In our last chapter, we briefly discussed vital differences in hermeneutic approaches among sincere Christians. Should we use the same interpretive rules for all of the books in the Bible? For example, should we interpret the Song of Solomon in the same way that we interpret the book of Acts? One hermeneutical method is to use a literal approach when reading non-symbolic books and to reverse it (take everything symbolically unless the content forces a literal reading) with poetry or symbolic material. With this approach, interpretive rules for dreams, visions, and apocalyptic literature differ from those for history and narrative. A different hermeneutical method is to understand the entire Bible—every word in every book—literally, unless the context forces the reader to spiritualize it. Here is a typical quotation advocating the literal view of interpretation:
The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.
So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.[1]
Is this a valid assumption? In a previous chapter, we noted that the context of Psalm 22 qualifies as a good reason to view the word lion as figurative, but the context of Isaiah 11 is ambiguous. All agree the word lion in Psalm 22 refers to a person who acts like a furious lion. It is symbolic. The word lion in Isaiah 11, however, could refer to either a literal or a symbolic lion. The context allows for either hermeneutical move. One task, then, for those who adhere to the literal principle, is to establish clear qualifications for a good reason to spiritualize or allegorize.
It seems reasonable to spiritualize or allegorize passages when we find biblical precedence to do so. For example, both Abraham and David spiritualized the promises that God made to them, so we may confidently follow suit. We examined these cases in some detail in earlier chapters. If, however, we were to adopt the literal principle as stated above, we would have to conclude that Abraham and David had no valid reason to interpret those promises as they did. The last line of the above quotation reads: “When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.” But that is exactly what Abraham did! He spiritualized the promise of a physical piece of ground and looked forward in hope of heaven itself (Heb. 11:8-10). He saw the Promised Land as a type of heaven. Abraham’s understanding of the land promise, as recorded in Hebrews 11:8-10, contradicts (and perhaps invalidates) the literal principle of interpretation.
Let us further test the literal principle by applying it to Revelation 20:1-8. What parts of this passage may we read literally and what parts symbolically? Is the key that the angel holds a physical key, or is the word key here a figure of speech? Is the great chain the angel uses to bind Satan a literal chain or is it symbolic? Is the thousand-year imprisonment a real imprisonment, calculated in calendar years, or are both symbolic terms? Is one literal and the other symbolic? Again, it is important that we understand not only how we interpret a given passage, but why we interpret it as we do.
Let me quote the verses we will be looking at.
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (KJV)
Verses 1-3 depict a thousand year binding of Satan. The expressed purpose of this binding is to prevent him from deceiving the nations, which, up to that point, he apparently was able to do without interference. Verse 4 describes some unidentified persons sitting on thrones as judges. John also saw the souls (but not, apparently, the bodies) of some martyred saints who were beheaded for their faithful witness for Christ which included the refusal to worship the beast (or its image) or to bear its mark. All of these souls came back to life and reigned with Christ during the thousand year period that Satan was bound. In verse 5, John continues to recount his vision: the rest of the dead (the non-martyrs?) remained dead until the end of the thousand year era. John identifies the resurrection of the beheaded ones, prior to the end of the thousand years, as the first resurrection. Verse 6 describes those who have a part in the first resurrection as blessed and holy and states that the second death cannot hurt them—they are secure from any condemnation. These people are priests of God and reign with Christ during the thousand years. Are these verses describing a future, earthly millennium or is describing the church age?
The work of binding and the angel doing the binding likely refer to Christ, since he alone has the power to subdue Satan. Having stated that, I find nothing else in the first three verses to be literal except the curtailment of Satan’s power to deceive the nations. A bottomless pit is a geological impossibility. If we were to make two lists and label one literal and the other figurative, we would place bottomless pit in the latter, on the authority of the world as God has created it. John himself comments that the words dragon and serpent refer to Satan. So we place dragon and serpent in the latter list, on John’s authority. Based on what we know of the nature of Satan (gleaned from Scripture), we know that there is no literal chain that could bind him, nor any lock, key, or door, that could contain him. These items go on the figurative list, too, on the authority of Scripture. Furthermore, the language here, if taken literally, has the angel placing a seal over a bottomless pit. This, too, is impossible in the world as we know it. You cannot seal something that has no bottom. The only thing in these verses, other than Satan and the nations, that can go (but not necessarily must go) on the first list is the thousand years. But what hermeneutic principle dictates where to place the thousand years? If the words bottomless pit, key, chain, dragon, serpent, binding, and seal are symbolic, can we assume that the thousand-year span is also symbolic? This is not an unreasonable assumption since the phrase occurs in a book that is full of symbols.
