Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: Revelation 19 | Date: October 31, 1999 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

He said I’m championing the cause of premillennialism. I hadn’t quite thought of it that way before. And actually, it is not a heavy concern of mine to do that. I do believe in the premillennial return of Christ. I believe it very strongly. I am very concerned that all Christians share the blessed hope. And actually, it would be much more enjoyable for my part just to focus on that aspect of the second coming of Christ—of His personal return to earth and what the implications of that are for all of us who believe.

But this does have its place, and I’m grateful for the opportunity. And I’d like to begin with Revelation chapter 19. Revelation chapter 19. Now in your outline, “The Kingdom and the Millennium,” we have a lot to cover. Well, don’t worry; I’m not going to try to cover all of that. This is sort of a wish list of what I would like to have covered this evening. We’ll deal with part of it.

Our brother last week, Mike Gosch—I have met him. I don’t know him well. We’ve met at a conference one time and spent a lunch together, as I remember. I enjoyed the fellowship with him. And obviously, we have this disagreement, and it should not be interpreted by anyone as the kind of a disagreement that would cause division. I really have a terrible distaste for that kind of a spirit. Mike and I are brothers in the Lord, and I have many good friends who are on the other side of this millennial fence, if you will. But as I say, I do believe this, and I believe it very strongly, and I’ll show you the reasons why.

Revelation chapter 19, beginning with verse 11:

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on him was called Faithful and True. And in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire and on his head were many crowns. And he had a name written that no one knew except himself.

I take that to mean something like no one can fully understand him except God himself.

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood and his name is called the Word of God. And the armies in heaven clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed him on white horses. And out of his mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it he should strike the nations. And he himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He himself treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. And he has on his robe and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses, and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.”

And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war against him who sat on the horse and against his army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire, burning with brimstone, and the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he cast him into the bottomless pit and shut him up and set a seal on him so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things, he must be released for a little while.

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast nor his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and false prophet are. And there they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

I think I can assume that by this point in the study you know the definitions of terms, so I don’t have to spend much time there, I don’t think. On your outline, the word “millennium” comes from a couple of Latin words which mean “thousand years.” You might find in some of your reading the terminology “chiliasm” or the “chiliad”; that’s simply the Greek form of the word, “thousand years.” It has specific reference to this thousand-year period that is mentioned in Revelation chapter 20.

Now we have premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. And each of these systems is defined according to the relation of the coming of Christ to this millennium, to this thousand years. Premillennialists believe that Jesus comes “pre,” before the millennium. Amillennialists or postmillennialists believe that Christ will return “post,” or after the millennium. And amillennialists—it is a negative term, the alpha privative on the front, the negative, kind of like “un” or “not”—believe in no millennium. That’s a bit of a misnomer. It sounds a little more negative than they really are. It simply means no literal millennium in terms of these thousand years.

Generally, what is pictured in amillennial thought is that the millennium is this gospel age. The more traditional view is that it’s the reign of Christ and His saints in heaven in the intermediate state at this time. But the more popular view today is that this gospel age, this church age, is this millennial period that’s being described in Revelation chapter 20. Enough, I think, for the introductory remarks. We will run on. Ed mentioned that you have spent some time in Revelation 20 last week, so I think we will spend most of our time there this evening.

The Kingdom as Promised in the Old Testament

I would like to make a couple of remarks about the biblical concept of the Kingdom. First of all, the Kingdom as promised in the Old Testament. The phrase “Kingdom of God” is not found in the Old Testament. But the idea is everywhere. Everywhere in the Old Testament you read of God as King, God coming to rule, God invading history as it were, God championing the cause of His people, God coming to rescue His people, God coming to judge all of His enemies, God coming to reign over His enemies. That kind of language is just everywhere in the Old Testament. And so this idea of the Kingdom of God is, as I say, just throughout the Old Testament.

One familiar one that just comes to mind would be Isaiah chapter 9, verse 6: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace.” This idea pervades the Old Testament in the way of anticipation that there’s coming a day when God will come and reign over the earth, universally over all people, exercising righteousness, enforcing righteousness, and enforcing peace, if you will, and running out His enemies and protecting His people. And so you find phrases in the Old Testament prophets like, “They will dwell safely in their land in those days,” and, “In that day when the Messiah is there, they will inhabit Jerusalem safely and those who dwell there will be safe.” That kind of language is very often in the Old Testament prophets, reflecting this time of God coming to bring the kingdom to His people.

Now, I have put there on your outline, its primary characteristics are two: ethical and eschatological. Ethical—that is, it’s a time of righteousness, a time when righteousness prevails in really every sense. The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. That kind of language is everywhere in the Old Testament. Ethical in the sense that there will be an enforced righteousness. God will come and enforce this righteousness.

Eschatological—what we mean by that is not just that it happens in the end time, although that’s involved, but what is meant by this term “eschatological” is that it is nothing less than an in-breaking of God into history; that God is moving in, if you will. God has come into history and He has broken in in a big way, and He has brought His kingdom to bear on the people of the earth. And as I say, we have verses such as the knowledge of the Lord covering the earth as the waters cover the sea and things like that. God visits His people and we have this expression of “the day of the Lord” and things like that. God going forth to fight the nations, to fight the enemies of His people, coming with vengeance, coming to judge, coming to reign in peace, coming to reign in righteousness. That kind of idea is throughout the prophets.

