest affirmation of a literal millennium appears in Papias (AD ), who was a hearer of John and companion of Polycarp, according to Irenaeus. 16 Although Eusebius is our only extant source for Papias chiliasm, the first premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 is very close to the writing of the New Testament. Next is the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 130), which teaches that the six days of creation correspond to six thousand years of history and takes the 1,000-year kingdom in 15 See Harold W. Hoehner, Evidence from Revelation 20, in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell & Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), Irenaeus Against Heresies

9 6 a literal manner as corresponding to the seventh day of rest from creation. 17 A third example is Justin Martyr ( ), who writes, But I and every other completely orthodox Christian feel certain that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, followed by 1,000 years in the rebuilt, embellished, and enlarged city of Jerusalem, as was announced by the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and others. 18 A few verses later he writes, And further, a man among us named John, one of Christ s Apostles, received a Revelation that the followers of Christ will spend 1,000 years in Jerusalem, after which will come to pass the universal, and, in a word, eternal resurrection of all at once, followed by the judgment. 19 Irenaeus ( ), who wrote quite a bit about eschatology, also believed that the kingdom denoted a future time following the return of Christ: But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 20 Irenaeus even warned against allegorizing prophecy: If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. 21 Tertullian ( ) likewise affirmed a literal reading of Revelation 20: 17 Epistle of Barnabas Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Ibid., Against Heresies Ibid.,

10 7 For we do profess that even on earth a kingdom is promised us but this is before we come to heaven, and in a different polity, in fact after the resurrection, for 1,000 years, in that city of God s building, Jerusalem brought down from heaven, which the apostle declares is our mother on high, and when he affirms our citizenship is in heaven, he is evidently locating it in some heavenly city... This is the manner of the heavenly kingdom: within the space of its thousand years is comprised the resurrection of the saints, who arise either earlier or later according to their deserts after which, when the destruction of the world and the fire of judgment have been set in motion, we shall be changed in a moment into angelic substance, by virtue of that supervesture of incorruption and be translated into the heavenly kingdom. 22 Others who believed in a literal millennial kingdom include Commodianus (ca. 250), Victorinus (d. 304), Methodius of Olympus (d. 311), Lactantius (ca ), and Apollinarius (d. 390). 23 Amillennialism Although the earliest Christian writers were chiliasts, later Christians came to reject the idea of a literal reign of Christ upon the earth. Origen ( ) rejected the idea of an earthly millennium where people would be eating and drinking and performing all functions of flesh and blood, including marriage and procreation, because Paul taught that the resurrection would yield a spiritual body. He states, Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises. 24 The idea that the Millennium would be a time of fleshly indulgence appears in the writings of Cerinthus (ca. 100), who was, according to Eusebius, a Gnostic heretic and an enemy of the Scriptures of God: 22 Tertullian Against Marcion , Hoehner, Evidence from Revelation 20, Origen De Prinicipiis

11 8 But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace. 25 It is important to note that what Origen rejected is not what the earlier chiliasts had taught about the Millennium regarding carnal pleasures. Eusebius ( ), bishop of Caesarea, thought that Papias had misunderstood the Scriptures, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures, and that he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. The Church Fathers who were chiliasts simply followed Papias because his writing was early. 26 For Eusebius, the book of Revelation was beyond comprehension and impossible to understand in a literal sense. Consequently, he thought that a deeper sense lies beneath the words which was too high for him to grasp. 27 In like manner, Jerome ( ) dismissed chiliasm because it relies upon Jewish (literal) exegesis. In his commentary on the book of Daniel, he writes, but the saints will never possess an earthly kingdom, but only a heavenly. Away, then, with the fable about a millennium. [Cesset ergo mille annorum fabula.] Eusebius Church History , Ibid., , Ibid., Jerome Commentary on Daniel 7.17, 18.

