Answers from an Amillennial Friend

For those new to this conversation, I would encourage you to read the previous 4 posts:

One
Two
Three
Four

Jim, these were excellent questions. I hope you’ll be patient with me and this ridiculously long post as I seek to give answers that may help clarify the amillennial position.

Since three of your four questions deal with Revelation 20:1-10, and since this passage is pivotal in our debate, and since examining this passage will allow me to lay out more comprehensively the amillennial perspective, I will limit myself to trying to explain the amillennial interpretation of these few verses. I will first summarize the amillennial understanding of these verses, and then defend some key aspects of it – including those aspects you’ve questioned.

What does Revelation 20:1-10 teach? Put simply, I believe this passage teaches that Christ bound Satan through His resurrection, making it impossible for Satan to prevent His people in every tongue, tribe, and nation from being drawn to Him. This binding also prevents Satan from damaging in any way the salvivic security of Christians. Even when Satan appears to be winning the war (i.e., when Christians are killed for their testimony), it is actually the Christian who is the victor, since at his death he actually joins with Christ in reigning in heaven. Once the Gospel has been proclaimed to all nations and the full number of the elect have been gathered, Christ will allow Satan’s efforts to deceive the nations to have their full sway. All of the nations will be gathered together for a terrible battle against God’s people. Yet even at this time Christ will protect His people by totally destroying Satan and the nations.

Satan is defeated, Christ is victorious, and the saints are victors with Him. That is the message of Revelation 20:1-10.

Now, let me deal with five pertinent questions, including the three you brought up:

1. What is the connection between Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:1-10?
2. Why do Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan occurred at Christ’s resurrection and lasts till just before the end of the church age?
3. Why do Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan is a preventing of his ability to keep God’s elect throughout the world from being saved?
4. Why do Amillennialists believe that the resurrection of verse 4 is a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one (especially considering that the resurrection in verse 5 is physical in nature)?
5. Why do Amillennialists understand the reign of believers to be a spiritual reign rather than a physical one?

I. What is the connection between Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:1-10? As you know, premillennialists hold that the events of 20:1-10 chronologically follow 19:11-21. Amillennialists believe that Revelation 20:1-10 retells the events of 19:11-21 from a different perspective. Let me give a few reasons why I believe that the events described in Revelation 20 do not sequentially follow the events in Romans 19.

1. As you well know, almost all scholars of Revelation acknowledge that John uses recapitulation (describing the same events from different perspectives in distinct visions) – the only disagreement is over distinguishing the various places he does so. Amillennialists assert that the phrase “I saw” is a major indicator that in chapter 20, John is introducing a new vision. Why? Because it is through this phrase or others like it that he has previously introduced visions in Revelation (cf. 4:1; 12:1-3, 13:1-3, 14:1, 17:1-3).

2. The allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 in 20:8-10 concerning the battle of Gog and Magog reveal that this is almost certainly a retelling of the same battle described in 19:17-21, which uses the same allusions. In fact, Ezekiel himself describes the same battle in two different passages: one in Ezekiel 38, the other in Ezekiel 39, and it is very likely that John is following Ezekiel’s example here. Revelation stands in line with Old Testament prophecy and particularly Ezekiel in describing the same events from different perspectives in distinct visions.

3. A comparison with 16:12-16 shows that John has not only described these events previously in chapter 19, but in chapter 16 as well.

4. The premillennial argument that the Greek conjunction kai (the first word of Rev. 20:1) indicates historical sequence does not stand when one looks closely at the parallel uses in 7:2, 10:1, and 18:1. Almost all scholars of any stripe acknowledge that kai in these places do not indicate historical sequence, but actually a transition to a new vision cycle.

5. As mentioned in an earlier post, a chronologically sequential connection between Revelation 19 and 20 not only fails to have exegetical support, but it does not logically make sense. How can Satan deceive nations (20:3) that have already been deceived (19:19-20; cf. 16:13-16) and have been utterly destroyed by Christ at His return (19:11-21)?