In other words, the prophetic hope in the Old Testament is rooted in history. And here’s where I would take issue with what Brother Ed just said a few minutes ago that the speaker last week said: that the amillennial chart is a long line with an explosion at the end. I don’t think that’s quite fair to the biblical data because, well, the way I’ve heard it described by amillennials before is that it’s like watching a movie, and before the movie’s over, somebody throws a brick through the screen and just breaks it and it’s over. Well, that does describe the amillennial scheme, but I don’t think it does justice to the data of the kingdom.

The idea is that God is coming and, in history, is bringing things to more of a glorious conclusion than that. And in that respect, the post-millennialists and the pre-millennialists would be in agreement. And so there’s this idea that has developed in the Old Testament, and it comes into the New Testament—this idea of the two ages. There’s this present evil age, this age that is so dominated by what is evil and what is wrong, Satan being the god of this world and so on, this present evil age, and then there’s the age to come. And in that age to come, there will be the kingdom, the rule of God upon the earth, and so on.

The Kingdom and the Teaching of Jesus

Now then, we come to the kingdom and the teaching of Jesus. I would like to spend a half hour here at least. This is a fascinating study, I think, to see how different schools of thought have interpreted Jesus. What did Jesus—what did John the Baptist—mean when they came preaching the kingdom of God? How did their listeners understand that? How did the Jewish people of that day understand it when they said, “The kingdom is in your midst,” or, “The kingdom of God is at hand”? How would they have understood it?

And there have been alternating views, and I have them listed for you. It had been interpreted in ethical terms only. This is the old liberal view that Jesus preached an ethical kingdom—that is, “behave yourself,” and that’s what it means to be in the kingdom.

There’s the view of “consistent eschatology,” which is associated with Albert Schweitzer. Albert Schweitzer taught that Jesus expected this eschatological kingdom. He fully expected God to come and establish His kingdom, and even pushed it so that God would have to do it, but Jesus was wrong. And Jesus died in deluded hopes that the kingdom would come, but alas, it didn’t. Obviously Albert Schweitzer is not our kind of a guy.

Over against that there was a reaction of what is called “realized eschatology.” Realized eschatology is often associated with C.H. Dodd. It is also associated more today with the idea of preterism. And that is that all of this eschatological teaching that Jesus gave has been realized in a spiritual way. The kingdom has come. God has come. The resurrection has occurred. All of the promises of the Old Testament regarding the kingdom have been fulfilled in this age in Christ. C.H. Dodd was an old man before he even acknowledged, finally, that Jesus Christ would come again to the earth, because he had such an emphasis on this realized eschatology. All of these promises have been fulfilled in a spiritual way—realized eschatology.

Over against that, there’s what’s called “futurist eschatology.” Names associated with that would be people like C.I. Scofield, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost—the Dispensationalist School. And that is, it would take all of the promises and admit that they were all eschatological, but it would put them all in the end time. None of them are realized now; they’re all realized later on in a literal, physical way.

And then there is this other view where I would find myself: in what’s called “inaugurated eschatology.” And it would take what I think is the best from all of the views. Yes, it was an ethical kingdom. Yes, it is an eschatological kingdom. Yes, it is God breaking into history. And yes, it has been realized in this age. And yes, it is to be realized in the future. It is inaugurated in this age in a sense.

In a sense, it is true, and the New Testament teaches this very plainly. The resurrection has already occurred. Regeneration is spoken of in terms of a resurrection. Yes, the kingdom has come. Jesus said that explicitly. The kingdom is here and it’s now, and Jesus is King. But Jesus also taught us to pray, “Thy kingdom come.”

You remember when Jesus dealt with the demons that time, the ones that were in the pigs? You remember what the demons said? “Why are you here? To torment us before the time.” And you catch the implication of that: that this time is coming when it will be dealt with in full. In a sense, it’s too early. And yes, it is too early because the kingdom isn’t here yet. But then again, the kingdom is here, you see. Jesus casting out demons says this is proof that the kingdom of God is in your midst. And so we have a “both/and.” We have the “now” of the kingdom and we have the “not yet.”

Now people in both the premillennial camp and the amillennial camp would find themselves here in this school of inaugurated eschatology. Most of the, at least the older, dispensational premillennialists would not. But I think this is something that finds large agreement among pre- and amillennialists. Names associated with this, by the way, would be people like Oscar Cullmann, George Eldon Ladd, Herman Ridderbos, Anthony Hoekema, George Beasley-Murray, if you’ve read some of them.

Now then, just a quick note: the kingdom in premillennialism, or at least I could say historic premillennialism. There is then the inaugural aspect of the kingdom. And this, I think, is the strength of the amillennialist position. You heard me right. This is the strength of the amillennialist position. The amillennialist will argue long and well that Jesus taught and the apostles taught the kingdom is now. The kingdom has arrived. Christ is come and with Him has been the establishing of the kingdom. It has been inaugurated. That’s Jesus’ first coming.

But I think where I would part then with the amillennialists is there’s this next phase of the kingdom, the “interregnal aspect,” which I’ve called it, at the Second Coming. God in history doing all that was promised. It’s not just a spiritual realization of these promises, but a full and a real realization and a real fulfillment of these promises. So we have a realization of the promises now; we have the manifestation of them later. And you can do this in relation to the kingdom. There is a realization of the kingdom now. There’s the manifestation of the kingdom later at Jesus’ second coming. And so God doing in history all that was promised, and all of those promises regarding the kingdom in the Old Testament still standing and still waiting to be fulfilled in its fullest sense.

