In this essay a
brief overview of the three primary millennial perspectives—amillennialism,
premillennialism,[1]
and postmillennialism—will be followed by a succinct critique of the latter two,
and a defense of the amillennialism[2]
through the subsequent exegesis of the central points of contention in the text
of Revelation 20:1—6.
A Brief Overview of the Three Primary
Millennial Perspectives
The three general
views on Revelation 20 are premillennialism, which is subdivided into two views,
the historical and the dispensational, postmillennialism, and amillennialism.
Premillennialism
Premillennialism,
formerly called chiliasm,[3] boasts deep historical roots and
prominent patristic defenders, such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and
Tertullian.[4] As the prefix suggests, premillennialism looks for Christ’s second advent to precede the
millennium. This general perspective is
shared by two otherwise differing schools of premillennialists, historical and
dispensational.
Historic premillennialism
Historic
premillennialists generally hold that Revelation 6 – 19 has been largely
fulfilled in history.[5] According to Ladd, historic premillennialism
understands the vision of Revelation 20 as entirely eschatological; all that
pertains to Revelation 20 is still future and will be inaugurated with Christ’s
second coming.[6] That is to say, Jesus’ second advent will
result in the binding of Satan and the literal, physical resurrection of the
saints, who join Christ in reigning over the whole earth during a temporal
kingdom.[7] This earthly kingdom will last a thousand
years and terminate with a final rebellion and the judgment.[8]
The crux of the
entire exegetical problem, concerning Revelation 20, swings on the meaning of the
term ezēsan (“came/come to life,” vv.
4, 5).[9] Ladd explains, “If ezēsan in vs. 4 designates spiritual life at conversion, or life
after death in the intermediate state, we are faced with the problem of the
same word being used in the same context with two entirely different meanings,
with no indication whatsoever as to the change of meaning.”[10] From this, historical premillennialists
conclude that 20:1—6 is presenting two literal physical resurrections, which
are separated by the thousand year period.
Granting that the term ezēsan usually
signifies physical resurrection, this is certainly a strength of the
premillennial position.[11]
Dispensational premillennialism
One of the most
prominent proponents of dispensational premillennialism is John Walvoord, who
argues that dispensationalism is the most popular form of premillennialism.[12] The hallmark of the dispensational
premillennial view is that the millennium is “an aspect of God’s theocratic
program [for national Israel].”[13] This program is allegedly the fulfillment of
YHWH’s promise to David that his kingdom and throne would last forever, as the
Messiah ruled over the whole house of Israel.[14] This, according to the dispensationalism,
will lead to the literal fulfillment of many Old Testament promises to the
theocratic, national Israel, wherein Christ will be the supreme political leader
over the nations of the world for a literal thousand years. Moreover, dispensationalists hold a futurist
perspective; they understand all of the material from Revelation 4:1 through
chapter 22 to be still future.[15]
One
of the stronger dispensational arguments against contrary views is an indirect
one. Walvoord offers several texts that
would suggest that Satan is unbound throughout the church age and still fully
and actively at work.[16] In
fact, Walvoord contends that “There are few theories of Scripture which are
less warranted that the idea that Satan was bound at the first coming of
Christ,” and that “There is no evidence whatever that Satan is bound today.”[17]
Postmillennialism
The postmillennial
view is somewhat of a modern phenomenon, dating back to the seventeenth century
controversialist Daniel Whitby.[18] Since Whitby, the view has enjoyed the
support of heavy hitters such as B. B. Warfield,[19]
Charles Hodge, A. H. Strong, C. A. Briggs, and David Brown.[20] One of the better known modern scholars
within this tradition is Loraine Boettner, who describes postmillennialism
as that view of the last things
which holds that the Kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through
the preaching of the Gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the
hearts of individuals, that the world eventually is to be Christianized, and
that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of
righteousness and peace commonly called the 'Millennium.' It should be added
that on postmillennial principles the second coming of Christ will be followed
immediately by the general resurrection, the general judgment, and the
introduction of heaven and hell in their fullness.[21]
According to postmillennialism, the
present age will gradually merge into the millennial age, as an increasingly
larger proportion of the world’s inhabitants are converted to Christianity
through the preaching of the gospel.[22]
Boettner
suggests that a correct understanding of Matthew 28:18ff, commonly called the
Great Commission, justifies the postmillennial position. Boettner argues,
We believe that the Great
Commission includes not merely the formal and external announcement of the
Gospel preached as a ‘witness’ to the nations, as the Premillennialists and
Amillennialists hold, but the true and effectual evangelization of all the
nations so that the hearts and lives of the people are transformed by it. That
seems quite clear from the fact that all authority in heaven and on earth and
an endless sweep of conquest has been given to Christ and through Him to His
disciples specifically for that purpose.[23]
Sometimes more or less apparent,
through the evangelization of the nations, the world is becoming a better
place, as the gospel triumphantly marches forward. At some point in the future, this effectual
preaching will issue in the millennial age with all the attending blessings,
righteousness, and harmony.