Let us use the same approach to the phrase thousand years as we did with the rest of the passage. The world as we know it allows for a literal thousand years, so we cannot use that as a criterion to place this item on the figurative list. That does not automatically mean that we place it on the literal list, though. We have other criteria to consider. Does John qualify the thousand years in the way he does the words dragon and serpent? No. John himself does not assist us with the interpretation of this particular phrase. Does the rest of Scripture bear out the idea that one-thousand years must be literal or does Scripture sometimes use the term symbolically? This criterion is more helpful than the other two. Writers in Scripture use the word thousand in at least two different ways. Sometimes, the context makes it clear that they mean a literal one thousand. Sometimes, the context indicates that the writer is using the term symbolically to mean a real number that cannot be known. Consider the following texts where writers use the word in the second sense.
A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: a thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. (Dan. 7:10, KJV)
The NIV translates this phrase, Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. I think that Daniel means “a whole bunch of people,” or thousands upon thousands, ministered unto the Ancient of Days, and an “even bigger bunch,” or ten thousand times ten thousand, stood before him.
Hosea 1:10 states that, the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered, but the beings gathered around the throne in Rev. 5:11 was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousand. The phrase, “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, seems to be interchangeable with the phrase, “sand of the sea.” Ten thousand times ten thousand is a definite number but the number of the grains of sand is not a definite number. Both seem to be used symbolically.
And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; (Rev. 5:11, KJV)
The author of Psalm 50 uses the word thousand to indicate a large number.
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. (Psalm 50:10, KJV)
The context of the psalm makes it clear that God’s ownership of cattle is not limited to those who graze on a literal one thousand hills. The author is not implying that the cattle on all the rest of the hills belongs to someone else. God owns all cattle, not just those on one thousand hills.
I do not think that the Psalmist expects us to take the word thousand literally in Psalm 91:7.
A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it [the deadly pestilence] shall not come nigh thee. (Psalm 91:7, KJV)
Likewise, Paul never imagined that any of us would have ten thousand instructors.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Cor. 4:15, KJV)
One final text speaks clearly to the subject.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8, KJV)
In this passage, Peter is telling us that God’s schedule does not run the way our does. God is not limited or in any way restricted by clocks or seasons. One day, ten days, or a thousand years are the same to God. I am reminded of the story of the little boy asking God if it was true that one day was as a thousand years in his sight. God answered, “Yes.” The little boy then said, “Then a million dollars in your sight would be like a penny.” God replied, “Right again.” The boy then confidently said, “Would you give me a penny?” God said, “I would be glad to, in a minute.”
This brief survey does not establish that one thousand years in Revelation 20 must be understood symbolically and not literally; however, I think I have demonstrated that the term can possibly mean “a definite and real period of time that cannot be known.” I hope I have proven that biblical authors, in many instances, use the word one- thousand in a symbolic manner. This biblical evidence allows us to at least consider a figurative use in Revelation 20.
What happens to our understanding of Revelation 20:1-6 if we do indeed read one thousand as a large unspecified number? We have already established the binding of Satan as something depicted symbolically by the words key and chain. When we read that an angel bound Satan with a chain, we ought not to envision Satan wrapped in steel chains with a lock and the angel holding a big key. The binding of Satan refers to God restraining Satan’s power. If we ask, “Is Satan bound today,” the answer is, “Yes, if you compare his power now with what it was before the cross and Pentecost.” Remember that the binding has reference to one specific activity of Satan, namely, deceiving the nations. Prior to the incarnation, Satan, in some way, deceived the Gentiles. The incarnation changed that. With the advent of Messiah, Satan no longer deceived the Gentiles. That activity has been curtailed and will continue to be curtailed for a long, long time.
