Revelation 20: A Premillennial Analysis
Dr. Robert Gromacki
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Revelation20 is like the Plain of Megiddo. Armies of conflicting interpretations havecome upon it, sent out by various theological systems. There are attacks andcounterattacks. There are defeats and victories. Each side claims to be thewinner and no side is willing to surrender. No end of the battle is in sight.
Myanalysis of this key prophetic chapter is to examine selected relevant issuesthat reveal the differences in interpretation and their causes.
ISSUE #1: THE NON-LITERAL APPROACH
Theiridentity. The main proponents of a non-literal interpretation are eitheramillennialists or postmillennialists.
Someamillennialists are Oswald Allis (some classify Allis as a postmil), LouisBerkhof, William Hendriksen, Anthony A. Hoekema, Abraham Kuyper, R.C.H. Lenski,Kim Riddlebarger, Cornelis P. Venema, and Gerhardus Vos.
Somepostmillennialists are Jonathan Edwards, Patrick Fairbairn, A.H. Strong, AlbertBarnes, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., J. Marcellus Kik, Rousas J. Rushdoony, CharlesHodge, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Archibald Alexander, Joseph AddisonAlexander, Lorraine Boettner, and Keith Mathison.
Theirsystem of theology. Generally speaking, both amillennialism andpostmillennialism are sub-divisions of covenant theology, a system prominent inboth Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Keith Mathison, the director ofcurriculum development for Ligionier School of Theology and an editorialassistant of Tabletalk magazine, gave this definition:
Covenanttheology, as its name indicates, structures redemptive history around thecovenants. Traditionally, covenant theologians have understood that thehistorical covenants are ultimately based upon an intratrinitarian covenantmade before the foundation of the world. In this covenant, commonly called thecovenant of redemption, God chose to redeem a people for Himself by sending theSon to accomplish their redemption and sending the Spirit to apply thatredemption .... The historical covenants between God and man all flow from thisinitial covenant of redemption (Mathison, Postmillennialism, 14).
Atthe heart of covenant theology are three covenants: the covenant of redemption,made between the Father and the Son; the covenant of works, made between Godand man; and the covenant of grace, made between God and the believer. Covenanttheologians generally subscribe to infralapsarianism, a name given to an orderof decrees willed by God:
1.Goddecreed to create man
2.Goddecreed to allow the fall of man
3. Goddecreed to elect some to salvation
4. Goddecreed to provide salvation for the elect through the death of Christ
5. Goddecreed to send the Holy Spirit to apply the value of Christ's death to the elect.
Thisorder manifests the famous five points of consistent Calvinism (TULIP):
1. Totaldepravity
2. Unconditionalelection
3. Limitedatonement
4. Irresistiblegrace
5. Perseveranceof the saints
Covenanttheologians affirm that God has only one plan of redemption, only one redeemedpeople, and only one future for His people. Cox stated: "Let us first getbefore us the age-old Christian teaching on this subject: God always has hadbut one people. In the Old Testament this people (the type) was called Israel.In the New Testament the antitype was known as the Church, or 'the Israel ofGod'" (Cox, Scofieldism, 10).
JohnGerstner, the mentor of R.C. Sproul, adds that "the covenantal view of thepeople of God sees in both dispensations the same people of God. All aremembers of the church, all are born-again, and all are saved by the onemediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. The same church of Jesus Christcomprises both." (Gerstner, Primer, 7).
Tothem, there is no distinction between Israel and the church. Elect Israel isthe true Church, and the true Church is the Israel of God. Thus, they logicallydenounce dispensationalism with its definitive distinction between Israel andthe church. With an implied negative answer, Mathison asks: "Does God have twodistinct plans for His people; 'Plan A' for Israel and 'Plan B' for thechurch?" (Mathison, Dispensationalism, back cover).
Gerstnerruled out a distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ anda literal millennium by presupposition and his definition of the church. Hewrote:
Tobe absorbed in the details of Daniel's seventieth week while ignoring the factthat the interpretation splits the church of God through all eternity ispathetic, to say the least. Without any verse-by-verse refutation, it isobvious that any such interpretation is false. God clearly teaches that thereis one Savior of God's elect in all ages. Any interpretation that obscures thisis false. Jesus Christ's second coming is not to separate the church from thechurch, followed by a third coming to bring an end to the world. Without evenlooking at a single dispensational commentary in detail, it is perfectlyobvious that a commentary which makes that out of the last book of the Bible iswrong.... " (Gerstner, Primer, 34).