II. Why do Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan occurred at Christ’s resurrection and lasts until just before the end of the church age? There are several passages of Scripture that teach this.

1. Within Revelation itself, we see this taught in relation to the “key” of Revelation 20:1. This key symbolizes Christ’s power and authority over Satan that was given to Christ as a result of His death and resurrection (cf. 1:18). What does it mean that Jesus is now the possessor of this key? In 3:7-9 we see that this means that Christ has authority and power to protect the church members in Philadelphia from the deceivers of “the synagogue of Satan.” Satan’s deception will not succeed because the Keeper of the Key will not allow it.

The main point for our discussion here, however, is that 3:7-9 and various other passages in Revelation speak of Jesus as Keeper of the Key using that authority to protect His people and to limit Satan not during some future period, but during the church age. As G. K. Beale says, “the ‘key of the abyss’ in 20:1 is similar to the keys in chs. 1, 3, 6, and 9, especially chs. 6 and 9, which all pertain to realities during the church age.”

2. There are a plethora of Biblical passages that affirm that Jesus’ decisive defeat of Satan (and thus His receiving of the “key”) occurred at His death and resurrection. See Mt 12:29; Mk 3:27; Lk 10:17-19; John 12:31-33; Col. 2:15; Heb 12:14; etc.

John 12:31-32 is particularly noteworthy. Jesus says, “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself.” Jesus speaks of a moment when the ruler of this world (Satan) will be cast out, thus allowing Him to draw all people (i.e., the nations) to Himself. Do you see the similarity with Rev. 20:1-3? Satan is bound so that God’s people will not be prevented from receiving the Gospel. And Jesus says that the time of this casting out is “now”. Then, for further clarification, John adds verse 33: “He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.” In other words, the time of Satan’s binding and the beginning of the Great Commission began at the time of Christ’s defeat of Satan through His death and resurrection. This passage, from another place in Johannine literature, teaches the exact same thing as Revelation 20:1-3. And it clearly refers to the church age, not some future age.

3. Jesus used the same picture (of binding Satan) to describe His own ministry in Matthew 12:28-29. Any careful exegesis of this text shows that Jesus is explaining that the kingdom of God has come – He is the King who has come to inaugurate the kingdom through His life, death and resurrection! And one of the evidences that Jesus points to in order to prove His point is His own ability to cast our demons by the Spirit of God. He goes on to say, “Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.”

Jesus is not saying that He will bind Satan one day in the distant future, but that in fact He was already binding Satan! That was why He was able to cast out Satan’s demons with such power! This binding began in Jesus’ ministry, was clenched by His death, and began in its current fullness at His resurrection.


III. Why do Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan is a preventing of his ability to keep God’s elect throughout the world from being saved? First, let me acknowledge that different Amillennialists speak about this binding in different ways. All amils agree that Satan has been bound in order to prevent him from deceiving the nations, but we differ in the nuances of what that means. My personal view is not that Satan is no longer seeking to deceive people, but that his power to deceive has been limited by God in order to make Gospel success possible. When Satan is unbound, his ability to deceive will lead to a worldwide effort to destroy God’s people (remember how Satan stirred up nations to come against Israel in the Old Testament?) But that time is being put off in order to allow for the Great Commission to be completed. God will save His people. Why do I hold to this interpretation?

1. That the purpose of Satan’s binding is to prevent him from having deceptive sway over the nations is explicitly stated in the passage.

2. That this is the purpose of his binding is also made clear in 20:7. When Satan is unbound, he deceives the nations and leads them into battle against God’s people. Thus, when he is bound, his efforts to deceive are checked by Christ’s power. But when he is unbound, his deceptions are believed by the nations.

3. That the purpose of this binding is to allow for Gospel success is explained by Christ Himself in the Johannine passage we examined earlier: John 12:31-32. Also, remember how Jesus began the Great Commission? “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations…” The idea is that Jesus now has the authority to guarantee Gospel success among the nations, and so He sends His apostles out. This authority includes the power to overcome and make ineffective Satan’s attempts to keep in blindness those Christ has chosen for Himself.

