In most discussions of biblical prophecy, attention quickly turns to Revelation 20:1-9. The obvious reason for this turn is that this passage is the only place in all of Scripture that mentions a thousand year reign of Christ. Both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures include references to an eternal kingdom, but only Revelation 20:1-9 mentions a thousand year kingdom. One way of reading this passage, that is employed by premillennialists, views the thousand years, along with the rest of the passage, as literal, natural language. On this reading, one thousand years must mean one thousand calendar years of three-hundred and sixty-five twenty-four hour days. Other ways of reading conceive of the thousand years in a spiritualized sense. Both ways of reading, however, pose interpretive difficulties. The primary goal of this book is to explore the difficulties posed by a pre-millennial reading of Revelation 20:1-9. Some of those difficulties have a serious nature. The secondary goal is to remind readers that one’s hermeneutic determines one’s prophetic view. Thus, prophetic views reflect a commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The variations between views arise from different rules for interpreting those inspired Scriptures. I want to be as emphatic as I possibly can that this discussion is an in-house disagreement. All parties in this discussion, whether premil, amil, or postmil, adhere to the doctrine of inspiration.
How, then, do we read Revelation 20:1-9?
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He 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 time, he must be set free for a short time.
I 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 worshipped 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 for a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed 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.
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and 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. They 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. (NIV)
One significant point about the millennium in this passage concerns the binding of Satan: “…he seized…Satan, and bound him for a thousand years” (verse 2).
The stated purpose of this thousand year imprisonment is to prevent Satan from deceiving the nations: “…and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended” (verse 3).
When the thousand year period has ended, Satan will be loosed for a season and once more will deceive the nations: “After that he must be set free for a short time.… from his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations…” (vv. 3, 7, 8).
According to this passage, Satan experiences certain conditions during certain times. Perhaps a chart will help us visualize those conditions and their corresponding timeframes.
| First Time Frame | Second Time Frame | Third Time Frame |
| Satan Not Bound | Satan Bound | Satan Freed |
| Satan Deceives Nations | Satan Cannot Deceive Nations |
Satan Deceives Nations |
Here, John follows a device used by other authors of Scripture—they employ categories to divide history. Peter divides it in relationship to judgment (2 Peter 3:5-7, 13). He writes of the world that WAS (before the judgment of water—the flood), the world that NOW IS (after the judgment of water and before the judgment of fire—the conflagration), and the world TO COME (after the judgment of fire). Paul, in Romans, divides history according to the law. There was a time before the law was given (Romans 5:13); a time after the law was given (Roman 5:20); and a time of “not under the law,” (Romans 6:14). John, in Revelation 20:1-9, divides time according to the activity of Satan. There was a time when Satan was free to deceive the nations. At some given point in time, he is bound so he cannot deceive the nations. And there is a time when he is released and is again free to deceive the nations.
It is imperative that we identify exactly when John’s distinct eras occur in history. When does each timeframe begin and when does each one end? All parties in this discussion agree that the first timeframe (Satan is free) begins at Genesis 3:7 with the entrance of sin into God’s creation and Satan’s victory over Adam. At that time, Satan became the god of this world, holding this world captive to his power. He was free and unrestrained in deceiving the nations. Upon the entrance of sin, God immediately promises that One will come who will defeat Satan and destroy his power.[1] We all read this promise to refer to Christ who will “bruise Satan’s head” (destroy his power) at the expense of “bruising his own heel,” that is, dying (Gen. 3:15). This promise was the hope of God’s people prior to the first coming of Christ. There is little disagreement that Genesis 3:15 refers to the cross as the means of bruising Satan’s head, but there is great disagreement over the relationship between that bruising and the binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1-9).
John’s first timeframe ends with the binding of Satan for the purpose of protecting the nations from his deceit. This binding ushers in the second timeframe. This second timeframe, during which Satan is continually bound, must be John’s thousand year reign (he mentions it six times in Rev. 20-1-9, all within the context of this second timeframe). All of this seems quite clear. What is not as clear, perhaps, is the historical setting of this second timeframe. Many passages of Scripture indicate that this second timeframe (the time when Satan is bound) begins with the first coming of Christ.
Consider Colossians 2:15: And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. It would seem that Paul viewed the cross as the time when Satan was conquered and defeated. Matthew, too, seems to think that Jesus bound Satan and spoiled his house.
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house. (Matt. 12:22-29, KJV)
If Matthew’s binding is the same as John’s binding, then the second timeframe began with the work of Christ during his first advent. Mark also uses this theme:
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. (Mark 11:21-22, KJV)
The strong man is Satan and the stronger man is Christ. By offering Christ a different path to his (Satan’s) goods, Satan tried to avoid being bound. He offered Christ all the kingdoms the world if he would bow down and worship him.