Intrinsicto covenant theology is a denial of a future literal millennium. The systemaffirms both a temporal messianic kingdom and an eternal consummate kingdom .Kik explained: "The messianic kingdom...begins in time and ends in time. Forinstance, the 'thousand-year' period of Revelation 20 cannot refer to theconsummate kingdom because it commences in time with the binding of Satan andends in time with the short period of release of Satan. It deals with timebefore the last judgment" (Kik, Eschatology, 17)
Kikthen added: "The millennium, in other words, is the period of the gospeldispensation, the Messianic kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, theregeneration, etc. The millennium commenced either with the ascension of Christor with the day of Pentecost and will remain until the second coming of Christ.There was a period of time when Jesus received the kingdom and there will be aperiod of time when He will surrender it to the Father" (Kik, Eschatology,17).
Thus,according to covenant theology, we are now in the millennium, we are now in thekingdom. The Westminster Confession of Faith (chap. XXV.2) states: "The visiblechurch... is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ." Smallman remarked: "Weawait the fullness of the Kingdom when Christ will come again inall of his power and glory. But in Christ's person and work the Kingdom hascome, and through the power of the Holy Spirit the Kingdom is comingas the Gospel goes forth, churches are planted, more people trust in Christ,and Christian people live as salt and light. Reformed teachers spoke of theKingdom as 'already and not yet' to describe the day in which we now live"(Smallman, Reformed Church, 27-28).
Thepostmillennial branch of Covenant Theology seems to be the more outspoken inthese days. Mathison boasted: "Postmillennialism is the system of eschatologythat is most consistent with the relevant texts of Scripture, a covenantalapproach to Scripture, and the nondisputed doctrines of Reformation theology"(Mathison, Postmillennialism, 10). Kik agreed:
"Thepostmil looks for a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of aglorious age of the church upon earth through the preaching of the gospel underthe power of the Holy Spirit. He looks forward to all nations becomingChristian and living in peace one with another. He relates all prophecies tohistory and time. After the triumph of Christianity throughout the earth helooks for the second coming of the Lord" (Kik, Eschatology, 4).
Theircommon opposition to dispensationalism. To Gerstner, dispensationalism isdestructive, divisive, and anti-biblical. He wrote: "Although dispensationalismhas been the instrument of my salvation, its message, though well intended,destroys the salvation message....Dispensationalism divides rather thanpreserves the unity of the Bible. It divides the people of God. It dividessalvation from the people of God. It divides the people of God into the endlessfuture. These things are incompatible with a sound interpretation of the Bible.If nothing more than this is said, I believe this proves that dispensationalismis not a biblical doctrine, but it is, in fact, anti-biblical at its essentiallevel" (Gerstner, Primer, 35). Harsh words, indeed! But wait, therhetoric gets stronger. Gerstner claimed that dispensationalism was "againstthe cross of Jesus Christ" (Primer, 17), that it "departed from the onlyway of salvation (Primer, 15), that it "cannot be called Christian" (Primer,15), and that it "is a cult" (Primer, 15). In his preface, Gerstnercondemned "the abominable heresy of antinomianism, which is endemic todispensationalism" (Primer, preface).
Inhis rejection of dispensationalism, Cox referred to a report adopted by theSouthern Presbyterian Church in the United States in 1944: "It is the unanimousopinion of your committee that Dispensationalism is out of accord with thesystem of doctrines set forth in the Confession of Faith, not primarily orsimply in the field of eschatology, but because it attacks the very heart ofthe theology of our church. Dispensationalism rejects the doctrine that Godhas, since the Fall, but one plan of salvation for all mankind and affirms thatGod has been through the ages administering various and diverse plans ofsalvation for various groups" (Cox, Scofieldism, 19-20).
Althoughthis report reveals a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation ofdispensationalism, it does show that covenant theology approaches the field ofeschatology through the gateway of soteriology, whereas dispensationalismapproaches the doctrine of last things through the doctrine of the church.
Theirhermeneutics. Covenant theologians state they follow both literal andallegorical interpretations, based upon the literary genre and the context ofthe passage. Their theological system, however, drives their mode ofinterpretation. Ryrie observed: "The theological system does not permit anactual kingdom on this earth over which Christ reigns; therefore, certainpassages cannot be interpreted literally" (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 112).
Reformedor covenant theologians, as evidenced by postmillennialism and amillennialism,have their minds made up even before they approach the inspired truth ofRevelation 20. To them, one-thousand cannot literally mean one-thousand. Thereis no place in their system for any salvation experiences after the SecondComing of Christ, no place for a literal thousand-year experience of saints onthe earth after the Second Coming. To them, time and human earthly experiencesexpire at the Second Coming.