12 9 The amillennial view ultimately took shape in the writing of Augustine ( ), who was heavily influenced by the allegorical exegesis of his Donatist opponent, Tyconius (d. 400). 29 In Augustine s City of God, 30 he states that although he used to be a chiliast himself, he had come to reject chiliasm because of its carnal interpretation of the Millennium: But, as [chiliasts] assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians. It were a tedious process to refute these opinions point by point: we prefer proceeding to show how that passage of Scripture should be understood. 31 In Augustine s interpretation of Revelation 20, the number 1,000 is a symbol for a long period of time, which depicts the Church Age. 32 Satan has been bound and cast into the Abyss, which is taken to mean that Satan is cast into the hearts of unbelievers and cannot harm believers. During the present age, Satan is restrained from seducing those nations which belong to Christ, but which he formerly seduced or held in subjection. 33 At the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will be loosed for three-and-a-half years but will be unable to spiritually harm believers. Satan s influence during this time will be so strong 29 See Hoehner, Evidence from Revelation 20, See Augustine City of God Ibid., Augustine writes in 20.7 that the 1,000 years refers to totality or the fullness of time, but he later discusses the placement of the three-and-a-half year rebellion of Satan after the 1,000-year period (20.13). There, he seems to take the 1,000 year literally and adds the three-and-a-half years to the end of the 1,000 years so that the saints will literally reign for all 1,000 years. 33 Ibid., 20.7.

13 10 that no new believers will be added to the Church. 34 The first resurrection refers to spiritual rebirth, and the saints presently rule with Christ over His kingdom, the Church. 35 Augustine s interpretation became the standard interpretation of Revelation 20 for over a millennium and laid the groundwork for modern amillennialism. Postmillennialism Postmillennialism is the last of the three systems to develop, and this is not surprising given the pervasiveness of premillennialism in the Church Fathers and amillennialism from Augustine forward. Postmillennialist Kenneth L. Gentry believes that there is evidence of nascent postmillennialism in the writings of Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Augustine, as well as in a number of medieval writings. 36 He takes any statements about a confident hope in gospel victory in history prior to Christ s return as incipient postmillennialism. 37 While it may be true that such ideas as the triumph of the Church over the powers of evil or the spread of the Gospel around the world coincide with modern postmillennialism, they also have their place within premillennialism and amillennialism and are thus not indicative of postmillennialism by themselves. Therefore, it seems inappropriate for Gentry to claim such men as Augustine and even Calvin for postmillennialism. Instead, it is best to see postmillennialism as developing in the Middle Ages and then blossoming in the post-reformation era in the writings of the Puritans Ibid., Ibid., Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 82-ff. 37 Gentry, Postmillennialism, See Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 90-93, for an overview.

14 11 Summary It appears that chiliasm was the belief of the early Church and that the non-literal reading of Revelation 20 did not arise until much later. Postmillennialist Kenneth L. Gentry offers three points in response to the predominance of chiliasm in the Church Fathers. First, he notes that in Justin s Dialogue with Trypho, Justin informs Trypho that there are many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, who think otherwise regarding Justin s chiliasm. 39 This indicates that there may have been more diversity than what the earliest writings show. Second, Gentry points out that chiliasm did not make it into any of the early Christian creeds. Therefore, it must not have been pervasive. 40 Third, Gentry quotes Eusebius statement that many followed Papias chiliasm because of the antiquity of the man, 41 with the implication that chiliasm in the Fathers was simply copied, not well reasoned. In response to Gentry s first point, there may have been others as mentioned by Justin, but their writings are no longer extant, and it would be a stretch of the imagination to assume that the others believed anything like modern amillennialism or postmillennialism. Second, that chiliasm did not make it into the creeds is not surprising because there is little about eschatology in the creeds anyway. The sword cuts both directions on that point as well: the creeds do not include any hint of amillennialism or postmillennialism either. Finally, Eusebius statement about Papias influence may or may not be true, but one cannot read Irenaeus 39 Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 80, quoted in Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 78. Gentry also cites Irenaeus words that some who are reckoned among the orthodox did not embrace premillennialism (Against Heresies ). Upon closer examination, though, it appears that Irenaeus was opposing those who took heretical views concerning the exaltation of the just, meaning the physical resurrection of believers after the intermediate state. 40 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, Ibid.,

