In another thread, several of us have been discussing the end times and I thought I’d start a new thread on my blog that would be easier to follow.
My understanding of Rev. 20 has as much to do with my understanding of the Old Testament as it does with the New. I would consider myself an Amillennialist but as to whether I’m more preterist than futurist is still up for grabs.
I’ll go through the passages as follows:
1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
IMHO, these passages are loaded with symbolic imagery. The best hermeneutic principle is to try to determine John’s intent for his audience (persecuted Christians in the First Century–THIS IS KEY). This appears to be a parallel to Jesus’ saying in Mt. 12:29 & Lk. 11:22 that he has tied up the strong man (Satan). Jesus has rendered Satan incapable of effective resistance. Other passages in the NT seem to back up this assertion (Col. 2:15, Heb. 2:14). I would therefore conclude that this passage told John’s audience that Satan has been delivered a decisive blow rendering him powerless to prevent the success of God’s kingdom. I believe the thousand years is symbolic (see Deut. 7:9, Ps. 50:10; Ps. 90:4; 2 Pt. 3:8) of a complete period of time (10x10x10) and should not be taken as a literal number of years (thus I would be an Amillennialist and would believe that we are currently in the Millennium). However, I am open to a futurist view of the second part of v. 3 which would be consistent with the beliefs of many of my Premil. friends.
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
IMHO “they came to life” and “the first resurrection” is symbolic of the new birth experienced by all the regenerated believers. Physical death has no power over them. As to the thousand years, see the explanation above.
7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
This appears to be a time in the indeterminate future where a battle along the lines of that described in Ezek. 38-39 will occur (at the END of the Millennium as opposed to the beginning of the Millennium as many Premils believe). This will be followed by the judgement. It’s fun to speculate on this but that’s all we can do. Perhaps this corresponds to the time when the mass conversion of Jews takes place. I don’t know.
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
I don’t think there is any significant differences of opinion on these verses so I’ll pass unless someone can show where the various eschatalogical camps seriously differ on them.
This is NOT the official position of Grace Fellowship. We deliberately avoided landing on any position other than the FACT that Jesus is returning some day. May we all be ready and may we all long for his appearing.
If the serpent is to be bound and prohibited from deceiving the nations for a thousand years, how can we currently be in the millenium? Doesn’t a quick perusal of the daily news convince us that the nations are currently decieved?
Or are you suggesting that the nations are no longer deceived by Satan but only by their own flesh?
Given the number of false religions in the world, all of which deny that Jesus is God, it’s hard for me to believe that Satan is not behind most of that deception.
Again, let me reiterate that I do NOT represent the official eschatological position of Grace Fellowship.
In my opinion, Revelation 20 refers to the age of the Church with the ‘binding of Satan’ being tied in with those Scriptures which also clearly show a great restriction on the activities of Satan and his demons during the Church age. Think of Jesus’ ministry of casting out demons and note such Scriptures as Luke 10: 17-20, Mark 16: 17 & John 12: 31-32. Also carefully note Matt 12: 25-29. The ‘strong man’ whom Jesus talks about binding here is Satan and the time setting is Jesus’ preaching of the gospel! (His first coming.) So this view sees Satan’s ‘binding’ as referring to the fact that he is unable to directly attack and destroy the Church. It is in this sense that he is unable to ‘deceive the nations’ yet he is able to influence them in other ways.
So I would agree with you that Satan is able to influence and certainly does so. What we need to be careful to avoid is interpreting a passage based on what we observe rather than on how the rest of the Bible leads us to understand it.
This may not be a satisfying answer to you but it appears to me to be the best in keeping with good hermeneutical principles.
My biggest hurdle in taking an amillenial view comes from verses 4 and 5. If I read you correctly you interpret “they came to life” and “the first resurrection” as the new birth of salvation. I am not sure how this makes sense though. In verse 4 the ones who “come to life” are those who have been martyred for their testimony of Jesus, thus they are already dead – not spiritually but physically, unless martyrdom is symbolic for something?
Also who are “the rest of the dead” in verse 5? Are they Christians or non-Christians? They cannot be Christians because they would have already received spiritual regeneration/rebirth at their conversion. If they are non-Christians then using your definition of “come to life” seems to imply that the non-Christians will experience the new spiritual birth.
As for the discussion on Satan – it seems as if you are equating “the nations” with the church. Is this correct or am I misreading you?
I would never claim to fully understand Revelation and, of course, the weakest arguments for Amil. center on the interpretation of Rev. 20. That’s why I chose to dive in there.
I would say that the first resurrection is the new birth but there are other Amil. writers who would agree that this wouldn’t work because the subject is martyrs who “come to life”.
I’d say that the words, “they came to life” doesn’t necessarily speak to a chronological event but rather a description of the fact that they were partakers of the first resurrection at a point in time which rendered them immune to the effects of the second death.
I admit that I’m not sure how to interpret “the rest of the dead”. Perhaps the parenthetical statement that they came to life after the thousand years refers to them experiencing the second resurrection to face judgment.
I’m not following your line on “the nations” (ethne). Does my argument some how break down if I equate it with the church?
The nations part was just because in some of the other areas of Revelation it is clear that when “the nations” are referred to they are the enemy of the church (Rev 11:2, 11:18, 14:8, 16:19, 18:3, 18:23, 19:15). There are several other times in Revelation where nations seems to just be included in a list as if to say everyone, and there are several references towards the end where the nations who were once enemies are no longer. I just am not sure what basis there is to make the nations refer to the church when the majority of the time it is exactly the opposite.
Thanks for laying out your views Ken. I believe that Rev. 20 does not seem to support the Amil. viewpoint.
I’m actually more concerned about the widespread belief that the church will not be subject to the Great Tribulation, because I would think that if more Christians knew that they could have to endure all or part of the Tribulation, more of them would try to be prepared for battle.
No more blogs for me tonight. Thanks for the discussion.