Amillennialism
Amillennialism,
which might better be called inaugurated or realized millennialism, understands
the millennium as spanning the entire church age, from Christ’s first advent to
his second. Amillennialists “believe
that the millennium of Revelation 20 is not exclusively future but is now in
process of realization.”[24] Therefore, they believe that the binding of
Satan (vv. 1—3) is in effect throughout the interadvental period, and that the
second advent of Christ is a single rather than two-phased event at the close
of the present age.[25] Finally, amillennialists maintain that the
“first resurrection” is not a physical one; rather it signifies either regeneration[26]
or the translation of the souls of the faithful believers and martyrs to a life
in the presence of Christ in the spiritual dimension of heaven.[27] The present writer believes that a proper
exegesis of Revelation 20:1—6 produces conclusions most consistent with the
amillennial perspective.
A Cursory Critique of Pre- and
Postmillennialism
There
are three problems of significant proportion that vex both pre- and
postmillennialism alike. First, there is
no sense in the New Testament that the kingdom is postponed, which is required
by both alternatives above. When the
Pharisees questioned Jesus concerning the time of the kingdom’s coming, he responded,
“The kingdom of God is in your midst” (Lk. 17:20—21 NET).[28]
In Matthew 12:28 the Pharisees charged
Jesus with casting out demons by the power of the devil. Jesus retorted, saying, “But if I cast out
devils by the Spirit of God, then the
kingdom of God is come unto you.” The
conclusion follows thus: Jesus is casting out demons by the Spirit of God, therefore the kingdom of God is come! Additionally, in Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives
the “keys of the kingdom” to Peter, the representative of the apostolic church. Christ, therefore, has “made us a kingdom,”
both in this age (Rev. 1:6 RSV;
cf. 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 5:10; 20:6) and in the age to come, world without end
(Rev. 22:5). Therefore, Jesus
inaugurated the kingdom of God in his person, and continues it throughout the
present age by his Word and Spirit.
Second,
there is the fact that the millennium of Revelation 20 is not the earthly
millennium of either pre- or postmillennialism.
Revelation 20, in and of itself, is utterly wanting for any references
to ethnic Jews, Jerusalem, an earthy throne, Christ’s political supremacy, or a
temple “made of human hands” (Is. 66:1; Acts 7:48; 17:24, etc.). In fact, the view of the Jerusalem’s
architectural temple in the New Testament is grim; neither do the New Testament
authors offer a reason to look for another physical, man-made temple in the
future.[29]
A
third problem for the pre- and postmillennial views is one of hermeneutical
principle. That principle is scripturam ex scriptura explicandam esse or
‘scripture is to be explained by scripture.’
More than that, the clear portions of scripture are to serve as a guide
into the more ambiguous passages. This
interpretive dictum is agreed on by all evangelical expositors. As Neilson remarks, “The whole issue is one
of interpretation.”[30] The first ten verses of Revelation 20 are the
only mention of a millennium period in the Bible. These instances occur in the most
symbol-laden book in the New Testament.