15 12 Against Heresies, for example, without noticing his interaction with Scripture. He did not simply copy from Papias. However, there is something to be said for Papias chiliasm since he was close to Polycarp and John. Perhaps Papias received this interpretation from Polycarp or from John himself, or else he may have just read Revelation 20 in a straightforward manner like Irenaeus. There is an adequate explanation for why later Christians rejected the literal reading of Revelation 20 because of the influence of the Alexandrian school of allegorical interpretation and because they were rejecting the carnal Millennium portrayed by Cerinthus, but the burden of proof rests upon nonpremillennialists to explain how the earliest Christians, who did not picture the Millennium as carnal, could have been so mistaken. Deciding the Issue While it appears that the history of interpretation favors premillennialism because of the chiliasm in the earliest Christian writings, evangelicals agree that the question of the Millennium must ultimately be decided by Scripture itself. Because of the history of interpretation, the burden of proof rests upon amillennialists and postmillennialists to demonstrate why Revelation 20 should not be interpreted in a normal, literal manner as seen in the Church Fathers. Framing the Debate on Revelation 20 When it comes to the Millennium, there are many important questions to take into consideration. One question is how to interpret Old Testament prophecies depicting a golden era of peace and prosperity on the earth (e.g., Isa 2, 9, 11). Premillennialists interpret these as having a future fulfillment in the millennial kingdom. 42 Amillennialists

16 13 interpret these in a non-literal manner as referring to spiritual blessings fulfilled in the New Covenant for the Church or as eternal blessings for the Church in heaven. 43 Postmillennialists take the Prophets as referring to the Church (like amillennialists) but also believe that what is depicted is a literal era of peace and righteousness upon the earth to be attained in the Church Age. 44 Another important question is whether or not there is a future for the nation of Israel in God s redemptive program, particularly in light of Romans Questions like these, while important, are dependent upon one s hermeneutic and theological system. For example, if one has decided that it would be a retrogression in redemptive history for there to be a distinction between Israel and the Church in the future, than one will rule out any literal interpretation of prophecies about Israel s national restoration and redemption. Or, if one has decided to employ a normal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic to Bible prophecies, then one will expect there to be a future, earthly kingdom which follows the present age. How one interprets Old Testament prophecies and whether or not there is a future for national Israel do not necessarily determine one s view of the Millennium, though. For example, historic premillennialists do not see a distinction between Israel and the Church in the future. The Tribulation and the millennial kingdom to follow will all be for 42 E.g., Craig A. Blaising, Premillennialism, in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 193-ff. 43 E.g., Strimple, Amillennialism, 84-ff. 44 E.g., Gentry, Postmillennialism, 36-38; idem., He Shall Have Dominion, 207-ff. 45 For the view that the Church is the new (or true) Israel, see Marten H. Woudstra, Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity, in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), ; Strimple, Amillennialism, ; Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, For a defense of the view that Israel has a future in God s redemptive program, see Robert L. Saucy, Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity, in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), ; Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? A Theological Evaluation (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010).

17 14 the Church, which may include Jews as a part of the body of Christ. For this reason, the question of whether the Millennium is present or future must be decided by one s interpretation of Revelation 20, the crux interpretum, and the other questions about Old Testament prophecies or about the place of Israel can be decided afterwards. Revelation 20: Key Interpretive Questions There are four main questions to be answered when approaching the text of 1. Does Revelation 20 involve recapitulation? 2. Is 1,000 years to be taken literally or symbolically? 3. Is Satan presently bound in the Abyss? 4. What is the first resurrection? It must be acknowledged that how one answers these questions is based largely on one s decided eschatological system. Therefore, one will have to decide which system best accounts for the biblical data. In other words, which system best handles the details of the text, requires the fewest system-particular interpretations, and fits with the theology of the Bible as a whole? Does Revelation 20 involve recapitulation? Revelation 19:11-21 describes the return of Christ to earth, including his vanquishing of the Beast, the False Prophet, and the army of unbelievers rallying to fight against the people of God. Revelation 20 follows with a description of the binding of Satan for 1,000 years, the resurrection of the martyrs, the martyrs rule with Christ for 1,000 years, the release of Satan at the end of the 1,000 years, the subsequent destruction of Satan and his army, and the final judgment. If Revelation is sequential, then Christ returns before the 1,000-year kingdom on the earth, which is the premillennial view. If the Millennium is synonymous with the present Church Age, as amillennialists