ISSUE #2: THE RELATIONSHIP OF CHAPTER 20 TO CHAPTER 19
Inthe text, chapter 20 obviously follows chapter 19. The sequence of eventsrevealed to John, in chapter 20 definitely follows those events revealed inchapter 19. There is no dispute over these matters. The contentious issue iswhether the events recorded in chapter 20 will occur historically after theevents recorded in chapter 19 (the premillennial position) or whether theyhappened (or will happen) before the Second Coming of Christ symbolized in19:11-16 (the views of postmillennialism and amillennialism).
ThePostmillennial and Amillennial View. Mathison charged that thepremillennial interpretation "disagrees with the end-time chronologyestablished elsewhere in the New Testament" (Mathison, Dispensationalism,125).
Hereis his concept of the eschatological end:
1. 1Corinthians 15:22-24
Theend immediately follows the resurrection of Christ's people at
Hiscoming
2. John6:40
Theresurrection occurs on the last day
3. John5:28-29
Theresurrection of God's people will be simultaneous with the resurrectionof the wicked
4. 1Corinthians 15:26, 54-55
Theresurrection spells the defeat of the last enemy , namely death
5. Revelation20:11-14
The destruction of death occurs at the Great WhiteThrone. Thus theresurrection and the Great White Throne must occur together onthe last day
6. 1Corinthians 15:21
Atthe last day, Christ will deliver the kingdom over to the Father. TheMessianic kingdom, therefore, must take place prior to the SecondComing. (Mathison, Dispensationalism, 126).
Ina similar vein, Kuyper claimed that the resurrection of the dead, the lastjudgment, the destruction of this world, and the rise of the new heavens andthe new earth all occur at the time of the Second Coming. To him, therefore,there is no room for a literal one-thousand years before or after the SecondComing (Kuyper, Revelation, 272).
Mathisonasserted that "the text only reveals the order in which John saw thevisions, not necessarily the order in which the events were to take place"(Mathison, Dispensationalism, 131). To prove his point, he declared:"Elsewhere in the book of Revelation it is clear that the visions of Johnsometimes do not follow in historical succession. If they all did, then thebirth of Christ (chap. 12) follows the sounding of the seventh trumpet ofjudgment (chap. 11)" (Mathison, Postmillennialism, 177).
Itwould have been helpful if Mathison would have pointed out the alleged inversionsof sequence, but he did not. His only illustration can be easily explained. Theseventh trumpet sounds in the middle of the seven-year period prior to theSecond Coming. It is called the third woe (Rev. 8:13; 11:14) and is expressedas the woe when Satan is forced to the earth because Michael defeated him inthe war in the heavens (Rev. 12:7-12). In anger, Satan persecuted the woman forthree-and-one half times, namely three-and-one half years (Rev. 12:13-17). Whois the woman and why did Satan single her out for persecution? The answer is tobe found in her identification as Israel, the one through whom Christ was born(Rev. 12:1-5). Satan tried to kill Christ, but he failed, thus he will take outhis spite upon Israel. The few verses which denote Christ's birth and ascensionare necessary to explain the antagonism of Satan to God, to Christ, and toIsrael, especially in the middle of the seven-year period.
Eventhe creation of the new universe is moved out of its chronological sequence
(Rev.21:1). Mathison argued: "As we explained in our discussion of Isaiah's prophecy
[65:17-25],the new heaven and new earth is not wholly future. This kind of language isused to describe aspects of Christ's present work of salvation (cf. 2 Cor.5:17; Gal. 6:15). But neither is it wholly present. The whole creation will notbe completely set free from corruption until the Second Coming (cf. Rom.8:19-23)" (Mathison, Postmillennialism, 157). Here is an example ofdouble interpretation. The first is spiritual or allegorical and is applied tothe believer's present spiritual position in Christ. The second is literal andis accomplished at the Second Coming. Which is it? The event (Rev. 21:1) cannotbe both literal and allegorical at the same time. This hermeneutical spin isdesigned to circumvent the fact that the new universe will be created onethousand years after the Second Coming, a truth that cannot be fit into thepostmillennial system.
Thepremillennial view. The sequence of revelation to John is also the sequenceof prophetic, historical fulfillment. Walvoord stated: "Arguments for thisposition are based on the natural sequence of events in chapter 20 followingchapter 19, viewing them as sequential and as stemming from the second comingof Christ. Many passages speak of the second coming of Christ being followed bya reign of righteousness on earth" (Walvoord, Bible Knowledge, 978).