The symbolism and imagery is admitted as being difficult and ambiguous
by all honest interpreters. The
amillenarian points out that, throughout the entire rest of the New Testament,
Matthew through Jude, nothing would suggest a literal thousand year reign of
Christ, a binary physical resurrection, or a two-fold second coming of
Christ. So, “those who espouse
amillennialism assert that Matthew – Jude is to govern the interpretation of
Revelation 20:1—10 and not Revelation 20:1—10 the interpretation of Matthew –
Jude.”[31] The rest of the New Testament provides plain
passages that set forth the idea of a single (physical) resurrection for the
just and unjust alike at the end of this age[32]
and a single judgment,[33]
both of which will be temporally connected with Christ’s one second
advent. Other millennial views, therefore,
invert the principle that the clear is to interpret the unclear.
The
following exegetical observations will deal further with the detailed
distinctions of these views over against that of amillennialism.
Revelation
20:1—3: The Binding of Satan
and the Thousand Years
The
amillennial view argues that, since this vision refers to the entire
interadvental period, the binding of Satan must have occurred during Jesus’
earthly ministry and is still on going.
In sharp contradistinction, Walvoord asserts, “There is no evidence
whatever that Satan is bound today.”[34] Walvoord’s assertion rests upon another
presupposition, which is that, the action of the angel “is so designed as to
render Satan inactive...completely inactive.”[35] This assumption must be challenged.
The
Purpose and Results of Satan’s Binding
The
purpose of Satan’s binding was so “that (hina)
he should deceive the nations no more” until the end of the thousand years
(Rev. 20:3). The hina clause of verse 3 signals the purpose or direct result of the
binding. This clause, argues Beale,
“indicates the main point of vv 1-3.”[36] That point is that Satan’s deception would
not so rule the nations as to curtail God’s plan to call out the multitude of
his elect “from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (5:9; cf. 7:9),
and so make “them a kingdom and priests to our God” (5:10; cf. 1:6; 20:6). The point, therefore, is that Satan’s binding
would prevent him from thwarting the missional expansion of Christ’s
priestly-kingdom, the church. As Beale
concludes, “Throughout the time between Christ’s first and second comings,
Satan will not be able to deceive any of ‘the full number’ (6:11) of those
purchased by Christ because they have been ‘sealed’ (7:1—8).”[37] If this conclusion were not so, then Christ’s
commission to his church to “Go...and make disciples of all nations, baptizing[38]
them” would have been a moot point (Matt. 28:19).
Regarding
the claim that there is no evidence whatever that Satan is bound today, if the
words and deeds of Jesus as recorded in New Testament is counted as evidence,
then Walvoord’s claim is of no account whatever. Through his cross-work, Jesus destroyed the
works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8), disarmed the satanic powers and principalities;
triumphing over them, he made a public spectacle of them (Col. 2:15). Having been lifted up on the cross, Jesus had
begun to “draw all peoples to [himself]” (Jn. 12:32 NKJV). Within just a few decades, the gospel of the
kingdom had gone from Jerusalem to the “ends of the earth,” Rome, the heart of
the beast; and, from there was continued by the Spirit, through Paul, “boldly
and without hindrance” (Acts 1:8; 28:31)! Indeed, within the first generation of the
church, Paul could boast that the gospel had “been proclaimed in all creation
under heaven” (Col. 1:23). Albeit
circumstantial, this is strong evidence that Satan had been bound by Christ’s
work during his first advent.