Someone might protest that writers of the New Testament documents sometimes refer to Satan as active and powerful (e.g., 1 Pet. 5:8; 1 John 5:19). Limiting one of Satan’s activities, and eliminating his power and activity all together are two different things. If you tie an animal to a fifty foot rope, you have bound him to a fifty foot territory. If you shorten the rope to ten feet, you have bound the animal to a ten foot territory. Either way, the animal is bound. In some sense, the cross bound Satan and prevented him from deceiving the Gentiles as he had been doing, or else our Lord’s redemptive work was ineffective. If that binding is the same as that described by John in Revelation 20, the Gentiles have some kind of freedom that they previously did not have. That freedom may be the opportunity to become part of God’s people without having to adopt Jewish identity markers such as circumcision, the observance of food laws, and other similar practices that separated Jews and Gentiles. I may be wrong in my understanding of what the binding work was, but we must have some kind of binding of Satan at the cross.
We have an instance in the Old Testament of Satan being bound. When God accepted Satan’s challenge concerning Job’s loyalty, God put a specific limit on how far Satan could go. He bound Satan with a “so far but no further” rope. He kept giving Satan more rope but Satan was always bound or limited in his power over Job. Today Satan goes about as a “roaring lion, seeking to devour whom he may” (1 Peter 5:8). Satan did not go about as a roaring lion in the Old Testament. He did not have to. The kingdoms of this world were all under his sway. It was only when his kingdom was invaded by Christ and he bound Satan that Satan roared (Matthew 12:22-29). As long as the world “lays in the lap of the wicked one,” his kingdom is secure.
John, in his vision, sees certain people who had been dead come back to life and live and reign with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead remained dead for a long, long time—they lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This does not necessarily mean that once the long time ended, the rest of the dead came to life, although that certainly is one way to read it. It could mean that they never lived again. An example of this use of the phrase is 1 Samuel 15:35.
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. (KJV)
This does not mean that Samuel stayed away from Saul up to the point of Saul’s death, but then he came to see Saul at the time of Saul’s death; it means that Samuel never again saw Saul.
John then adds that this is the first resurrection. While there is much debate on what John’s words in verses 3 and 4 mean, the words “this is the first resurrection,” in verse 5 are much easier to understand.
First, John is not introducing a new idea. What he says about the first resurrection is truth his readers already know. The same John who wrote Revelation also wrote the gospel of John. In that gospel, he refers to the same two resurrections. In Revelation 20:5, John refers again to the same two resurrections. Look carefully at what John wrote in his gospel.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:24-29, KJV)
John, in verse 24, declares that a person becomes a child of God (has everlasting life) through faith in God’s word. John describes this experience as “passing from death unto life.” The movement from death to life is resurrection. This “first resurrection” occurs when someone believes what Jesus said about himself. It took place in the first century and continues to take place now. Every child of God takes part in this resurrection. This resurrection refers to regeneration. In regeneration, God places spiritual life into a person who previously was spiritually dead. The resurrection is spiritual. John is emphatic, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. People who are spiritually dead are right now made alive spiritually. Sinners who are “dead in sin” are “quickened,” or made alive (Eph. 2:1). These words are not talking about a future millennium, they are talking about today. The first death (in the garden) was spiritual; the first resurrection is spiritual. Adam did not die physically the moment he ate the fruit; he died spiritually and began to die physically. In the first resurrection, the Holy Spirit breathes spiritual life into a dead soul. John describes this infusing of spiritual life as “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God.”
What happens in a resurrection? Dead people leave the state of death. That is what happens in the new birth. Spiritually dead sinners “hear the voice of Christ;” they are regenerated; they come alive spiritually. They come out of the graveyard of sin and unbelief. In addition to the spiritual resurrection, a physical resurrection will take place at the second coming. Jesus taught Nicodemus that regeneration, the first resurrection, was invisible, but that Nicodemus should not marvel about that (John 3:5-8). Jesus repeats the admonition to not marvel in John 5:28 when he speaks about another resurrection that will take place in the future, connected with judgment. Notice carefully that there is an “hour that is coming and now is”—the present age in which we live, in which the first resurrection (spiritual) takes place—and another “hour that is coming”—the future age, in which the second resurrection (physical) takes place. This second resurrection includes all who are in the graves, believers and unbelievers alike. Everyone who is physically dead shall hear the voice of Christ and come forth. This “hearing the voice of Christ” is not regeneration. It is not being effectually called out of the graveyard of sin; it is being brought out of a physical graveyard to face God in the final judgment. This resurrection, which includes all humanity, sometimes is referred to as “the great white throne of judgment.”