Withthe exception of two verses (Rev. 20:5, 6), every verse in chapter 20 beginswith the connective "and" (kai). This grammatical feature was also usedin chapter 19 (19:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21).The flow of narrative action can easily be detected in the constant usage ofthe connective. John saw one event after another unfold before his very eyes.The continuation of the connective from chapter 19 into chapter 20 gives theimpression that the events of chapter 20 follow those recorded in chapter 19.To conclude that the events of chapter 20 precede those in chapter 19 is toviolate the hermeneutical principle of observation before interpretation andthe normal grammatical usage of the connective in a narrative passage.
Waymeyerproposed that the usage of the adverb "no more" (eti) in the purposeclause of Revelation 20:3 strongly suggests that the events described in 20:1-3follow those described in 19:11-21. The use of the adverb indicates aninterruption of something that was already taking place, namely deception ofthe nations by Satan. The action of binding, thus, could not occur before theSecond Coming (Waymeyer, Revelation 20, 44-45).
Thebeast and the false prophet were cast into the lake of fire at the SecondComing
(Rev.19:20). Satan is later cast into the lake of fire, one thousand years later(Rev. 20:10). In the lake of fire Satan is reunited with the beast and thefalse prophet. This narrative action makes no sense if Satan is cast into thelake of fire at the same time as the other two. In fact, the phrase "where thebeast and the false prophet are" presupposes an earlier judgment upon the beastand the false prophet (Rev. 19:20) and also suggests a chronological sequenceof Revelation 20 events following those in chapter 19 (Waymeyer, Revelation20, 45).
ISSUE #3: THE THOUSAND YEARS
Thephrase "thousand years" (chilia ete) occurs six times in this chapter(20:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). The term "chiliastic" is based upon the Greek wordwhereas the familiar term "millennium" is based upon the Latin (milleand annus). Thus, chiliastic or millennial views emerge from answersgiven to this question - Are the thousand years literal or non-literal?Premillennialism embraces a literal interpretation, whereas the non-literal,symbolic interpretation is championed by both amillennialism and postmillennialism.
Thenon-literal approach. Proponents have put forth these arguments.
First,Kistemaker stated that the time designator "thousand years" does not occuranywhere else in other New Testament eschatological teachings. Jesus did notmention it in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25) No epistle refers to themillennial reign of Christ on earth (Kistemaker, Revelation, 535).
Inresponse, the concept of progressive revelation within the inspired Scripturesallows for new truth, previously unknown or unwritten, to be recorded by theBiblical authors. The fact that the "thousand years" is mentioned six times issufficient, in and of itself, based upon the principle that two or threewitnesses establish a matter.
Second,Kistemaker claimed that the New Testament teaches only one return of Christ,not two (Kistemaker, Revelation, 535). Kuyper likewise argued that allfuture judgment happens at the Second Coming; thus there can be no judgmentafter the thousand years (Rev. 20:11-15) if Christ returned before the thousandyears to execute judgment (Rev. 19:11-21). There are no two final judgments;thus there are no two future comings of Christ, and vice versa (Kuyper, Revelation,263).
Thesenon-literal proponents make no distinction in time between the Rapture (1Thess. 4:13-18) and the Second Coming. They are a singular, unified event.
Third,Kistemaker strangely affirmed that "the first mention of a thousand year period(v.2) is 'the devil's millennium extending from Satan's stay in the Abyss untilhe is consigned to the lake of fire forever" (Kistemaker, Revelation,535).
Inresponse, I am not sure what Kistemaker hoped to gain by this assertion. Heoffered no further explanation. It is true that Satan and the thousand yearsare mentioned together in three of the six verses (Rev. 20:2, 3, 7). However,in the other three verses, the thousand years is related to believers, namelytheir resurrection and reign (Rev. 20:4, 5, 6).
Fourth,the advocates of the non-literal approach argue that since the Book ofRevelation is a book of symbols, numbers must also be symbolized.. Kistemakerstated that "one thousand is ten to the third power and denotes fullness. It istherefore more in line with the tone and tenor of Revelation to interpret theterm metaphorically" (Kistemaker, Revelation, 535). He also said thatthe "number [7] should not be taken literally, but must be understood as anidea that expresses totality or completeness" (Revelation, 4).
Inresponse, do not the terms "fullness," "totality," and "completeness" alldenote the same concept? Why wasn't the phrase "seven years" used in Revelation20? Why wasn't the phrase "one-thousand churches" used in chapter 1? Or, why dowe not read about one-thousand seals, one-thousand trumpets, or one-thousand bowlsif the phrase "one-thousand" symbolizes "fullness?" If "one-thousand" means"fullness," then why do we have "144,000" sealed servants and why do wehave 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel? Would not "one-thousandservants" have been sufficient to symbolize a full complement? Such assignmentof symbolical significance to numbers is too subjective and arbitrary. It doesa disservice to numerical adjectives and to grammatical syntax.