Satan,
Bound Up and Cast Out
Additionally,
there are linguistic evidences for the binding being accomplished during Jesus’
ministry. The term for “bound” in in
Revelation 20:2 is the aorist active indicative of deō. This same word is used
in the subjunctive mood in Matthew 12:29, the strong man parable. The
Pharisees had attributed Jesus’ exorcisms as being of satanic origin,
Beelzebub, “the prince of devils” (Matt. 12:24). Jesus exposed the internal incoherence and
contradictory nature of their reasoning (vv. 25—27), and then stated that by
the Spirit of God his despoiling the devils was certain evidence that God’s
kingdom had come, and that he was triumphing over Satan’s kingdom (v. 28). Pointing beyond the exorcisms to their
necessary precondition, Jesus declared that his power over the demons proved
that he did “first bind (deō) the
strong man [i.e., Satan]” (v. 29).
Therefore, Jesus’ exorcisms marked the presence of God’s kingdom and the
binding of Satan, and granted his disciples the power and authority for
serpent-stomping missions (e.g., Lk. 10:17—18).
As
noted above, Satan’s binding was for the purpose of unleashing the gospel
through the church’s militant missional conquest, thus reaching all nations. In part, this was accomplished by Satan being
“cast...into the bottomless pit”
(Rev. 20:3). “Cast” here is ballō.
Panicking that all their collusions had come to naught, the
Pharisees murmured, “Look, the world has gone after Him!” (Jn. 12:19 NKJV). Indeed, they were. John reports that one effect of the raising of
Lazarus was that certain Greeks at the feast “wish[ed] to see Jesus” (v.
21). This signaled that “The hour [had]
come that the Son of Man should be glorified” (v. 23), the very purpose of his
first advent, the cross (v. 27). “Now,”
said Jesus, “the ruler of the world [i.e., Satan] will be cast out (ekballō)” (v.
31). Here, then, the same author is using terms
from the same root, concerning the same results for the same subject. The cross both “cast” Satan out of his sphere
of power and drew the nations unto Jesus, freeing them from Satan’s deceptive
grip.
The
Thousand Years
In
second temple Judaism speculation regarding the duration of the messianic reign
abounded. Some thought that there would
be no intermediate messianic period at all, while other conjectures ranged
anywhere from forty to 365,000 years.[39] Although there is no simple formula for
determining whether or not the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 is meant
literal or symbolic, there are a number of exegetical principles for guiding
one’s interpretation.
Perhaps the most important of
these is to take into account the genre of literature of the passage. Poetry and apocalyptic use many different
types of image. If a text is highly
figurative in general, and if other numbers are used figuratively in the text,
then that would predispose the reader to treat a number as symbolic if it is a
number that is known to be symbolic elsewhere.[40]
In biblical imagery, seven is put
for qualitative completeness, whereas ten stands for quantitative fullness; it
stands for “manyness.”[41] A thousand therefore augments the intensity
of the image, being ten cubed (i.e., 10 x 10 x 10; a trinity of tens, perhaps?).[42] The number ‘a thousand’ is a favorite symbol
for vastness and quantitative completeness in scripture. Moses prayed that YHWH would make Israel “a
thousand times as many” as they were (Deut. 1:11). YHWH keeps covenant to “a thousand
generations” (7:9) and owns the “cattle on a thousand hills” (Ps. 50:10). Does this mean that the cattle on the
thousandth and one hill is owned by someone else, or that YHWH’s covenant
faithfulness is void in the thousandth and one generation? God forbid!
Thousand is highly figurative throughout scripture, and so too here in
Revelation 20, where symbols abound, it stands for a long, provisional period
of indefinite length. This conclusion
may be granted by historic premillenarians, postmillenarians, and amillenarians
alike. But how can the amillennialist
suggest that these thousand years encompass the entire period between Christ’s
first and second advent?
Ladd
recognizes that the key issue in this question is “whether chapter 20 involves
recapitulation, looking back from the end to the whole history of the church.”[43]
Although Ladd admits that recapitulation is present in Revelation, namely in
chapter 12, where it is “unmistakably clear that the passage looks back to the
birth of the Messiah,” he denies that in chapter 20, saying no such indication is
present.[44] However, as any decent cross-reference Bible
demonstrates, the background of Ezekiel 36 – 48 is central in John’s mind, and
thus should be also in our interpretation.[45] Premillenarians see Revelation 20 following
chronologically from chapter 19.[46] In Ezekiel, however, the battle of Gog and
Magog against the covenant people in chapter 38 is recapitulated in chapter 39;
it is the same battle.