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” (Matt. 4:8-9, NIV).
Satan offered Christ the very thing he came to secure. With that offer came the temptation to secure the goal by a different means—without going to the cross. Satan could deliver his goods—all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor—apart from the pain and shame of the cross. The world was Satan’s to give. It was under his control. True, he stole it, but it was still under his control. By wresting the kingdom from Satan, Christ destroyed his armor and disempowered him. Satan’s armor is ignorance and unbelief. He has “blinded the minds of them that believe not.” He has deceived them.
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor. 4:4-6, KJV)
If Christ had accepted Satan’s offer of a peaceful exchange of leadership, Satan would have retained his power and his armor, and remained unbound and unrestrained. He would have been free to mount guerilla raids on Christ’s kingdom, to take captive citizens of that kingdom, to threaten the stability and security of that kingdom, and to keep Christ from building his kingdom according to his plan. The gospel—the good news—is that Christ has defeated and bound Satan, thus freeing his people from Satan’s power. Of course, if Christ would have taken Satan’s offer, Satan would have said, “Well done thou good and faithful servant, here is what I want you to do next.”
Paul and the authors of the Gospels view this second timeframe as the period during which God spoils Satan by fulfilling the Messiah-promises recorded in the Old Testament. The gospel age, with its preaching to every tribe and tongue, with its light and liberty that dispels the ignorance and darkness that reigned since Adam’s fall, names and identifies John’s second timeframe. This view accords with amillennialism. Premillennialism, however, does not identify the second timeframe with the gospel age, but with the second coming. This raises the question of where Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension fit on the chart we sketched earlier, as well as how to regard the binding that will occur at the Second Coming.
| First Time Frame | Second Time Frame | Third Time Frame |
| Satan Not Bound | Satan Bound | Satan Freed |
| Satan Deceives Nations | Satan Cannot Deceive Nations |
Satan Deceives Nations |
Premillennialism teaches that the thousand year binding of Satan takes place at the second coming of Christ. In this view, the second coming marks the beginning of the second timeframe, thus placing the first coming, the cross, and the gospel age in the first timeframe, which the text marks as characterized by Satan remaining free to deceive the nations. This seems difficult to reconcile with the biblical passages cited above that indicate that the first coming, the cross, and the gospel age are all evidence that Satan has been bound and his power spoiled. Premillennialism recognizes that the text of Revelation 20:1-9 requires a binding of Satan that ushers in the second timeframe, but their system necessitates that the cross was not the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15. Premillennialism’s commitment to a literal thousand year reign prevents them from placing the first coming, the cross, and the gospel age at the beginning of the second timeframe. If they were to do that, the year AD 33 or thereabouts would mark the beginning of the second timeframe and the year AD 1033 or thereabouts would mark the end of the second timeframe. That would place everything after AD 1033 in the third timeframe, which would mean that the first resurrection is over (those who came to life and reigned with Christ, v. 4); Christ’s millennial reign is over; and the second resurrection is over (the rest of the dead who come to life at the end of the thousand years, v. 5). All that is left is the final battle and the conflagration described in Revelation 20:7-10.
The scenario sketched above shows what happens if we accept the biblical evidence that indicates that Satan was bound and spoiled by Christ’s cross work and we retain a literal interpretation of a thousand years. In this view, Christ’s millennial reign included such historical events as the writing of the texts that became the New Testament, the Jewish War with Rome and the subsequent destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, various persecutions and martyrdoms, and the legitimization of Christianity in the Roman Empire. It also encompassed the great ecumenical councils with their development of orthodoxy, the brief and unsuccessful attempt of Julian to return Rome to a pagan state, and the eventual edict of Theodosius making Christianity the official state religion of Rome. This historical era also saw the establishment of Islam and the rise of Rome as the power center of the church. Christ’s reign ended, according to a literal view of the thousand years, just prior to the Crusades, which began in 1095.
While it might be possible to spin all the historical events that occurred between AD 30-ish and AD 1030-ish as reflecting the victorious thousand year reign of Christ, other events included in John’s vision of the second timeframe did not occur. So far as we know, martyrs did not return to life and rule as priests until 1030. Nor did a great resurrection of the non-martyred dead occur after 1030. Furthermore, some of the significant events within the premillennial description of the millennium failed to occur. The temple described in Ezekiel was not built, nor were sacrifices re-established. Large numbers of Jews have not converted to Christianity. The curse remains on nature, contrary to premillennial expectations. It would seem that there is no way to view Christ’s first advent, the cross, and the gospel age as fitting into the second timeframe while at the same time retaining a literal reading of Revelation 20:1-9.