You, Jim, argue that this understanding “weakens” the binding of Satan in Rev. 20:3. Weakens it compared to what? The passage itself describes the nature of the binding, and Amillennialists believe wholeheartedly that Satan is truly bound in this way – he will not be able to deceive the nations as he desires until Christ allows him. He is truly bound.

But does the language of the text require a more “complete” binding of Satan? I don’t think so. Remember, Jesus said in John 12 that at His death Satan was being “cast out” in order for “all people” to be drawn to him. Almost every scholar agrees that the casting out in that passage refers to our present age. So before you ever get to Revelation 20, we learn that there is a sense in which Satan is currently “cast out”, and yet can still be described as prowling around like a roaring lion. Note that 2 Thessalonians 2:6-12 also seems to indicate that Satan is both active and yet in some sense restrained.

Speaking about God’s victory over evil spiritual forces at the cross, Colossians 2:15 says “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him [Christ].” So Satan and his forces are currently disarmed and put to open shame. Would we argue that this somehow contradicts the fact that Satan is still at work? Of course not! But it means his efforts cannot succeed. Also, read Jude 6. Is it not true that these demonic forces are both at work today and yet simultaneously “bound with everlasting chains”?

Hebrews 2:14-15 says that Christ took on our human flesh “that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.”

Consider these words from Robert Strimple: “Prior to Christ’s ministry Israel was the one nation called out from all the nations of the world to know God’s blessings and to serve him. There were exceptions, of course – those who came to know God’s grace even though they were not of the children of Abraham after the flesh. But essentially all the nations on this earth were in darkness, under Satan’s deception. But then, praise God! Christ came and accomplished his redemptive work. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out “on all people” (Acts 2:17), signifying the fact that the gospel of Christ is a gospel for all the nations, not just the Jewish people. The age of world missions had begun, and Satan’s deceptive work on that grand scale over so many centuries had come to an end.”


IV. Why do Amillennialists believe that the resurrection of verse 4 is a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one (especially considering that the resurrection in verse 5 is physical in nature)? In your question, Jim, you suggest that there are no contextual clues that give us the right to interpret the resurrection in verse 4 differently than verse 5. But I would suggest that there are many such contextual clues – in the passage itself, in Revelation, in Johannine literature, and in the New Testament! Let me mention a few of these:

1. First, we must dismiss the idea that John would not speak of a spiritual resurrection and then immediately speak of a physical resurrection in similar language. In fact, we know that he has done this kind of thing before: in John 5:19-29. In that passage he uses the same language over and over again, yet sometimes referring to a physical resurrection, other times a spiritual resurrection. Paul does a similar thing in Romans 6. If you have not already checked out this essay, be sure and do so.

2. There is a big clue in the Revelation 20:1-10 that John expects us to understand this first resurrection as a spiritual resurrection – namely, that he also speaks of a second death. Thus, John is echoing previous Biblical teaching that there are two deaths and two resurrections (all referred to in John 5:19-29). There is a physical death and a physical resurrection, there is a spiritual death and a spiritual resurrection. (By the way, let me be clear that I do not think that this spiritual resurrection is regeneration per se, but is rather a reference to the soul’s translation into the intermediate state. Christians will experience one death and two resurrections (a physical death, a resurrection of being ushered into eternal life, and a physical resurrection), unbelievers will experience two deaths and one resurrections (a physical death, a death of being ushered into hell, and a physical resurrection.)

3. The same word used in Revelation 20:4 (elesan) is used in the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel 37:10, and it seems very likely that John is seeking to echo that verse. If this is right, then it is important to note that the word in Ezekiel 37:10 is used in a spiritual sense, not a physical sense. (And, by the way, John probably expected many of his first century Greek-speaking readers to know that he was alluding to Ezekiel. In other words, for those who speak Greek, the allusion to Ezekiel 37:10 was a very big contextual clue as to the nature of this resurrection.)