And then the final aspect of the kingdom in the eternal state when all has been accomplished and, according to 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus hands the kingdom over to the Father as “mission accomplished,” and it’s completely done. Just a quick note here on where I stand between these other systems. In amillennial thought, they take the kingdom promises and relate them to now, today. In dispensational premillennial thought, generally, they take the promises regarding to the kingdom and put them all in the future. I’m standing comfortably between both saying, “Guys, you’re both right, you’re both wrong; you’ve both made the same hermeneutical error. You have taken a part of the picture and made it the whole.” Where I think we have the whole picture saying, “Yes, it is realized now, but it will be manifested fully later on.”

Sample Passages

All right, that’s where I am now. How do I establish that? Let’s go, first of all—I’ve chosen two sample passages. There are some others I would love to have gone to. Keep your finger here and Revelation will be back. But go to Zechariah chapter 14. For the sake of time, I’ve narrowed it down to two passages. One Old Testament and one New. Zechariah chapter 14.

By the way, the charts that I gave you are simply for your information. Maybe we should take a moment to look at it. Premillennialism: you can see the outline of events—the Church period, and then the Tribulation, and then the Second Coming, and then the Millennium, and then the Eternal State. Postmillennialism: we have the Millennium at the end of this age, and then the Second Coming. And then on the back, Amillennialism: we have the long straight line with the explosion at the end. Now, what I’d like you to do is keep those basic scenarios in mind as we read through these passages. And you ask yourself—and you are the ultimate judge here; I’m not and your pastor isn’t, I don’t want to own your conscience and he doesn’t either, I’m sure—you ask yourself, what is it the Bible is describing? Is this describing that Christ will come and then we have the kingdom? Or is he describing that we have the kingdom and then Christ coming? That’s basically the choice we have to make.

Alright, Zechariah chapter 14. I will begin reading—I’d like to back up to somewhere around chapter 12, but through chapter 14 he is describing the second coming of Christ and its related effects on the holy city, the troublesome times associated with it, how God will rescue His people and how He will deal with His enemies. Now, verse 16. Well, I may be cutting myself off at the knees here by not reading more of chapter 14. At the beginning of chapter 14, we have a graphic description of the second coming of Christ. He will come, stand on the Mount of Olives, that kind of language, the mountains splitting, and the results or the effects of His coming—what’s going to happen as a result of it. So keep that in mind. He has just described in graphic detail the second coming of Christ.

Verse 16: “And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all of the nations which come against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King and the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feasts of the tabernacles. And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they will not have rain. They shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of the Tabernacles.”

Now just a brief overview of Zechariah 14. Beginning of the chapter we have the graphic description of the coming of the Messiah. And then we have the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem. And then these verses, 16 and following, is what I want to focus on. We have this “Silver Age” being described. I call it the Silver Age because it seems to me that it’s a whole lot better than what’s going on today. But it’s not at all what the eternal state is going to be like. Notice the details. Jesus is ruling universally. This involves all the nations of the earth. Notice that the kingdom is earthly. Notice it’s centered in Jerusalem and the requirement is for all of the nations to come up annually to Jerusalem to offer worship.

Now, I’m not interested right now in the argument of whether or not the keeping of the Feast of the Tabernacles is literal or symbolic of worship of Christ. I don’t care whatever side of the fence you find yourself on that question. The point here is He has come, there’s been a widespread judgment, there now is a universal reign over all of the nations, and the nations are required to come up and give worship to Christ in Jerusalem. And if they do come and offer worship, fine. If they don’t come and offer worship, then plagues will be put upon them. And he gives the illustration of Egypt. If Egypt doesn’t come up annually and worship, He’ll send no rain. And there’ll be famine in Egypt; they’ll be struck with the plagues with which God judges the nation.

Now, on your outline, “Eschatological Placement.” Where do we place this in the line of history? The situation described in verses 16 through 19, which we have read—I simply would like to ask, where can you place it? Does this sound like it’s descriptive of something today? Is God judging and plaguing nations that don’t go up to Jerusalem? It’s not happening. Does it then sound like the eternal state? Sure doesn’t to me. I was amused to look at the New Geneva Study Bible in their notes at this point. The editors of the Bible are all amillennial. They can’t put it today; that’s obvious. So they’ve got to stick it in the eternal state, and that’s where they stick it. It’s in the eternal state that this promise is fulfilled. I think that’s… I don’t mean this to be pejorative, I was going to say laughable. In an academic sense, that’s laughable. He’s describing something that is obviously better than today, but not as good as the eternal state. It seems to me to be very descriptive of what premillennialists teach is this interregnal period where Christ has come to reign. And this interregnal period is, if I could give this illustration, something like the beautiful foyer of this beautiful mansion. It is of a piece with the mansion, but it’s just the entrance in.

And so we have this age to come, he says, when Christ comes, and notice the order of events: it is after His coming; it is a reigning that is universal, a reigning that enforces righteousness, and yet it’s a reigning that involves the presence of sinners who will be punished for their sin. I think it’s a passage that cannot square with any of the views except the premillennial view. Alright, you may have questions about that; we’ll get back to it later if you would like.

Now, Revelation chapter 20. Revelation chapter 20. It is often said here, at this point in the discussion by amillennialists—and you may have heard this last week—that there is no need to insert a thousand years after the coming of Christ. I’d like to say that I agree with that. There’s no need to insert a thousand years. And the reason you don’t have to insert them is because they are already there. John put them there, and let’s see how we can place them.