One way out of this difficulty is to keep a literal hermeneutic (maintain a literal thousand years) and deny that Satan is currently bound according to John’s view of binding. This hermeneutic move drives a wedge between John’s use of binding and that of the other authors of the New Testament texts. Texts (apart from Revelation) that utilize the binding theme assert some kind of victory of Christ, but not the victory promised by Genesis 3:15. Those who accept this hermeneutic have to be prepared to biblically answer others who ask what Christ accomplished in his redemptive work on the cross. What kind of binding and spoiling are Matthew, Mark, and Paul discussing?
One’s hermeneutic drives one’s understanding of the relationship between the cross and God’s promise in Genesis 3:15. Did Christ, in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, fulfill Genesis 3:15, or is that promise awaiting a future fulfillment—a future binding and spoiling of Satan? The hermeneutic determines whether you believe that Christ conquered sin, death and Satan by his redemptive cross work.
Premillennial readings of Revelation 20:1-9 pose other difficulties as well. One of these difficulties is that of equating the camp of God’s people, the city he loves (v. 9), with the physical nation of Israel. In this view, ethnic Israel is the focal point of God’s activity during the millennium. When I hear some people talk about the millennium as the time when God manifests his great power by dealing once more with Israel, I think about a football game. The first half (God’s first dealings with Israel) is over and everyone is eagerly awaiting the second half (the resumption of God’s dealing with Israel). But first, we have to get through halftime (God’s dealing with the church). Halftime is marked by a marching band, the performance of some famous singers, and goodness knows what else. Few people, however, are paying much attention to the halftime show. Many folks have gone to get food or to use the restroom. The mood is anticipatory. The conversation is about what is going to happen in the second half—when the interesting and important action occurs. Until then, not much of real consequence is happening. Halftime is merely killing time.
So it is when some people describe the millennium. Israel is the real chosen people of God. They are analogous to a train, removed from the main track and temporarily set aside. Meanwhile, God has put the church on the main track. At the second coming, God will take the church off the track altogether (he raptures it, taking it out of the world), and he will put Israel back on the main track—he will resume his program for Israel. The second half of redemptive history will begin, and God will finally fulfill his promises for Israel. Those days will display God’s great glory and power. We live in a time of great expectation for the second half, when the really amazing manifestations of God’s power will take place. God’s primary interest is Israel; the church is only a parenthesis until he resumes his dealings with Israel.
I cannot predict the future for either Israel or the church, but I do know one thing for sure. The greatest display of the wisdom, power, and grace of God the world will ever see is the cross and the salvation and transformation of rebels into the image of Christ. Nothing will ever eclipse the church as a manifestation of God’s grace and power. No upcoming second half will upstage the church.
I once heard a famous preacher, I think it was Vernon Magee, say, “If William Pettingill held a conference in our church on the ‘Marks of the Beast,’ the auditorium would be full every night. If Harry Ironsides held a conference in our church on ‘The Person and Work of Christ,’ there would be more empty seats than occupied seats.” The preacher then made this observation: “Something is amiss when God’s people are more interested in knowing about the Beast than they are in knowing about Christ.”
This kind of thinking does not grow out of a vacuum. Hermeneutics promote ideas. One of the serious consequences of a premillennial prophetic view is its inadvertent diminution of the cross, the resurrection, and the ascension. What are the correct rules we should follow in interpreting the Bible so we are Christ-centered, not Israel-centered, in our conclusions? Are there special rules we should use for understanding the Bible or do we use the same rules for interpreting the Word of God that we use when reading the newspaper? Do we interpret all of the books in the Bible the same way? The Bible is not one book with sixty-six chapters; it is one book that contains sixty-six individual, self-contained books. Some of those sixty-six books are poetic texts, some are historical texts, some are apocalyptic texts, filled with symbols, and some are a mix of more than one literary genre. Regardless of their respective genres, all sixty-six books are in some way related to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ our Lord. The sixty-six books constitute only one Bible.
When we start thinking about rules for interpreting Scripture, the first question is this: Do we use the same method of interpretation when studying the Song of Solomon as we do when interpreting the book of Acts? Are books like Ezekiel and Revelation, which everyone agrees are full of symbolic language, to be interpreted in the same way as Romans? Is it the case of a one-size-fits-all interpretive strategy, or does poetry need a different hermeneutic[2] than history does? Do we approach Revelation with a literal hermeneutic that takes every word in its natural meaning unless the context forces us to take it symbolically, or do we reverse our interpretative method and take everything symbolically unless the context forces us to take it literally? If we adopt the first method, we will likely fit into a dispensationalist camp. If we use the second method, we likely will not fit into dispensationalism.