Fifth,Mathison observed that there is no mention of Jews, Israel, Jerusalem, or theTemple in Revelation 20. Thus, he concluded that the thousand years could notbe literal as dispensationalism claims (Mathison, Dispensationalism,125).
Inresponse, to use the same tenor of his argument, where is the mention of thechurch? Such an argument from silence is invalid.
Conclusion.Kistemaker speaks not only for himself, but for the entire non-literal approachwhen he said: "It seems best to take the term one thousand symbolicallyto refer to an indefinite period between the ascension of Jesus and his return"(Kistemaker, Revelation, 536). He also wrote that "one-thousand years"does not express time but completeness (Revelation, 45).
Theliteral approach.
First,the normal, ordinary meaning of a "thousand years" is a "thousand years." Thisis the essence of literal interpretation. In popular expression - if the plainsense makes good sense, seek no other sense. Walvoord correctly observed: "Thischapter presents the fact that Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years.If this chapter is taken literally, it is relatively simple to understand whatis meant" (Walvoord, Bible Knowledge, 977).
Second,an indefinite brief period of time is indicated in the context. Satan will bereleased from the abyss for "a little time" (mikron chronon; 20:3). TheHoly Spirit could have guided John to write that Christ and the saints wouldreign for "a long time" (polun chronon), the same phrase used in theparable of the talents to indicate the period of absence for the lord prior tohis return (Matt. 25:19). John, however, was superintended to contrast adefinite period (thousand years) with an indefinite period (short time).
Third,all time designations in the Book of Revelation are literal, only havingsignificance if their temporal meanings are accepted normally. The listincludes five months (9:5, 10), an hour and day and month and year (9:15),forth-two months (11:2; 13:5), 1260 days (11:3; 12:6), and a time, times, and halfa time (12:14).
Fourth,whenever the word "year" occurs with a numerical adjective (e.g. forty years,three years) in Scripture, it always refers to a regular calendar year. Thenon-literal view makes Revelation 20 to be the exception. The burden of proofis upon them to show otherwise.
Occasionally,some will reference 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 in defense of a non-literalmeaning. Peter wrote "that with the Lord one day is a thousand years, andthousand years as one day." For this comparison to make sense, the literalmeaning of the time phrases must be accepted. The infinite, eternal God doesnot view time as we do, but He does know the distinction between a 24-hour dayand a millennium. The Psalm conveys the same idea.
Fifth,Thomas argued that "no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number"(Thomas, Revelation, 8-22, 408). All numbers should be acceptedliterally, at face value. For example, there are seven churches, not eight ornine nor an indefinite number. The distinctions in numerical value must bemaintained throughout the book. They remain a literal constant in a book ofsymbols and metaphors.
ISSUE #4: THE BINDING OF SATAN
Premillennialismteaches that Satan will be bound at the Second Coming of Christ
(20:1-3).Both postmillennialism and amillennialism teach that Satan is already bound.
Thetime. Kistemaker affirmed: "Since Jesus' ascension, Satan has been unableto stop the advance of the gospel of salvation. He has been bound and iswithout authority while the nations of the world around the globe have receivedthe glad gospel tidings. The Son of God has taken possession of these nations(Ps. 2:7-8) and has deprived Satan of leading them astray during this gospelage" (Kistemaker, Revelation, 535-536). Kik gives a different startingpoint for the binding of Satan. He wrote: "The thousand years mentionedin verse three make up the gospel dispensation from the first coming of Christtill that brief period of apostasy expressed in the words: 'and after that hemust be loosed a little season.'... During that period Satan will not be ableto control the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ" (Kik, Eschatology,45).
Whichis it? Was Satan bound at Christ's first coming or at His ascension? If Satanwas bound at Christ's ascension and alleged enthronement, then passages dealingwith Christ's earthly ministry of exorcism cannot be used as proofs for a pasthistorical binding of Satan. Since premillennialists reject either view, theproponents of a past binding need to settle their differences.
Thepassages used to prove a past binding are Matthew 12:29; Luke 10:17-18; John12:31-32; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14-15; and 1 John 3:8.