What are the alternatives? Well, we’ve already read through the passage, chapter 19 and 20, beginning with verse 11 of chapter 19 and through—what was it? Verse 10 of chapter 20. We have in summary here: the return of Christ in victory (chapter 19, verses 11 and following). We have the destruction of the evil triumvirate: the beast, the false prophet, and Satan. We have in chapter 20 then the first resurrection. Then we have the thousand-year reign. Then we have the release of Satan and a final rebellion. And then a final destruction of Satan who is now cast into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet are. And then the second resurrection and final judgment. And then chapters 21 and 22, we go to the eternal state.

Now the strength of the premillennialist argument is going to be: we are going to take this passage just as it appears. We’re going to take it at its face value. We’re going to take it as you would understand it in a first reading of the passage. That’s not a sneaky remark on my part; that’s just the facts of it, and it’s a fair remark that we take it at its face value. We would take it as it would be understood in a first reading. And I don’t think anyone would argue against that.

Now this idea, by the way, of a kingdom coming in history to usher in the final full realization of the kingdom is not something that was entirely unknown before John. We’ve already seen something like that in Zechariah, and in other extra-biblical Jewish writings, there are some indications of this as well. In fact, in two places—and I wouldn’t make much of this, it’s just an interesting, curious observation, and that’s all—but in two other places in Jewish writings, there is actually the thousand years mentioned as the period of time for this kingdom. My point in saying that is that this is not an unknown idea that John is writing of. Now, the argument against it very often has been, “That’s a Jewish idea, not a Christian one.” It’s a Jewish idea. Well, let’s see.

First of all, the question of chronology. Are you clear? Do you understand what the amillennialist has to do with this passage in order to sustain his argument? Chapter 19: the coming of Christ in the end time. Chapter 20, which follows chapter 19, is a recapitulation of something that actually happened earlier. But then beginning with chapter 20 and verse 7, we’re back over here to the end time again. What we have to do to sustain the amillennialist argument is lift verses 1 through 6 of chapter 20 out and place them back somewhere before chapter 19.

What I’m saying is there is no warrant to do that. And the amillennialists can go through Revelation and show you that there are times when there is some recapitulation, and I wouldn’t argue against it. I don’t think there’s quite as much as sometimes they argue, but I wouldn’t argue against that idea. My argument here is, can you justify that in this passage? Can you justify exegetically lifting these six verses out and putting them somewhere else other than in the flow of the narrative that we’re given? I don’t think you can, and I think there are some very good reasons not to.

First of all, the natural flow of chapters 19 and 20. Chapter 19 is the obvious climax of the book of Revelation. There have been all these troubles, all these horrors. All of the saints are crying, all of the saints are running to hide, and there’s all of these awful things happening. And the wickedness is ruling, and the beast and the false prophet are wreaking havoc all over the… That’s the book of Revelation. And it leads us up to this great climax when the King comes riding on His horse with a sword coming out of His mouth, which indicates, by the way, it’s not going to be much of a fight. All He has to do is speak.

But you see, what’s happened here—we are obviously at the climax of the book of Revelation. Throughout the book, you have the saints, even the saints in heaven, crying out, “Oh Lord, how long? How long before we have vengeance? How long before you right this thing that is so wrong?” Chapter 19 answers that question. He’s coming, and it says He’s come with a sword out of His mouth, and He’s come to rule the nations with a rod of iron. And then chapter 20 has Him ruling the nations. Now I say that it is a simple flow of thought from chapter 19 into chapter 20. Chapter 19 is the answer to everything that precedes in the book of Revelation. Chapter 20 is simply the outflowing of what we find in chapter 19.

Notice also, in chapter 19 beginning with verse 11: Kai eidon. That is, the first word here is kai in the Greek; it’s “and.” We would call this in Greek studies the “continuative kai.” That is, it’s the continuative reading of a narrative. And notice how that is marked throughout this passage, through chapter 19 and through chapter 20. Verse 11: “Then I saw heaven open.” Verse 17: “Then I saw an angel standing in the sun.” Verse 19: “And I saw the beast.” Chapter 20: “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven.” Chapter 20, verse four: “And I saw thrones and they sat upon them.” Chapter 20, verse 11: “Then I saw a great white throne.”

You see what I’m saying here—that all through this passage, it is built in even to the wording of the passage that it reads like a continuous narrative. It would seem to me to be chaos to reach into verses one through six, pull them out, and say they actually belong somewhere else, when the narrative reads so well and so easily like this. I’m not saying that kind of thing is impossible. It happens at times. What I’m saying is you better have a good reason in the text to justify it, and I don’t think it can be justified here.

Furthermore, we have here the evil triumvirate: the beast, the false prophet, and Satan. They’re introduced to us in chapter 13 and they are always together. These three just love each other: beast, the false prophet, and the dragon. Beast, the false prophet, and the dragon. We have chapter 13. We have in chapter 16 as well. We have in chapter 17. They’re always together. And we have them in chapters 19 and 20. And here Christ comes and He deals with all three of them. Unless you lift verses 1 through 6 out and put them somewhere else, then He’s only dealt with two of them. Again, I think it just goes against the natural reading of the passage. And again, chapter 20 and verse 10, I think, indicates that this has been a continuative narrative, because “the devil then is taken and deceived, was cast into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet are.” He’s continuing the thought that has been begun late in chapter 19, and it runs like a thread through the passage.