No one argues that we should take every word and statement in Scripture literally. Everyone spiritualizes and symbolizes some passages. Thus, the question is not, “do we spiritualize some things in the Bible?” The question for our purposes is how do I know when to take something literally and when to take it symbolically? Context often indicates which hermeneutic move to use. We all agree that Genesis 3:15 describes Christ’s defeat of Satan, and none of us believes that Jesus literally bruised Satan’s heel. The text depicts the cross in symbolic imagery. It uses metaphoric language. So far as I know, no one involved in this discussion believes that Jesus wants us to pluck out an offending eye and cut off an offending hand. We would all agree that Jesus is speaking metaphorically for effect.
David, in Psalm 22, uses metaphor. When he writes, “But I am a worm…v.6; Many bulls have compassed me…v.12; as a roaring lion…v.13, Dogs have compassed me…v.16; Save me from the lion’s mouth…, the wild ox’s horn… v.21,” we know that we are not to take the words, “bulls, worm, dogs, lion, and ox” literally, but symbolically. Psalm 22 pictures our Lord on the cross. Wild animals did not surround our Lord when he was on the cross. He was in the presence of people who acted like dogs, lions, wild oxen, and raging bulls. When the psalmist writes, but I am a worm and not a man, he did not mean that Jesus changed species, morphing from human into worm.
Isaiah also uses animal imagery (Isa. 11), but for different effect. He mentions lions and other animals who act in a manner contrary to their nature. The young lion is having straw for lunch and then taking a nap with a fatling.
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. (Isa. 11:6, 7, KJV)
Dispensational hermeneutics allow for lion in Psalm 22 as metaphor: it means ungodly men acting like roaring lions. However, a dispensational reading of lion in Isaiah 11 takes the word literally: it means a real four-legged lion. In Psalm 22, lion refers to a man acting like a lion, but in Isaiah 11, the same word refers to a lion acting like something else. Dispensationalists may be correct in their conclusion, but what interpretive rules guide them? Both passages allow a poetic reading, so why would we take the word lion literally in one passage (Isaiah 11), and symbolically in another (Psalm 22)? Contextually, both passages refer to the time of Messiah. Both passages have something to say about the nature of Messiah’s kingdom. Psalm 22 indicates the violent means by which Messiah wins the kingdom and the equally violent nature of those outside the kingdom. Isaiah 11 describes the peaceful nature of the citizens of the kingdom after it has been established. What indicates that we ought to interpret lion in Isaiah 11 as a four-legged animal instead of as a symbolic picture of a two-legged man? Why can we not consider Isaiah to be referring to someone like Saul of Tarsus, whose nature was transformed from that of a roaring lion into a gentle lamb by the power of the gospel? Your theology may not allow you to believe it, but Saul of Tarsus, transformed by the gospel and eating with Christ’s lambs, instead of eating them or persecuting them unto death, fits Isaiah 11 quite nicely, just as the symbolic language of beastly behavior fits Psalm 22.
Let me add that I have no problem believing that the scenario described by Isaiah 11could take place in a literal sense during a millennial reign of Christ if God so willed it. God can easily change the nature and the digestive system of a lion. However, I do not find any New Testament evidence that Jesus shed his blood so that a lion can eat straw. Our Lord died to change the nature of human beings, not the nature of animals.
It is neither my intention nor my hope to convert anyone to my prophetic view. It is my intention, however, to raise awareness about the link between hermeneutics and prophetic views. Hermeneutics drives theology. All theologies, including NCT, derive from an interpretation of the promise/fulfillment motif and its significance for the nature of the kingdom of Christ. It is also my intention to refute the notion that rejection of the hermeneutics of both dispensationalism and Covenant theology equates with rejection of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. It is my hope that all parties in this discussion will acknowledge that the people who read lion symbolically in Isaiah 11 love God’s Word just as much as do those who read it literally, and vice versa. It is also my hope that we will clearly understand why we read as we do.
In our next chapter, we will look at the first rule of hermeneutics held by most Christians and unanimously among dispensationalists. Andy Wood, in his extremely informative article, “Literal, Grammatical, Historical Methodology”[3] uses this definition:
Post-reformation biblical interpretation employs what is called the literal, grammatical, historical method of interpretation. Let us break this phrase down into its component parts. The dictionary defines literal interpretation as that type of interpretation that is “based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning…not going beyond the facts.” Two concepts seem to be in view. First, according to Ram, literal interpretation encompasses the idea of assigning to every word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage, whether employed in speaking, writing, or thinking.[4]
Wood then refers to this method of hermeneutics as “Cooper’s Golden Rule of Interpretation” and states that it “incorporates such an understanding of literalism:”
When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.[5]
We will apply this principle to Revelation 20:1-9 to determine whether to apply a literal or symbolic approach to the term one-thousand years and other words in the text.