AfterChrist cast out a demon from a blind and mute man, he was accused of doingexorcism in the power of Beelzebub. As part of His defense, Christ declared:"Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless hefirst binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house" (Matt. 12:29). Onedemon was cast out of one person. If Satan had been bound completely atthat event, then all demon possessed individuals should have been deliveredsimultaneously. However, many remained demon possessed in the Gospel period,the time of apostolic ministry, and in our present day. Christ used thatanalogy to justify his miraculous action upon one man at one point of time.
Thereis no statement in the Gospels or in the Acts that Satan was bound in the past.Contrariwise, the Bible teaches that Satan is extremely active in the presentage (Waymeyer, Revelation 20, 14-15):
a. Heentered Judas and influenced him to betray Christ (Luke 22:3; John
13:37).
b. Hesought to sift Peter like wheat (Luke 22:31).
c. Hefilled the heart of Ananias and influenced him to lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts5:3).
d. Hesent a messenger to buffet the apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:7).
e. Hethwarted Paul from traveling to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:18).
f.Hesnatches the Word of God from unbelieving hearers of the gospel before it cantake root (Matt. 13:19; Luke 8:12).
g. Hetells lies (John 8:44).
h. Hehas unbelievers under his dominion (Acts 26:18).
i. Hetempts believers (1 Cor 7:5).
j. Heseeks to take advantage of believers (2 Cor. 2:11).
k. Heis called the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4).
l. Heblinds the minds of the unbelieving (2 Cor 4:4).
m. Heseeks to deceive believers as he did with Eve (2 Cor. 11:13).
n. Hedisguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14).
o. Heis at work in unbelievers to influenced them to live as they do
(Eph.2:2).
p. Heseeks to deceive believers as he battles against them (Eph. 6:11-12).
q. Hedeceives and traps unbelievers (2 Tim. 2:26)
r. Heholds unbelievers captive to do his will (2 Tim. 2:26).
s. Heprowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour
(1Pet. 5:8).
t. Heis the father of those who practice sin (1 John 3:8-10)
u. Heholds unbelievers in his power (1 John 5:19).
Howcould Satan be bound and so active at the same time? It defies logic and thetestimony of Scripture to affirm both of theses contradictory realities.
Themeaning. According to Mathison, Satan and his power have been "greatlyrestricted," "greatly curtailed," and "bound in some sense" in this present age(Mathison, Dispensationalism, 127). He also wrote: "The binding of Satandoes not entail the cessation of his activity (cf. 1 Peter 5:8), but it doesmean that he is no longer able to prevent the spread of the gospel to thenations" (Mathison, Postmillennialism, 155).
Kistemakersaid: "When Satan was cast out of heaven and hurled to the earth, he lost theauthority he once possessed" (Kistemaker, Revelation, 535). He equatedthe binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1-3) with the forced expulsion by Michael (Rev.12:7-13). However, there is a great difference in the geographical movement. InRevelation 12, Satan went from heaven to earth, whereas in Revelation 20, hewent from earth to the abyss. The abyss is never equated with the earth.
Inthat connection, Kik in a reference to Jude v.6 wrote: "There we read that thefallen angels were bound with chains, yet that did not prevent their activityin the world.... The Gospels reveal the activities of these fallen angelsTherefore to be chained does not mean cessation of evil activity. Even soSatan, though bound, continues his evil work" (Kik, Eschatology, 194).These chained angels are only one group of fallen angels; they cannot beequated with all fallen angels. Fallen angels who are free to afflict humans donot want to go to the abyss (Luke 8:31). The abyss and Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4)are places of darkness where some fallen angels are chained as they awaitdivine judgment. They are inactive in their imprisonment. Satan and all otherfallen angels will join them when Satan will be seized, bound, cast into theabyss, and sealed for one thousand years.
IfSatan is bound today, then why was he dwelling in Pergamos where his throne was(Rev. 2:13)? Both believers and unbelievers were in that same place, namely acity in provincial Asia. Can it be said that believers are also in the abyss?
Kikgave this exposition of the binding of Satan: "Previous to the first coming ofChrist, the Gentile nations were under the complete control and dominance ofSatan. All nations were pagan and without true religion. But with the coming ofChrist this was all to change. Nations were not to be deceived entirely. Thisdoes not mean that individuals within nations or even a great portion of themwould not be deceived, but during the period of the binding of Satan thenations would not be entirely deceived as were Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia,Greece, and Rome. Never until that short period just before the second comingof Christ would the nations be deceived as they were before the first coming ofChrist. To that end Satan was bound" (Kik, Eschatology, 194).