This repeated allusion to Ezek.
38 – 39 points to the likelihood that [Rev.] 20:8—10 is a recapitulation of the
same battle narrated in 19:17—21, where allusions are made to the same battle
of Ezek. 38 – 39 together with the virtually identical expression “gather them
together unto war”....Indeed, both [Revelation] 19:17—21 and 20:8—10 recount
the same battle as 16:12—16, which is highlighted by the same phrase ‘gather
them together unto the war’ (cf.
16:14; 19:19). If 20:1—6 precedes the
time of 20:7—10, and if 19:17—21 is temporally parallel to the battle of 20:7—10,
then 20:1—6 is temporally prior to the battle of 19:17—21.[47]
Therefore, recapitulation is
apparently present in the context of Revelation 20 by means of crucial Old
Testament allusion and grammatical features.
This being so, John is transporting the reader back to the dawn of the
Christian era, thus re-reporting in succinct summary the events of the entire
interadvental period.
Revelation 20:4—6: The First Resurrection
It is worth
mentioning again that Ezekiel 37 – 48 serves as strong conceptual background
for the latter chapters of Revelation.[48] So, the interpreter must bear this fact in
mind as he considers the “first resurrection” of 20:4—5.
In Ezekiel 37 the
prophet portrays the vision of the valley of dry bones. In this passage the image of the dry bones
represents exilic Israel as spiritually dead (v. 11f.). YHWH promises that these bones, however, will
live again. Ezekiel is to prophesy to
the bones, saying, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause
breath/spirit (rûach) to enter you,
and you shall live” (v. 5). The prophet
is then commanded to beckon the breath to come into the bones (v. 9). The result was that “the breath came into
them, and they lived...an exceedingly
great host” (v. 10). The imagery of
resurrection in this passage is clearly figurative, looking forward to the
restoration of Israel. Three very
intriguing points flow from this passage into the Johannine concept of
resurrection.
First, there is
the phrase in verse 10, “and they lived,” which was the first result of the
pneumatic life entering. In the
Septuagint, this phrase is rendered καὶ ἔζησαν (kia ezēsan), which is the aorist active indicative of the verb zaō.
This is precisely the same phrase and form that John uses to express
what is translated as “and they lived” in Revelation 20:4, describing the “souls”
of the “blessed and holy” saints who enjoy the “first resurrection” (vv. 4,
6). Therefore, in the strongest allusive
background for this section of Revelation, there is in Ezekiel 37 a figurative,
or better spiritual, resurrection presented in the terms of καὶ ἔζησαν, the
very phrase that John uses to describe the event of the first resurrection of
20:4—6. There is, then, good evidence to
recognize John as intending the first resurrection to be understood as
spiritual. This conclusion is
corroborated by two other Johannine passages.
Second, then, is
John’s further allusive use of Ezekiel in the third chapter of his Gospel. In his dialogue with Nicodemus, Jesus presents
the condition of being “born again/from above” (“born anew,” so RSV) as the
precondition to seeing “the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3). This concept is explicated by the twofold
effect of being “born of water and the Spirit” (v. 5). The Old Testament background for the
water/Spirit connection is, again, Ezekiel 36 and 37 (see, esp., 36:25—27;
37:1—10).[49] In this, John is bringing forward the
spiritual resurrection motif of Ezekiel as the redemptive-historical grid for
understanding regeneration and Christian baptism, or what Paul refers to as “the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. 3:5). So, on two counts, John’s apparent use of
Ezekiel 36 – 37 serves as the coloring for the image of figurative or spiritual
resurrection both in his Gospel and the Revelation.
A third Johannine
passage of great import is John 5:24—29.