4. The Biblical teaching throughout is that there will be only one physical resurrection of the dead. See, for example, Isaiah 26:19-21; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; John 6:39-40, 44, 54; Acts 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.

5. I wish I could say more here, but G. K. Beale’s commentary provides a 32 page tour-de-force explaining why this resurrection must be interpreted as a spiritual resurrection. His arguments are far to complex and lengthy for me to repeat here, but when followed they are quite convincing. I would strongly encourage you to check it out.



V. Why do Amillennialists understand the reign of believers to be a spiritual reign rather than a physical one?

1. Because verse 4 speaks of a particular group of saints who “come to life” in order to reign, namely, those “who had been beheaded.” In other words, these saints are physically dead. And since I understand their coming to life to refer to their translation into heaven and the intermediate state, their reigning would take place from heaven. Besides, they are reigning with Christ, and that is where He is!

2. Parallels in other passages seem to speak of a spiritual reign from heaven. See Rev. 6:9, 7:14-17, and Daniel 7:9-13 (note that the thrones in Daniel appear to be in heaven, not on earth).

3. Every other time thrones are mentioned in Revelation, they are in heaven. See 1:4, 3:21, 4:5, 6:16, 7:9ff., 8:3, 12:5, 14:3, 16:17, 19:4-5, 20:4, 20:11, 21:5, 22:1, 22:3. In fact, Revelation 20:4-6 is simply a fulfillment of what was promised in 3:21: “The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my father on his throne.”

I love what Poythress says here: "The picture in 20:4-6 thus answers a pressing question during times of intense persecution. When Christians are a weak minority, when great imperial powers are arrayed against them, is there any hope for victory? What happens when Christians are viciously put to death? It appears to the world that they have been decisively defeated. The persecuting authorities are very much alive and as powerful as ever, whil Christians have been simply wiped out. Christianity appears to be a hopelessly weak religion. Does God not care? Is he really in conrol? Can anything undo the defeat that Christians have suffered through their martyrdom? Revelation 20:4-6 answers that heavenly realities must be included in assessing the situation. And when we see these realities, the tables are completely turned. It turns out that it is impossible to defeat Christians. Even when demonic forces are ravaging the church, they are only establishing Christians in positions of real and permanent power!"

4. I must disagree with your assertion that Paul is admonishing the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:8) for acting as if they rule in this present age. Rather, Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for acting as if they rule already, before they had died and joined Christ in heaven. We will not reign until we have been made worthy of reigning – till we have been fully sanctified. The Corinthians were trying to live the exalted life before enduring the life of self-denial. Paul wasn’t telling them to wait till the millennium – he was telling them to wait till they were in heaven to live in exaltation. 2nd Timothy 2:12 is similar – we must endure in this life that we may reign in the next (i.e., after death).

5. Note, by the way, that this reign over the nations includes returning again with Christ to destroy Satan and the nations he deceives. You asked about Revelation 2:26-27? Compare it with Revelation 19:15. We who have died will return with Christ in judgment on this world (those Christians still on earth will be raptured up to join with us), and we will participate in the defeat of Satan.

Here is the great theme of Revelation! Those saints who seem to have been defeated through their death will actually prove to be the victors, participating with Christ in the outworking of the victory He achieved for us on the cross. We will be there the day that this world is judged, and we will see our great enemy the devil defeated. Praise God! Jesus is Lord!

Well, it’s really late, so I have to go to bed. Concerning your fourth question, let me point out that many Amillennialists do believe that there will be a restoration of national Israel before Christ comes back. Perhaps you think they are asking about a millennial kingdom? That doesn’t seem to be necessary. Therefore, I’m not so sure the question has much of an impact on our discussion.

For what it’s worth, I personally do not believe that there will be a restoration of Israel in the sense that some expect. But that’s a discussion for another time.

Good night all. God bless.

JN