18 15 and postmillennialists aver, then Revelation cannot be read sequentially. Instead, Revelation 20 must be seen as a recapitulation, or replaying, of certain events already described in the book. It is the contention of this author that Revelation should be read sequentially for several reasons. First, the sequential reading reflects the prima facie reading of the text. This automatically places the burden of proof upon those arguing for recapitulation. 46 Second, there is a series of kai«ei don ( and I saw ) statements throughout Revelation that points to a sequential reading of the events: 47 I saw heaven standing open. (Rev 19:11) And I saw an angel standing in the sun. (Rev 19:17) Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth. (Rev 19:19) And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven. (Rev 20:1) And I saw thrones on which were seated. (Rev 20:4) And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. (Rev 20:12) Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. (Rev 21:1) While it is true that kai«ei don by itself is not determinative, there is no indication of a sequential break at 20:1. 48 Rather, the sequence of events carries right through to chapters 20 and 21. In response, Beale argues that when kai«ei don is followed by an angelic descent elsewhere in the book of Revelation, then it introduces a synchronous section (Rev 10:1) or a time prior to the preceding section (Rev 7:2; 18:1). 49 Consequently, Revelation 20:1 takes the reader back to events prior to Revelation 19:11. Blaising points 46 Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), All Scripture quotations are from the NIV. 48 Blaising, Premillennialism, See Beale, Revelation, , who follows R. Fowler White, Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:1-10, WTJ (1989): ; cf. idem., Making Sense of Rev 20:1-10? Harold Hoehner Versus Recapitulation, JETS 37 no. 4 (Dec 1994): ; idem., On the Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Rev 20:1-3: A Preconsummationist Perspective, JETS 42 (March 1999):

19 16 out several problems with this view, however. The most important is that there are other structural markers in 7:2, 10:1, and 18:1, but in 20:1, the kai«ei don is itself the structural indicator just as much as the other kai«ei don statements in 19:11, 17, and The third argument for a sequential reading of Revelation is that the Beast and False Prophet, who are cast into the Lake of Fire upon Christ s return (19:20), are still in the Lake of Fire after the Millennium at the time when Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:10). 51 Beale s response here is that there is no verb in the Greek text to indicate when the Beast and False Prophet are cast into the Lake of Fire, but he admits that the question of how to fill the ellipsis cannot be answered definitively. 52 Fourth, there are a number of parallels between Daniel 7 and Revelation 19:11-20, which, if depicting the same events, support the sequential reading of Revelation Fifth, the details of Revelation 19:11-20 concerning the return of Christ differ substantially from the events at the end of the Millennium when Satan is released (Rev 20:7-10). In response, Beale points out the similarities between Ezekiel 38-39, Revelation 19:17-21, and Revelation 20: While there certainly are some similarities, the most noteworthy being the mention of Gog and Magog in Revelation 20:8, the differences are just as striking. For example, Ezekiel 38 limits the battle to specific nations, but Revelation 20:7 states that Satan will gather the nations from the four corners of the earth. This seems to go beyond 50 See Blaising, Premillennialism, n Robert L. Thomas, A Classical Dispensational View of Revelation, in Four Views on The Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), Beale, Revelation, See Jack S. Deere, Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4-6, BibSac 135 (January-March 1978): 54 See Beale, Revelation,

20 17 the scope of the more limited battle of Ezekiel Another difference is the time references in Ezekiel 39. After the battle of Gog and Magog, it will take 7 years to burn the weapons as fuel and 7 months to bury the dead (Eze 39:9, 12). If this depicts the same battle as that of Satan s final rebellion, then there will be weapons burning and bodies being buried into the eternal state, which seems bizarre. 55 One common argument leveled against the sequential view is that if the nations are destroyed at Christ s coming in Revelation 19:11-20, then it would make no sense to say that Satan is then bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations (which had already been destroyed). 56 The premillennial response is that the world will be repopulated in the Millennium, and there will once again be nations for Satan to deceive at the end of the Millennium (20:8). 57 These five arguments provide a solid case for reading Revelation sequentially. Is 1,000 years to be taken literally or symbolically? The next important question when approaching the text of Revelation 20 is the extent to which figurative language is used. All agree that there are figures of speech and symbols used throughout the book of Revelation, but there is sharp disagreement in how the book of Revelation should be interpreted as a whole. Premillennialists typically take the language of Revelation in a normal, grammatical-historical sense unless the context makes it clear that the image is to be taken symbolically or non-literally. 58 Amillennialists assume the opposite: 55 See Charles E. Powell, Progression Versus Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-6, BibSac 163 (January-March 2006), White, Reexamining, Hoehner, Evidence from Revelation 20, So John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 30.