In this passage Jesus speaks of the believer passing “from death into
life” (v. 24), which is what happens “when the dead shall hear the voice of the
Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (v. 25). This is the “the hour,” which “is coming, and
now is”; that is, the spiritual resurrection of regeneration.[50] The transmission from death into life is
“eternal life” and is that which characterizes those who “shall not come into
condemnation” (v. 24). This parallels
John’s conception of the “first resurrection,” and the fact that for those who
partake of the first resurrection “over such the second death has no power”
(Rev. 20:6). If, as has been argued, the
“first resurrection” is spiritual, regeneration, and the “second death” is
condemnation to the lake of fire (20:14—15), then the clear teaching of John
5:24f. provides the paradigmatic parallel for understanding Revelation
20:4—6.
It may be added
that both of these Johannine passages go on to speak of the general physical
resurrection of both the just and the unjust, which is at an hour still coming,
at the completion of the millennium (Jn. 5:29 // Rev. 20:5). Therefore, John 5 offers a clear and parallel
passage for understanding Revelation 20:4—6 as presenting both a spiritual
resurrection, which begins with the dawn of the Christian era and runs
continuously throughout, and a general physical resurrection at the close of
this age, the millennium.
Conclusion
So,
pre- and postmillennialist alike look for an earthly millennial reign of
Christ, which is utterly missing from tenor Revelation 20; and, they hold that
the kingdom is postponed, which is contrary to the rest of the New Testament. Furthermore, they turn a more basic
hermeneutical principle on its head by reinterpreting Matthew through Jude in
terms of the symbol-laden passage of Revelation 20:1—10. These are three fundamental problems with the
pre- and postmillennial views. The
forgoing has attempted to demonstrate that the provisional binding of Satan
serves to prevent him from deceiving the nations, thus allowing the kingdom of
God to conquer all nations by the Word and Spirit. This millennium of kingdom expansion is a
figurative use of the number thousand and spans the entire interadvental
period. The kingdom of priests, those
who come to life and reign with the living Christ during the millennium are
characterized as having experienced the first resurrection, which is symbolic
for spiritual resurrection or regeneration/conversion. Hence, a proper exegesis of Revelation
20:1—6 produces conclusions most that are most consistent with the amillennial
perspective.
Bibliography
Augustine of
Hippo, City of God. Henry Bettenson
trans. London: Penguin Classics,
2003.
Beale, G. K. and
D. A. Carson eds. Commentary on the New
Testaments Use of the Old Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2007.
_________. The Book of the Revelation. In The New International Greek Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
_________. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical
Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.
Boettner,
Loraine. “Postmillennialism: A Statement of the Doctrine.” Grace Online Library, http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/eschatology/postmillennialism/postmillennialism-statement-of-the-doctrine-by-loraine-boettner/
(accessed December 05, 2012).
Chilton, David. The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the
Book of Revelation. Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2006.
Hoekema,
Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Ladd, George
Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1972.
Neilson, Lewis. Waiting for His Coming. Cherry Hill, NJ:
Mack Publishing Company, 1975.
Orendorff, Aaron,
“The Two Resurrections: John 5:19-29 and Revelation 20:4-6.” Monergism.com, http://www.monergism.com/TheTwoResurrections.pdf
(accessed August 26, 2010).
Roberts,
Alexander and James Donaldson eds.
Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. (1994).
Roloff,
Jürgen, Revelation. In A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 1993.
Ryken,
Leland, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.
(IVP Academic: Downers Grove, Illinois, 1998)
Vos,
Geerhardus, Redemptive Historical and
Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Richard B.
Gaffin, Jr. ed. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ,
1980.
Walvoord, John F.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago,
IL: Moody Press, 1989.
[1]
Under the heading of premillennialism, both the historical and dispensational
schools will be treated independently.
[2] This
designation is sometimes misleading and always unfortunate. Hoekema’s comment is helpful to clarify the
meaning. “The three words just mentioned
(amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism) are to be thought of
as modifying the Second Coming of Christ.