Jesus’ words here indicate that both the good and the bad, believers and unbelievers, are present at the judgment. If we read Revelation 20:1-6 with the literal principle, we have to place one-thousand years between the resurrection of those who have done good and those who have done evil. We have to posit two resurrections separated by a millennium, in which case, the verses here would read this way:
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And SOME shall come forth AND BE RAPTURED; THIS REFERS TO THE CHURCH, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, THE REST OF MANKIND will be RAISED 1,000 YEARS LATER AT the resurrection of damnation.
Where the writers of the biblical text have two hours and two resurrections, the literal principle requires three hours and three resurrections. On this view, the phrase, “all shall hear his voice” in verse 28 does not mean “all at the same time.” Those who died in a state of grace will be raised from the dead and joined to the living saints. These people will ascend bodily into heaven. This is Christ coming for his saints. One-thousand calendar years later, Christ will return with his saints. Then, the rest of the dead (unbelievers) will be physically raised from the dead and will stand before God in judgment. Believers do not appear at this judgment in that system.
John’s description of those who take part in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6) indicates people who live prior to the second coming.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
These people are:
blessed,
holy,
the second death cannot harm them,
they are priests before God,
they reign with Christ for a thousand years.
I think all will agree that the first four things mentioned all apply to Christians who live in this present age (after the incarnation and before the Second Coming). Children of God are blessed (Matthew 5:1-11) indeed. God has given them every spiritual blessing and already seated them in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:6). The word “holy” carries two connotations: set apart or chosen, and righteous and acceptable to God. Both meanings apply to believers, but only to believers. They alone are chosen and set apart as God’s special possession. They also are totally justified and sanctified in Christ. No death of any kind can truly harm Christians. They are robed in the righteousness of Christ. There can be no condemnation to any who are in Christ (Romans 8:1). All Christians are priests and kings and members of the royal (kingly) priesthood (1 Peter 2:5, 9).
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: (1 Peter 2:9, KJV)
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (Rev. 1:6, KJV)
It would be intellectually dishonest to state or to imply that the position and understanding that I have set forth is problem free. I have more than one unanswered question. However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this series, every view has problems. A crucial question for New Covenant theologians is this: Does any one view of prophecy make it intellectually, and biblically, mandatory that a New Covenant theologian hold to that particular view of prophecy? Is there a biblical New Covenant hermeneutic that settles the question of prophecy? I think I have demonstrated that a non-dispensational and non-millennial view of prophecy is plausible, but I make no claim that I have proven that such a view is mandatory.
I would appreciate feedback from our readers. My primary concern is whether my New Covenant friends think that the subject needs an open discussion or that it should be left alone. On the one hand, I am not interested in creating a split among those New Covenant folk who espouse some form of dispensationalism/premillennialism and those who hold to amillennialism. On the other hand, I am slow to say, “The Bible is not clear on the subject so we will not talk about it.” I remember my frustration when my Arminian friends used that rationale to opt out of discussions when we tried to talk about Calvinism. It seems to me that it is time to develop (or to attempt to develop) a biblical hermeneutic for New Covenant theology.
At this point, I question if the Literal, Grammatical, Historical Methodology is consistent with New Covenant theology. Perhaps I do not understand the former correctly, but the material I presented on Abraham and David’s understanding of the promises God gave them seems to contradict the presupposition that underlies the literal method of hermeneutics. Can one insist that the new covenant must interpret the old covenant and hold to the literal hermeneutic at the same time? What happens when a new covenant writer spiritualizes an old covenant statement? I hope I have convinced everyone that our rejecting of both premillennialism and dispensationalism does not turn us into allegorizing twenty-first century Origens.
In our next chapter, we will look at several passages that seem to me to invalidate the premises upon which the Literal, Grammatical, Historical Methodology rests.