So, the argument of amillennialists is verses 1 through 6 has to be lifted out and put somewhere else. It is not a natural reading of the passage, and I think it cuts right against many of the indicators in the passage itself, and I think contradicts too much. This, by the way, fits well in the whole tenor of biblical prophecy. What is your own reading of the prophets? Have you just read cursorily through the prophets? You’ve noticed that this kingdom comes when God comes. God comes, and He brings the kingdom with Him. And that’s simply what He’s saying here. We have God coming in the Gospels, and He’s establishing the kingdom. And here we have God coming and establishing the kingdom in a fuller sense. It is in perfect keeping with not only this context itself, but the whole broad pattern of biblical prophecy: the coming of God to establish His kingdom.

The Binding of Satan

Now, I think there are some other indicators in this passage that I think must be dealt with. Part of the discussion, I think, in Revelation 20 is muddied by this consideration. It is often argued that you can’t settle the argument in Revelation 20 because your approach to Revelation 20 is determined by your approach to the book of Revelation as a whole. I think that’s true to some extent, but I think there are some details here in Revelation 20 that must be faced by anyone who would not take this as a continuative narrative or as its first reading, and I’ll look at those now.

First of all, this matter of the binding of Satan. You notice in chapter 20, verses 1 and following, an angel comes, lays hold of the devil, binds him for a thousand years, casts him in the pit, and shuts the pit, puts a seal on it, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years are finished. The binding of Satan.

First of all here, the nature of his binding. In what sense is Satan bound? The amillennialist treatment of this will take you back to Matthew 12 and some other passages in the Gospels where it describes Jesus coming, casting out demons, and then Jesus describing the situation like this: He has taken the strong man and bound him. And so they interpret this in a gospel sense. Since Christ’s first coming, the gospel has been released. It’s been set free and there’s been a great advancement of the gospel throughout the earth. It is no longer hemmed up in Judaism; it has gone to the ends of the earth. I won’t quibble with that interpretation at all. I think it’s perfectly right. I don’t believe it fits in this passage.

And there are some reasons for that. I don’t think it can fit here. First of all, notice the language of verse 2. He laid hold of the dragon. Chapter 20, verse 1: he has a chain in his hand. He lays hold of the dragon. He bound him for a thousand years, cast him in the pit, shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more. He is bound, chained, shut up, and sealed. That, if words have any meaning at all, does not speak of parole. It speaks of incarceration. He is not saying here that Satan still has a free reign. He is saying here that Satan is bound, and he’s gone to great lengths to emphasize that he’s shut up, so that whatever he was doing before, he can’t do now. He is bound with a chain, he’s thrown in a pit, the pit is shut over, and there’s a seal over the top of the pit. Well, what notion do you get out of that but that this guy is put away? And I’ve often teased my amillennialist friends by saying, “If he’s on a chain now, it’s an awfully long chain.”

Now keep your finger here—we’ll be right back—but look back at Revelation chapter 12. Revelation chapter 12. Now very often the amillennialist take will be to equate Revelation 12 with Revelation 20. I’d love to get into some of the details of that, but we can’t. But I do want to point out one, just one observation here. We have Satan here being hurled out of heaven. He’s going on this furious rampage because his time is short. He’s chasing all of the seed of the woman out into the wilderness, trying to consume them, etc. But look at verse 9: “So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old called the devil and Satan, who deceives the world.” What does he do? Deceives the world. The term here is planao, to deceive.

Now back to chapter 20. In verse 3, he casts him into the bottomless pit and shut him up and set a seal on him so that he should deceive the nations no more. Now, the amillennialists will argue that chapter 12 is speaking of today. But what I’m pointing out to you is that chapter 12, if it speaks of today, chapter 20 can’t, unless we have this contradiction. At this period of time (chapter 12), Satan deceives. At this period of time described in chapter 20, he cannot deceive. We are dealing with two different time frames unless we have a contradiction of some kind. I think that’s unanswerable. Personally, I have not seen it dealt with in any of the amillennialist literature.

I think we need also—and this is belittled often by amillennialist writers; it’s not taken seriously, but I’m willing to press it—the language that’s used in Revelation 20. The angel takes the devil. A great chain is put on him. He’s wrapped up. OK, you see him bound with this chain. He’s thrown in the abyss. The abyss is closed and a seal is set over the top. Now, you see, if you can square that with the New Testament characterizations of this age. The amillennialist has to, but I say it’s impossible. And we have characterizations of this age such as Satan as a roaring lion. He blinds the mind of those who are lost. He takes men captive at His will. The whole world lies in His lap. Paul says, “I wanted to come to you, but Satan hindered us.” Jesus in His parables gives the warnings of the birds coming and plucking away the seed that’s been preached, and He interprets that Himself as being Satan coming and plucking away the seed. All through the New Testament we have these characterizations of Satan at loose big time. And he is the explanation for so much of what is wrong in this world. So much so that I think we need to develop a conspiracy theory with regard to all that we see in this world. I’m very serious about that. We need to see that behind all of the organized evil in this world, there is a mastermind. And it’s Satan. We have to see that.