Literally, therefore, the word amillennialism
means that the Second Coming of
Christ is to be without a millennium.” Anthony
A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979),173, fn. 3. Amillennialism therefore does not mean that
there is not millennium, rather that no millennium follows the second advent of
Christ; the second advent ushers in, not a millennium, but the new heavens and
new earth—the eternal state.
[3]
See, e.g., Augustine, City of God. Henry
Bettenson trans. (London: Penguin
Classics, 2003), XX:7, 907.
[4] John
F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus
Christ (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 282. It must be admitted, however, that while some
statements of Papias (Ante-Nicene
Fathers, 1:153—54) and Justin Martyr (ANF, 1:239—40) seem to be explicitly
‘premillennialistic,’ those of Tertullian are confusing at best (see ANF, 3:342, 483 where he patently
equivocates the idea of the intermediate kingdom or millennium with that of the
new creation, the new Jerusalem).
Similarly, Irenaeus’ comments so lack the subtlety and sophistication of
the modern debate that he could be just as easily be read as an amillennialist
as he could a premillennialist (ANF, 1:561—565). Victorinus, bishop of Poetovio, Syria,
describes the amillennialism of Augustine, well before Augustine (d. c. A.D.
304). Nevertheless, any who wish to
stake the claim of their perspective on the patristic doctrines runs the
serious risk of anachronism.
[5]
Walvoord, 283.
[6] George
Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the
Revelation of John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. 1972), 260.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.,
261.
[9] Ibid.,
165.
[10] Ibid.
166. This argument is also presented by
Wayne Grudem, a historic premillennialist, in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2000), 1130.
[11] See,
e.g., Jn. 11:25; Rom. 14:9; Rev. 1:18; 2:8; 13:14.
[12]
Walvoord, 283. However, in his publisher’s preface to David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance, Gary North offers
this remark, regarding the popularity of dispensationalism, “Today, the traditional
dispensational movement is being carried by the Left Behind novels. A
theological movement that is sustained by novels rather than by theological
treaties is in its final stages.” David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Horn
Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2006), xxxii.
[13]
Walvoord, 283.
[14] Ibid.
[15]
Ibid., 284.
[16]
These include Lk 22:3, 31; Acts 5:3; 2 Cor 4:3—4; 2 Cor 11:14; Eph 2:2; 1 Thess
2:18; 2 Tim 2:26, and 1 Pet 5:8. Ibid., 292—293.
[17]
Ibid. 292, 293 respectively.
[18]
Walvoord, 289.
[19]
Hoekema, 176.
[20]
Walvoord, 289.
[21]
Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism: A Statement of the Doctrine,” Grace Online Library, http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/eschatology/postmillennialism/postmillennialism-statement-of-the-doctrine-by-loraine-boettner/
(accessed December 05, 2012).
[22]
Hoekema, 175.
[23]
Boettner.
[24]
Hoekema, 174.
[25] Ibid.
[26] See,
e.g., Augustine, 905—906; similarly, Aaron Orendorff, “The Two Resurrections:
John 5:19-29 and Revelation 20:4-6,” Monergism.com, http://www.monergism.com/TheTwoResurrections.pdf
(accessed November 25, 2012).
.
[27]See,
e.g., Hoekema, 233; similarly, Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive Historical and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings
of Geerhardus Vos, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. ed. (Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1980), 422.
[28]
Note the present active indicative “is
(εστιν) in your midst.” The hyperbatonic
position of the verb, placed at the very end of the sentence in the Greek
syntax, also accentuates the fact of the present activity of the kingdom of God
in Christ’s person.
[29] “The
word handmade (Acts 7:48) always
refers to idols in the Greek Old Testament and is without exception a negative
reference in the New Testament....The word cheirotoiētos
(‘handmade’) occurs fourteen times in the Greek Old Testament and always
refers to idols! Outside Acts 7:48, the
word in the New Testament occurs five times, once with respect to pagan temples
(Acts 17:24), three times to the Jerusalem temple that was passing away (Mk.