Kik'sinterpretation, however, does not properly exegete the passage The binding isthorough and decisive, not progressive nor partial. The verbal actions "laidhold" (ekratesen),
"bound"(edesen), "cast" (ebalen), "shut" (ekleisen), and "sealed"(esphragisen) are all aorist tenses, indicating decisive, completedactions. Not one is in the imperfect tense, indicating continuous action in thepast. In addition, the negative purpose clause ("so that he should deceive thenations no more") reveals a break between a time of deception and a time of nodeception. There is no provision for a limited or partial deception.
Also,did Kik forget about the national repentance of Nineveh and Assyria through thepreaching of Jonah? In addition, are not Islamic and Buddhist countries just asdeceived as were Egypt and Persia?
ISSUE #5: THE RESURRECTIONS
Revelation20:4-6 focuses on the resurrection of humans, whereas Revelation 20:1-3centered on the binding of Satan. Out of these three verses (20:4-6) haveemerged three major interpretations about the resurrections.
Spiritualregeneration. Kik claimed that "the rebirth of the soul is the firstresurrection" (Kik, Eschatology, 182). The second resurrection is "theresurrection of the body which is to take place at the second coming of Christ"(Kik, Eschatology, 183). The second resurrection includes theresurrection of both the righteous and the wicked of all the ages. KennethGentry simply stated: "The first resurrection is - salvation" (Gentry, in FourViews on the Book of
Revelation,85). The position that the first resurrection is spiritual regeneration is heldby postmillennialists.
First,they argue that the new birth is described in resurrection terminology
(Mark12:26-27; John 5:25-29; ll:25; Rom. 6:4-6; 8:10-11; Eph. 2:1, 4-6; Col.2:12-13; 3:1;
1John 3:14; 5:11-13). For example, God made alive those who were dead in sins(Eph. 2:1, 4-6), and all believers have passed from spiritual death intospiritual life (1 John 3:14). To them, the first death is the death of thehuman soul (Gen. 2:17); therefore, the first resurrection is the quickening ofthat soul, namely getting saved (Kik, Eschatology, 43).
Inresponse, it is true that all men are dead in trespasses and sins, that allbelieving sinners receive eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, and thatall believers are in Christ, positionally crucified, raised up, ascended, andseated in Him. However, the term "resurrection" (anastasis; 20:5, 6) isnever used in salvation passages to refer to spiritual regeneration. Inaddition, the verb "lived" (ezesan), used twice (20: 4, 5), must havethe same meaning in the context. It cannot refer to spiritual life in 20:4 andto bodily resurrection life in 20:5. The postmillennial interpretation isarbitrary, imposed upon the text in faulty eisegesis. Also, the persons werebeheaded before they lived (20:4). In effect, according to their view, logicalconsistency would mean that spiritual regeneration came after physical death.Also, the group lived at the same time (aorist tense) in order to reign at thesame time. If the meaning were spiritual regeneration, then all of them wouldhave to be saved at Christ's first advent or ascension because that is whenpostmillennialists date the beginning of the millennium. In reality, believingsinners get saved at different times within the millennium according to theirdefinition of the thousand years. They have a contradiction between theirinterpretation and the actual spiritual experiences of believers.
Second,they argue that John saw "souls" (psuchas) and that the "souls lived."Hamilton wrote: "The deliberate choice of the word 'soul,' which almostuniversally means soul as distinct from body, as applying to the believers nowreigning with Christ in glory, seems to make it perfectly plain that the firstresurrection is [the new birth]. If it were a literal resurrection of the body,why should the author choose a word which almost always does not mean body?"(Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith, 134).
Inresponse, note the words "almost always." In fact, the word "soul" can refer tothe total person, both the body and the soul, the material and the immaterialparts of man
(James5:20; 1 Peter 3:20). Peter stated that "eight souls were saved through water."You can be sure that Noah and his family went into the ark in their bodies aswell as in their souls. Regardless, John saw the souls "of those who had beenbeheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God." The subject ofthe verb "lived," namely "they," refers back to the martyred believers.
Physicaldeath of the believer. Hendriksen stated that the first resurrection means"the translation of the soul from this sinful earth to God's holy heaven"(Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 231-232). This event occurs at thephysical death of the believer. This typical amillennial position identifiesthe first resurrection with the intermediate state of the soul between actualphysical death and actual physical resurrection.
Eventhe postmillennialist Kik disagreed with this view. He charged that when a soulleaves a body to dwell in heaven, it is not a resurrection. The soul in abeliever is always alive, never in a dead state (Kik, Eschatology, 42).We premillennialists can agree with Kik in his criticism. We can also use thesame arguments against this position that we used in the rebuttal of thepostmillennial position of spiritual regeneration.