And what I’m saying here, then, if that is true, and if all of these New Testament statements regarding that activity of Satan are true, we can’t say, then, that this matter of being chained, wrapped up, thrown in a pit, sealed over and shut, just can’t square with this period of time. He is speaking of something that has not yet occurred in history. And we can talk all day long about the advancement of the Gospel in this age and how the floodgates have been opened up and it’s gone out of Israel off to the ends of the world, and I’ll say amen. But I won’t say it fits this passage. I think there are just too many details here that won’t allow it.

The Resurrections in Revelation 20

All right, next: this matter of the resurrections in Revelation 20. We have two resurrections, verses 4 and 5. Let’s read through the verses:

I saw thrones, and they sat on them. And judgment was committed to them, and I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands, and they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Now, what kind of resurrection is this? The amillennialist, interpreting these verses as reference to today, the church age, has to take the first resurrection to be a spiritual resurrection: regeneration, the new birth, new life, spiritual resurrection. The second resurrection at the end of the millennial period is a literal physical resurrection. The premillennialist argues, no, these both are the very same kind of resurrections. Both are physical, literal resurrections: at the beginning of the millennial period, the resurrection of the just, and at the end of this period, the resurrection of the unjust.

Now, I think it is fair simply to say, what is your impression when you read these verses? What is the first reading of the passage? The first, easiest understanding of the passage is that it would be two identical kinds of resurrection, both of them physical resurrections. By the way, the words translated “resurrection” here are never used in the Book of Revelation—well, in fact, the word “resurrection” is never used in a spiritual sense in the New Testament. The verb “to rise” or “to live again” is used in a spiritual sense but never in the book of Revelation.

Now, I think it’s fair to press this. The second resurrection is admittedly physical, literal. And the second resurrection is for “the rest of the dead.” Did you notice that in verse 5? The rest of the dead. And if the rest of the dead are raised physically, wouldn’t that tell you that the first resurrection was a physical resurrection? Again, I think it’s the obvious reading of the passage.

What we have to say for the amillennialist interpretation to hold is that this first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection. These are Christians. These are men who are being saved. They’re coming to new life. The second resurrection is the literal resurrection later on. But notice that these who are, in verse 4, part of the first resurrection, are those who had been beheaded. Does that sound like someone getting saved? Sounds like a literal resurrection. This guy who was whacked at the neck, now is raised—what are you going to think? This is physical, literal resurrection, right? These are the details of the passage.

You see, the amillennialists—and this is one of my complaints with their approach to Revelation 20—they can say Jesus has come, the kingdom has come, He’s bound the strong man, the gospel has gone, and there’s a spiritual resurrection, and all of that sounds nice, and a lot of it’s good and true, but it can’t square with the details of this passage. And that’s my argument here. This whole matter of being beheaded and then raised—that’s got to be physical, literal resurrection.

Also in verse 4—and I think this is devastating to the amillennial view—the resurrection follows their faithfulness. It does not precede it. Now, if we’re speaking in terms of spiritual resurrection, the new birth, your resurrection precedes your faithfulness. But you see, these are people who have been faithful. They are the just. These are the ones who did not take the mark of the beast. These are the ones who didn’t have it in their heads, their hands. These are the ones who remain faithful to the witness to Christ, and for it they’ve been beheaded. And after this period of faithfulness, they’re raised from the dead. In the amillennial scheme of things, it is the exact opposite order. We have them being raised from the dead spiritually and then going in their time of faithfulness, and it’s the exact opposite of what verse four describes. In other words, I will agree, and I’ve preached it many times, that there is such a thing as spiritual resurrection; it is plain teaching in the New Testament, but there’s no hint of it in Revelation chapter 20. How many resurrections? Two. The language would seem to indicate two of the very same kind.

Wow, time is up. Let me read something on the fourth page of your outline. Dean Henry Alford was a famous Greek scholar in the last century, and I want you to notice his take then on these considerations about the resurrection:

As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain souls came to life at the first, and the rest of the dead ones came to life only at the end of a specified period after the first—if in such a period the first resurrection may be understood to be spiritual rising, while the second means literal rising from the grave, then there’s an end of all significance and language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything.

Now, I think it’s a fair chart. In this passage, you would never come up from this passage with two different kinds of resurrections, one spiritual and one physical. You have to read that into the passage; you will never read it out. That’s his argument.

The Reigning in Revelation Chapter 20

Quickly then, one more consideration: the reigning in Revelation chapter 20. What kind of reigning is it? The amillennial interpretation, the popular one at least, is that this is a spiritual reigning with Christ—a spiritual reigning with Christ. The first reading in this passage would not indicate that either. This is not a spiritual reigning today with Christ; this is a reigning over the nations with Christ. To establish that, I want to go back one more time to Revelation chapter 2. Keep your hand here; we’ll be right back. But look at Revelation chapter 2.

I will begin reading with verse 25. He’s writing to the church at Thyatira. Jesus says to the church at Thyatira through John: “But hold fast what you have till I come.” Note that: “till I come.” “And he who overcomes and keeps my works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations. He shall rule them with a rod of iron as the potter’s vessels shall be broken in pieces.” Now does that language there ring a bell? We read it in chapter 19. Two things: this matter of “till I come” and “ruling with a rod of iron.” In chapter 19, Jesus comes (verses 11 and following), and He comes to rule the nations with a rod of iron. But notice the promise to the church is, “When I come, you’ll share with me in my rule with a rod of iron over the nations.” In chapter 19, He comes with His rod of iron. He’s ruling over the nations. Chapter 20 describes the saints ruling with Him. It seems to be the exact answer to the promise of chapter 2. It seems to fit very easily.