21 18 But the results of the analysis above of 1:1 indicate that this rule [about interpreting the text literally unless there are contextual reasons not to] should be turned on its head: we are told in the book s introduction that the majority of the material in it is revelatory symbolism (1:12-20 and 4:1-22:5 at the least). Hence, the predominant manner by which to approach the material will be according to a nonliteral interpretive method. Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is a lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgment should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis. 59 Likewise, postmillennialists believe that Revelation is a highly figurative book that we cannot approach with a straightforward literalism. 60 It is typically argued that eṡh/manen ( he signified ) in Revelation 1:1 means that the book as a whole is not meant to be taken literally. But Thomas argues that since Revelation is designated as a prophecy (Rev 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18-19), then it should be interpreted just like other prophecies of the Bible. To justify a spiritualizing approach on the basis of the book s many symbols misses a significant distinction between the way God gave the revelation to John and the way readers should interpret that revelation. In 1:1, where John writes, he signified it, (esemanen), some have misunderstood that as justification for symbolic interpretation throughout the book. Those words, however, tell the means God used to inspire John to write; they do not provide grounds for nonliteral interpretation. 61 It appears that there is a hermeneutical stalemate on this issue, so one needs to examine Revelation 20 itself to determine if there are contextual indicators that what is spoken of is a symbol. One point that is particularly important is the meaning of ci lia e th ( 1,000 years ) in Revelation 20. For if 1,000 years is taken literally, then it precludes both amillennialism and postmillennialism, which equate the 1,000 years with the Church Age that has now lasted nearly 2,000 years. 59 Beale, Revelation, Gentry, A Preterist View of Revelation, Thomas, A Classical Dispensational View of Revelation, 181.

22 19 In defense of a literal reading of 1,000 years, it must first be noted that John uses 1,000 years six times in Revelation 20: He seized the dragon and bound him for a thousand years. (20:2) He threw him into the Abyss until the thousand years were ended. (20:3) They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (20:4) The rest did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. (20:5) they will reign with him for a thousand years. (20:6) When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released. (20:7) The redundancy of 1,000 years leaves one with the impression that John intended to communicate 1,000 years. Non-premillennialists often point out that this is the only text in all of Scripture where there is a timeframe given to the Millennium 62 with the implication that we should not put too much stock in 1,000 years. But it is irrelevant that the duration of the kingdom is only revealed in Revelation 20. The fact that it is stated six times should be enough to take it at face value. A second objection is that numbers are used symbolically throughout the book of Revelation, 63 but this assumption is highly questionable. Consider the following examples: 7 churches = 7 literal churches; 7 lampstands = 7 literal lampstands; 4 living creatures = 4 literal creatures; 144,000 = 12,000 from 12 tribes; 1,260 days (12:6; cf. 11:3) = 42 months (13:5); 7,000 people killed in the earthquake = 7,000 people; 1,600 stadia = a literal measurement (14:20); 12,000 stadia = a literal measurement (21:16), etc., etc. There are plenty of examples in Revelation where the numbers are to be taken literally. In addition, whenever there is a reference to a time period like days (1:10; 2:10, 13; 4:8; 6:17; 7:15; 8:12; 9:6, 15; 10:7; 11:3, 6, 9, 11; 12:6, 10; 14:11; 16:14; 18:8; 20:10; 21:25) or months (9:5, 10, 15; 11:2; 62 E.g., Gentry, Postmillennialism, E.g., Sam Hamstra, Jr., An Idealist View of Revelation, in Four Views on The Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 121.

23 20 13:5; 22:2), they are always to be taken literally. 64 How else can one take a temporal statement such as They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months (Rev 9:5)? If the other temporal references in the book are to be taken in a normal, literal sense, then 1,000 years should be as well. If John had intended to communicate in a symbolic manner concerning the 1,000 years, then it seems likely that he would have used the language of symbolism with terms such as wjß ( like, used 71 times in Revelation), o moioß ( similar/like, used 21 times in Revelation), or pneumatikw ß ( spiritually, used in 11:8). John even uses an expression of indefinite time in Revelation 20 when he speaks of Satan s release for a short time (mikro\n cro/non) following the 1,000 years (20:3). If John wanted to express an indefinite period, why not use one of the expressions for a long time found in his Gospel (e.g., John 5:6; 14:9)? More to the point, how else could John have expressed himself if he were trying to communicate the span of 1,000 years? Because John uses the figure six times in the context, and because of his consistent, literal use of numbers throughout the book, it is best to take the 1,000 years in a normal, literal manner. It should be noted, however, that even if 1,000 years were a symbol for a long time, that would not preclude premillennialism, for one could imagine an earthly kingdom extending for a long time just as one could apply the 1,000 years to the present age. Is Satan presently bound in the Abyss? The strength of premillennialism is especially evident when one takes a close look at the text of Revelation 20:1-3. The text states that 1) the dragon is seized; 2) he is bound 64 Hoehner, Evidence from Revelation 20, 249.