Physicalresurrection. Premillennialism teaches that the first resurrection is thephysical resurrection of dead believers before the thousand-year begins andthat the second resurrection is the physical resurrection of all deadunbelievers at the end of the millennium. The following arguments support thisposition.
First,the noun "resurrection" (anastasis) always refers to a physicalresurrection.
Second,the verb "lived" (ezesan) must be interpreted in the same sense withinthis context. Thomas concluded that the verb "to live" (zao) alwaysrefers to physical resurrection in those passages that deal with physical death(Thomas, Revelation, 8-22, 417).
Third,Walvoord asserted: "If the church were raptured prior to this event, aspremillenarians teach, it would make sense to single out these martyred deadfor resurrection. But if the church were not raptured, it would be most unusualto ignore all the martyrs of preceding generations, the church as a whole, andto specify this relatively small group" (Walvoord, Bible Knowledge,979). Walvoord's logic is good, but a word of caution must be given. There isno specific mention of the resurrection of Old Testament believers either.
Fourth, both the Old and the New Testamentsteach that there will be a resurrection of the
redeemedand a resurrection of the unsaved. Daniel wrote: "And many of those who sleepin the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shameand everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2). There are two categories of resurrectedpeople here, with contrasting eternal destinies. In the context, the tworesurrections occur after Michael stands up for Israel (Dan. 12:1), to befulfilled at the war in heaven between Michael and Satan (Rev. 12:7-12). Thetwo resurrections also happen after a time of unprecedented trouble (Dan.12:1), referenced by Christ (Matt. 24:21), and seen in the Satanic persecutionof Israel after his forced descent to the earth in the middle of the seven-yearperiod (Dan. 12:13-17).
JesusChrist announced: "Do not marvel at this: for the hour is coming in which allwho are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth - those who have donegood, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to theresurrection of condemnation" (John 5:28-29). Daniel said that "many" would beraised, a term that some might use to believe not all would be resurrected.However, Christ used "all" to indicate that no one would be excluded.
InPaul's defense before the Roman governor Felix and his Jewish adversaries, theapostle proclaimed that there would be "a resurrection of the dead, both of thejust and the unjust" (Acts 24:15).
Inall of these three key passages, the resurrection of the saved is mentionedbefore the resurrection of the unsaved. These passages also do not mention agap of time between the two resurrections. Because of that fact, bothpostmillennialists and amillennialists conclude that there will be a generalresurrection of both the saved and the unsaved at the Second Coming of Christ.Gentry postulated: "Why should we believe that the New Testament everywhereteaches a general, singular resurrection on the last day, only to discoverlater in the most difficult book of the Bible that there are actually twospecific, distantly separated resurrections for different classes of people?"(Gentry, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Bock, 243).
Thethree key passages speak to the fact of resurrection and to the categories ofresurrected people. In themselves, they do not exclude the possibility of atime distance between the two. The concept of progressive divine revelationallows for the time factor to be disclosed later for proper understanding.
Atthis point, may I make a suggestion that the resurrection of the church deadnot be included in the first resurrection. Posttribulationists have constantlyaccused us pretribulationists of teaching three resurrections. If the churchage is a mystery, if the translation of living church believers is a mystery,then maybe the resurrection of the church dead should also be part of themystery era. This point needs further study and discussion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. EerdmansPublishing Company, 1953.
Chilton, David. Paradise Restored: AnEschatology of Dominion. Tyler, TX: Reconstruction Press, 1985.
Cox, William E. Why I Left Scofieldism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, n.d.
Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr. He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology. TylerTX: Institute for ChristianEconomics, 1992.
Gerstner, John H. A Primer on Dispensationalism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1982.
Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and The Future. GrandRapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
Kik, J. Marcellus. An Eschatology of Victory. Phillipsburg, NJ:Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1971.
Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Book ofRevelation. Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 2001.
Kuyper, Abraham. The Revelation of St. John. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.
Mathison, Keith A. Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&RPublishing, 1995.
_______________ Postmillennialism: An Eschatologyof Hope. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999.
Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2002.
Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times. GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 2003.
Ryken, Philip Graham. Whatis True Calvinist? Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing,2003.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1988.
Smallman, Stephen. What is a Reformed Church? Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003.
Venema, Cornelis P. The Promise of the Future. Carlisle, PA: The Banner ofTruth Trust, 2000.
Walvoord, John F. "Revelation," The Bible KnowledgeCommentary. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. Wheaton: VictorBooks, 1983.
Waymeyer, Matthew. Revelation20: The Millennial Debate (tentative). Unpublished manuscript, 2003.
Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989.