14:58; Heb. 9:11, 24), and once with regard to physical circumcision that was
not true circumcision (Eph. 2:11). The
wording ‘the works of men’s hands’ in the Greek Old Testament refers without
exception to idols....Among the approximately fifty-four times the Hebrew
phrase ‘work of the hands’...occurs, almost half refer to idolatrous works:
Deut. 4:28; 27:15; 31:29; 2 Kg. 19:18; 22:17; 2 Ch. 32:19; 34:25; Ps. 115:4;
135:15; Is. 2:8; 17:8; 37:19; Jer. 1:16; 10:3; 25:6—7, 14; 32:30; Hos. 14:3;
Mic. 5:13 (cf. Is. 44:9—10); so also Rev. 9:20.” G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 192, fn. 19.
[30] Lewis
Neilson, Waiting for His Coming (Cherry
Hill, NJ: Mack Publishing Company, 1975), 215.
[31]
Ibid., 214.
[32] See,
e.g., Matt. 13:36—43; Jn. 5:28; 6:39—40; Acts 24:14—15; 2 Thess. 1:7—10; cf.
Is. 26:19—21; Dan. 12:1—3.
[33] See,
e.g., Matt. 13:36—43; 25:31—34, 41, 46; Acts 17:30—31; 1 Jn. 4:17.
[34]
Walvoord, 293.
[35]
Walvoord, 291.
[36] G. K.
Beale, The Book of the Revelation, in
The New International Greek Testament
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 986.
[37]
Ibid.
[38]
Notice the relation between being “sealed” in Rev. 7:3 and “baptizing” in Matt.
28:19. “It appears certain that [in Rev.
7:3] John is thinking specifically of baptism. According to 14:1, the sign of
the seal that the 144,000 bear on their forehead is the name of the lamb and
‘his Father’s name.’ According to early Christian understanding, subordination
to the power of the name of Jesus occurs in baptism (1 Cor. 1:13, 15; Acts
8:16; Matt. 28:19). In Paul ‘seal’ (sphragis)
is already a technical term for baptism (2 Cor. 1:22; cf. Eph. 1:13;
4:30)....In [Rev.] 13:16 a satanic imitation of the mark of property is
discussed that the ‘beast’ imprints on the forehead and hand of his follows.
But characteristically, John avoids there the word ‘seal’ (sphragis)—an indication that for him it was not only an image but a
fixed technical term.” Jürgen Roloff, Revelation,
in A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 97; likewise Chilton, 205—206. .
[39]
G. K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, “Revelation,” in G. K. Beale and D. A.
Carson eds. Commentary on the New Testaments
Use of the Old Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 1148.
[40] Leland
Ryken, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (IVP Academic: Downers Grove,
Illinois, 1998), 600.
[41]
Chilton, 506.
[42] Ibid.
See, e.g., Rev. 5:11; 7:4—8; 9:16; 11:3, 13; 12:6; 14:1, 3, 20.
[43] Ladd,
261.
[44] Ibid.
[45] “That
John has in mind a specific prophecy-fulfillment connection with Ezek. 38 – 39
is borne out by the broader context of chapters 20 – 21, where a fourfold
ending of the book reflects the ending of Ezek. 37 – 48: the resurrection of
God’s people (Rev. 20:4a; Ezek. 37:1—14), the messianic kingdom (Rev. 20:4b—6;
Ezek. 37:15—28), final battle against God and Magog (Rev. 20:7—10; Ezek. 38 –
39), and final vision of the new temple and new Jerusalem, described as a
restored Eden and sitting on an exceedingly high mountain (Rev. 21:1—22:5; Ezek.
40 – 48).” Beale and McDonough, 1145.
[46] Ladd,
261.
[47] Beale
and McDonough, 1144.
[48]
See fns. 47—49 above.
[49]
Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson eds. Commentary on the New Testaments Use of the
Old Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 434—436; Beale and
McDonough, 1148.
[50]
Hoekema, 232; Ladd, 265—266; Orendorff.
No comments:
Post a Comment