24 21 with a great chain; 3) he is thrown into the Abyss; 4) the Abyss is locked; 5) the Abyss is sealed; 6) he will no longer deceive the nations until the thousand years have ended. Premillennialists read Revelation 20 as following sequentially from Revelation 19 such that Satan will bound when Christ returns and then will be released at the end of the millennial kingdom. The binding of Satan in the Abyss during the Millennium will have a profound effect upon the world such that Satan will no longer deceive the nations. As a result, the Millennium will be a time of peace, blessing, and long life (cf., Isa 65). This is hardly the picture of the world today because Satan is actively deceiving the nations and persecuting the Church. Revelation 20:1-3 pictures Satan as completely disabled during the Millennium, yet the rest of the New Testament describes his fervent opposition to the Church: He is the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). He tempts believers to sin (1 Cor 7:5; Eph 4:27; 1 Thess 3:5). He masquerades as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:13-15). He seeks to deceive believers (2 Cor 11:3; Acts 5:3) He tries to outwit believers (2 Cor 2:11). He seeks to trap believers (2 Tim 2:26). He tormented Paul with a thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7). He hindered Paul s ministry (1 Thess 2:18). He prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet 5:8). The whole world is under the control of the evil one (1 John 5:19). Amillennialists believe that Satan was bound at the cross but that he was not bound absolutely. He is still active in the world, but he is no longer able to lead the nations [Gentiles] astray like he did in Old Testament times. 65 Postmillennialists likewise believe that Satan was bound by Christ in the first century and that the binding increasingly constricts Satan throughout the Christian era (i.e., the one thousand years ), 65 Strimple, Amillennialism, 123.

25 22 except for a brief period prior to the Second Advent (Rev. 20:2-3, 7-9). 66 There are several texts that are typically cited to support the view that Satan was bound at the cross: But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house (Matthew 12:28-29). He replied, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18). Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out (John 12:31). And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross (Col 2:15) so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death that is, the devil and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death (Heb 2:14-15). The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil s work (1 John 3:8). The problem with these citations is that none explicitly states, Satan was bound at the cross. That is a theological notion that must be read into those verses from a particular interpretation of Revelation 20. Neither is there anything in the context of Revelation 20 to support the notion that Satan was bound at the cross. Furthermore, the amillennial and postmillennial view does not do justice to the language of Revelation 20:1-3 regarding Satan s complete inactivity while bound in the Abyss. If he is bound in the Abyss, then how can he still operate in the world? Beale maintains that the Abyss is a spiritual dimension like heaven that exists alongside of earth and that Satan is able to operate from within the Abyss. 67 But a comparison of the binding of Satan in the Abyss 66 Gentry, Postmillennialism, 52 (emphasis original). 67 Beale, Revelation, 987.

26 23 with the loosing of the locust horde from the Abyss in Revelation 9 implies that Satan, like the locusts, will be completely inactive while locked and sealed in the Abyss until released. 68 Finally, it must be noted that deceiving the nations is a part of Satan s current (or future) activity during the Tribulation (12:9; cf. 13:14; 19:20) when he is supposed to be bound in the Abyss. In summary, there is nothing in the context of Revelation 20 to support the idea that Satan was bound at the cross or that he is no longer deceiving the nations in the present age. Rather, what Satan is able to through the Beast and the False Prophet during the Tribulation he will be unable to do during the Millennium. What is the first resurrection? In Revelation 20:4-6, John sees the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the Word of God. The text states that they had not worshipped the Beast or his image and that they had not received his mark on their foreheads or hands. These martyrs come to life and reign with Christ for 1,000 years, and this is described as the first resurrection. The rest of the dead are not raised until after the 1,000 years, which is followed by the Great White Throne Judgment. From a premillennial viewpoint, the martyrs are the Tribulation saints who do not worship the Beast, just as the text states. They are physically resurrected upon Christ s return, and they reign with Christ on the earth (Rev 5:10) during the Millennium. 69 The amillennial and postmillennial view is that the martyrs are the faithful who have endured 68 Blaising, Premillennialism, See John F. Walvoord, The Theological Significance of Revelation 20:1-6, in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley D. Toussaint & Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986),