Furthermore, notice this: the amillennialist’s point here will be that we’re spiritually reigning with Christ. That’s not the point here. What is the purpose of having a rod of iron? Doesn’t that imply the presence of rebels? Yeah, this is ruling over the nations. This is not a spiritual reign with Christ. This is a ruling over the nations, a sharing with Christ in His rule, which He has come to take at His second coming. He has come with His rod of iron, ruling over the nations. The promise was, “When I come to do that, you’ll share with me in that rule.” Chapter 19 reads, He has come to take it. Chapter 20 reads that we’ve come to have it with Him when we are raised from the dead. So what kind of reign is it? It is a very real, literal kind of reigning. The time of the reign—it is after the coming of Christ. You’ll have this “when I come”; that was the promise, and that’s the flow of thought in Revelation 19 and 20.

Suggested Theology of the Millennium

All right, there’s much more, but let me quickly run to the end. Common objections against premillennialism—I don’t know that we need to get into all that, do we? Should we go on to questions? Let me jump to the end, the “Suggested Theology of the Millennium.” Why the Millennium?

Alright, John, you’ve told us Christ has come, He’s going to establish His reign on earth, He’ll rule over the nations for a period of a thousand years, and then we will be ushered into the eternal state. What’s the purpose of the Millennium? Now we’re on shaky ground here, because the Bible doesn’t come right out and say this is why. There may be some hints at it, and I’ll offer these only as suggestions.

Number one, the problem of man’s failure. Man was created to be God’s righteous vice-regent over creation. According to Hebrews chapter 2, that has not yet been realized. He’s failed. But we see Jesus, and the whole flow of thought is that He will come and perfect for man what man was created to do: rule over creation in a righteous way. In other words, man’s created purpose must be achieved.

Number two, the problem of history’s failure. And this is where I have so much problem with the “straight line and the explosion at the end” interpretation. I don’t think that fits at all with the Bible’s view of history. I think the Bible’s view of history is very clearly to be not a straight line with an explosion at the end, or not watching a movie on television and a brick going through the screen just ending. It is climbing toward a goal. And Ephesians 1 speaks of it: all things being gathered together into Christ. That is, history is not going to just end. History is going to be brought to a final culmination. It is going to be brought to a glorious conclusion. Christ will come and He will fix all that has been wrong with history and He will, in history, bring things to their created purpose and to their created goal. I think that’s hinted at in 1 Corinthians 15: He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

And that leads us to the third one, the question of Christ’s glory. His reign must be more than potential. It must be actualized in history. And that is why I think 1 Corinthians reads as it does: “He must reign until his enemies are made his footstool.” This must be worked out in history. His reign must be universally manifested and universally exercised for His mediatorial kingship to be complete.

Then finally, the question of God’s righteousness. Imagine, here we are. The King has come. He has come in a preliminary way and established Edenic conditions again, enforced righteousness, reigning over the earth for a thousand years. Satan bound, unable to deceive the nations, and at the end of the thousand years, what does humanity do? Rises up in rebellion against the King again. It’s not stated to be the purpose of the millennium, but I suspect that there is some of this purpose in it. It is a very heavy concern of God’s to establish His justice in judgment. And after a thousand years of reigning in peace and righteousness, man still comes back in rebellion against their creator. God has established His justice in judgment and saying, “You are a rebel at heart and deserve the punishment that you will get.” Again, I don’t say the scriptures come plainly out; I think that is hinted at in 1 Corinthians 15. I think there may well be more purposes to it.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Smartypants. How many of you came last week and said, “I got it,” and now tonight you’re sitting here saying… Now I really got it. Amen! Yes! Now I got it. Wait till next week. No! I’ll start off the questioning, but when you ask your question, let’s not make it a time to instruct Fred, but let’s have a quick question that can be answered.

Here’s the question. How does historic premillennialism differ from dispensational premillennialism? Primarily in two ways. Historic premillennialism may or may not see a future for ethnic Israel. I do, and in that sense I resemble dispensational premillennialism. But the historic premillennialism may or may not. The other big thing is—and the most common one is—the rapture question. I would be post-tribulational. I believe Christ comes after the tribulation. I don’t believe there’s a rapture before the tribulation period. A dispensational premillennialist would argue strongly for that. Other questions? Yes, those later.

In John chapter 5, Jesus spoke of “the hour.” Are you arguing for a literal interpretation of “hour”? Is that what you’re arguing? Are you suggesting that the hour should be taken as a literal hour? I’ve heard that argument before. My problem with it would be verse… what’s the verse right here? I’m looking at it. Hang on, I’m coming. So, the question you’re asking is, you’re saying that there’s one resurrection and it will occur at that hour, according to John 5. Okay. Okay, verse 25. I looked at it five times and couldn’t find it. There it is. Verse 25: “I say to you, the hour is coming and now is when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.” There’s spiritual resurrection, and notice how long that hour has lasted already. It’s already been 2,000 years. Yes, I know, but my point is, if in verse 25 your hour can last 2,000 years, then I don’t think we should argue too strongly in verse 28 that the hour must be 60 minutes. Do you follow?

24:15: “There’ll be a resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust.” All four men that are presenting their positions are—they’re all Baptists and they’re all Calvinists. I just didn’t want to get you into any trouble in my answer. Let me back off to another question that I’m sure we’d agree on in order to answer this one. The question is: here’s a passage which seems to speak of a general resurrection. The premillennialist interpretation demands a selective resurrection: the righteous at the beginning of the millennium and the unjust at the end of the millennium.

