Questions for My Amillennialist Friends

We continue our discussion of the end times... specifically two different views of the Millennium. Justin posted some questions to Historic Premillennialists, I gave some answers, and he responded to my answers. Now, here are some questions for my friends who hold to the Amillennialist view.

1) Why do Amillennialists inconsistently interpret the phrase "came/come to life" in Rev. 20?
Here's the text in question, "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" (Rev. 20:4b-5). Is it likely that John uses this phrase in two very different senses (physical and spiritual) in such close proximity with no contextual clues that he is doing so? If those believers came to life in the spiritual sense, how can it be said of unbelievers that they come to life after the thousand years?

2) Why do Amillennialists insist on a spiritual/abstract reign of the saints, when the Bible seems to indicate something different?
Rev. 2:26-27 says, "The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father." These words to the church in Thyatira indicate that the authority to rule the nations is given to those who keep his works until the end. This goes along with 2 Tim. 2:12, where the condition for reigning with Christ is enduring.

In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he admonishes them for acting like they rule in this present age (4:8). Instead he says that he and the other apostles are exhibited as "last of all, like men sentenced to death," and "a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men," and "the scum of the world, the refuse of all things." This life is characterized by persecutions and sufferings as we eagerly await our redemption and the coming of Christ in glory. In chapter 5, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for judging those outside. Rather they are to judge those inside the church.

In what sense, then, do we reign with Christ and rule the nations?

3) Why do Amillennialists weaken the binding of Satan and how do they get around verses that indicate Satan still deceives and must be resisted?
Amillennialists insist on weakening the figurative binding of Satan in Rev. 20. The words that describe his binding include him being thrown into a pit which is shut and sealed. Further, Satan is described as being "in prison" so that he might not deceive the nations. After he is released, then he will be able to deceive them again. This binding seems much greater than just a "restriction" and it seems that Satan is still at work "blinding" unbelievers to the gospel.

"...the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ..." (2 Cor. 4:4).

"Be soberminded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world" (1 Pet. 5:8-9).

A bound and imprisoned dragon and a prowling and roaring lion are two very different images. Why do Amillennialists weaken the binding of Satan and how do they get around the previously cited verses?

4) Why didn't Jesus correct his followers in Acts 1:6-7?
Admittedly, this is not a strong question or argument (not really an argument at all). But, it is an interesting observation. The apostles asked Jesus if he would then, at that time, restore the kingdom to Israel. They were waiting for a physical kingdom in which Jesus ruled. This was the expectation of the Jews at the time. Of course, they got it wrong in that the Messiah first came as a suffering servant. But the apostles were still expecting a physical kingdom of which Jesus would be king.

It is interesting that Jesus doesn't correct them in their view of this. Instead he says that "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority..." If the kingdom was only spiritual, then you would expect him to say something like, "You still don't get it do you?..." Again, this isn't an argument from silence... just an observation.

I think it is helpful and right for us to study and discuss these issues, for the Bible clearly teaches about the end times. I am thankful for good friends who stir up thinking and living for God. In our disagreements, let's remember some things on which we agree. There are others, but here are several that may turn our hearts to doxology:

1) Christ will return physically in power and glory to render to each one what is due, and to gather his people to himself, 2) We will be changed and mortality will be swallowed up by life, 3) We should live for him with all our might, not knowing he may return at any time, 4) We have a message (the gospel) and a mission to make Jesus known to all nations, for everyone is in desperate need of the good news. 5) We want him to come soon and our hearts cry together, "Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22:20).

Footnote: In coming up with these questions, I've taken a lot from Russell Moore's chapter in Akin's "A Theology for the Church," especially pages 908-909.