When we argue in regards to the extent of the atonement, we have to acknowledge that there are passages which speak of the Atonement in universalistic terms. As Calvinists, we would argue that you cannot understand the general statements unless you first understand the particular statements. You have some statements which relate the Atonement to a particular people in a sense that it cannot be applied to all. So then, understanding that, when we go to the general passages, we understand them in light of the particular. Now, the Arminian problem is they try to reverse that and it can’t be done. You can’t try to interpret the particular in light of the general. It makes chaos.

Now, it’s the same in reference to the resurrection. You have some statements which speak in broad general terms. John 5:28 is one, Acts 24 is another, and there are others. But you have other passages which demand a selective resurrection. For instance, Revelation chapter 20, which we’ve already looked at and I’ve argued at length. You also have Daniel chapter 12, verses 1 and 2: “Many, not all, many of those who are asleep in the dust of the earth shall come forth.” There’s a selective resurrection. Paul speaks in Philippians chapter 3 of the “out-resurrection out of the dead.” That’s a literal rendering of the Greek. The out-resurrection out of the… he stumbles over himself, expressing that this is a selective resurrection. 1 Thessalonians 4, he speaks of the resurrection of the righteous. 1 Corinthians 15, it is the just who are raised when He comes. In Luke chapter 14, it’s the same: the resurrection of the just. Over and again we have this emphasis that the just will be raised—a selective many from those who are asleep will be raised out of the dust of the earth. Statements like that which demand a selective resurrection, which fits perfectly with the face reading of Revelation 20. Now I’ll take those particular passages and with them I can handle the general passages very easily. My argument would be with the amillennialist here, the same I would argue with an Arminian: you cannot handle the particulars if you take the general passages as your guide. Good question and very good answer.

Chris: “To be fair about the chain on the devil being reasonably long, wouldn’t you have to admit that even in the pre-millennial scheme, there’s a reason that there’s a rod of iron being used, not a candy cane? The devil must be having some influence on the people.” No, that was my point at the end. He’s not having influence. This is man’s evil nature coming out. The devil is shut up in a pit and sealed over top. Okay, the question was—okay, yeah, for the tape. The question is, I made that joke to the amillennialist about the chain being so long. That may not be entirely fair, I grant that. But then the question is, don’t we have to admit that since there’s a rebellion after the millennial period, that Satan must be loose and operative in some way? My answer to that is no. The language in the first part of Revelation 20 is that he is bound, thrown in a pit, shut up, and sealed. And I can handle that. And that’s why my last point of a theology of the millennium was to emphasize that after this thousand-year period, if man still rebounds, it is a revelation of the evil that is in his heart. And God is justified in His judgment.

Frank: “To continue on Chris’s point, though, I would say that nobody knows the debt, the sin that we have. And we don’t need much help to save it all. I mean, we’re so bad. I’m so bad. I don’t need any help. Because they don’t need no help at all. And who’s to say, if there’s anything to be done, it’s other than ourselves? It’s being ourselves.” That’s my point exactly. Exactly my point. Yes. Well said.

Okay, question, Marlene. Good luck. “Sometimes I think about the United States being like a big lesson, kind of object lesson. They’ll say, ‘Well, if we had a country that was bound by the gospel, and, you know, that a lot of people in the country were Christians, you know, wouldn’t that be the answer?’ And we can see that. They’ll do it if they have to, but only if they have to.”

Does anyone have specific questions? Yes, Tammy, good and loud. There’s no other—no, I said extra-biblical. There’s no other place other than Revelation 20 in the Bible where the thousand years is specified. I would argue in several passages where there’s a kingdom period specified, but not the length, the duration of it as a thousand years. The two other places where a thousand years is mentioned are in extra-biblical Jewish writings. One, I think it was in Enoch, or one was in something from Hyrcanus or something, I forget exactly. But yeah. And sometimes, to be fair, in Jewish writings it’s described in other years as well, other lengths of duration.

Time for two more questions. Tell us your name. John. John. “At the end of the tribulation, those that are left—tribulations that are not going to be remarked more about, you know, the Antichrist—who will be left on the earth? At the end of the thousand years, who will be left? Are these going to be part of the blood-washed veins? Or are these some other people that were left in the interim that were not destroyed?”

Okay, let me make sure I understand the question. Are you asking who will populate the Millennial Kingdom? No, no. You remember in Zechariah 14, verse 16, it makes specific reference, after this time of judgment when Christ comes, it makes specific reference to those who are left. And evidently, the wipeout is not a total wipeout. Well, what I’m saying is evidently some unbelievers survive and enter into the Millennial Kingdom. Another answer would be—and this gets into another discussion entirely and I really don’t care to go there—but another answer in my view would be that at the second coming of Christ, associated in that time frame somewhere is the conversion of Israel. I would think so. I would think so. A lot of that though is… we have slight evidence, just slight. In fact, it raises an issue that I’d like to make plain. A lot of questions come up like that, and I can give you a hundred others. What about the temple? What about sacrifices? What about the Jews? What about the literal Jerusalem? A lot of those questions—and I think all of them are legitimate questions and worth pursuing as far as the scripture gives us information. But I don’t think we should let it distract us from the main question in this discussion, and that is: what is the broad stroke? What’s the broad picture here in the order of events? Is it the kingdom and then the coming, or is it the…