For the majority of my posts on eschatology, or end times, I have pushed back against “pre-trib” interpretations primarily. I have defended Pre-Wrath eschatology thoroughly. But as we move forward in the end times chronology, there becomes much less disagreement between they and I because the majority of evangelical “pre-tribbers” also hold to a pre-millennial view. It is a pre-millennial view that I believe reflects scripture the best as well. It’s merely how we get to that point where I find disagreement with that camp. There is, however, an interpretation that has become increasingly more popular with evangelical Christians that I do feel the need to address. In fact, because of its growing popularity, it would be disingenuous for me not to mention. My aim has always been simplicity and clarity regarding the truth of God’s Word. I don’t shy away from difficult passages or controversial topics. When we shy away from those things and strive for unity at the expense of truth, then we are doing it wrong. We must reason with one another to determine what the truth of God’s Word is. Then we can rally and unify around it. Not before.
So here is my note on Amillennialism. It will be the same type of format as before. There are various holes in it that I will bring to light and discuss. There are also some strengths to it that I will analyze and weigh. I will do my best to represent it in its truest sense because there is no value or edification in putting up a straw man representation of Amillennialism. I believe that Vodie Bachum is a very clear and respected spokesperson for Amillennialism, so I will often quote words from his sermons regarding it and base my discussions on that. Make no mistake, I have some disagreement with Vodie, but I have no disrespect. I admire him in many ways as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ. There’s a lot more that he can teach me than I could ever teach him. Tune in to his sermons! He preaches the Word of God! I encourage you also to listen to his sermon on Amillennialism. There is plenty of edification in it, even if it is strictly for learning more about Amillennialism.
Defining Amillennialism is a good starting point for us. There is some misconception that Amillennialism means “no millennium”. That is slightly misleading. A better approach to defining it is that there is no literal 1000-year earthly reign of Christ following the wrath of God as a pre-millennial interpretation would suggest. Rather, the interpretation is suggesting that the millennium, so to speak, is spiritually taking place right now; in between Christ’s first and second coming. Spiritually, Christ is reigning and ruling through the Holy Spirit that is within the church. After the wrath of God is poured out and Armageddon takes place, Jesus merely returns, separates the sheep from the goats through righteous judgement, and ushers in the new heaven and new earth. That is the position in a nutshell. It views Revelation 20, discussing the Millennial Kingdom, as allegorical or metaphorical. It deems a literal interpretation of that passage as incorrect. So, as Vodie Bachum puts it, Revelation 20 is a “Recapitulation of God’s Righteous Judgement”. In other words, like I have said regarding Revelation 12 and on – being a second “retelling” of the story – Vodie suggests that Revelation 20 is yet another retelling of the story from another perspective. He suggests that it is from a spiritual perspective. This is the skeleton of Amillennialism. It’s the basic framework that it’s built from. So now, let’s go through some of the evidence in support of it, as well as some of the defenses for it.
Satan is Bound
Vodie has heard it all before. One of the most common arguments against Amillennialism is found right in the first few verses of Revelation 20. Verses 1 through 3 say,
“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit and a heavy chain in his hand. He seized the dragon—that old serpent, who is the devil, Satan—and bound him in chains for a thousand years. The angel threw him into the bottomless pit, which he then shut and locked so Satan could not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years were finished. Afterward he must be released for a little while.”
The simplest surface level argument against Amillennialism is that our world is full of evil. Therefore, Satan can’t possibly be bound right now. But there is a very logical answer to that, which Vodie correctly points out in his defense of Amillennialism. He Biblically answers the question, “Who is our enemy?” Is it Satan? Yes. Is it Satan alone? No. Satan merely opened the door. We, man, walked through and kept running in sin. So, in response to the argument that Satan can’t be bound today because our world is so full of sin, Vodie said that we have enough of a hard time wrestling with our own flesh. We don’t need the devil to be here causing us to sin. In fact, I’ve said this a thousand times myself because I do believe that we don’t give ourselves enough credit for how bad we are. Far too often we are far too quick to blame Satan for our wrongs. “Satan made me do this.” “Satan is hard at work”. “Satan this.” “Satan that.” Stop it! You did this. Repent, be forgiven, learn and move on. Vodie is right. Our sinful flesh is our main problem. But as much as I agree on that with Vodie, I cannot go as far as to say that Satan has NO influence on this world at all. Just because I believe our flesh is our main problem doesn’t mean Satan is completely hands off, currently bound in the bottomless pit where he cannot deceive the nations. This statement alone discredits Peter’s statement in 1 Peter 5:8, which says,
“Be alert and sober minded. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”
So, yes, Vodie, Satan is not omnipresent. He is not everywhere at once, causing everyone to sin. Yes, our flesh causes us to sin without him needing to whisper in our ear to do so. But no, that doesn’t mean he is bound, unable to deceive. He is prowling around like a lion, looking for someone to devour, as Peter stated. If Vodie is correct, it flat out makes the Apostle Peter wrong. Why would Peter make such a misleading statement otherwise?
Secondly, Vodie explains that the binding of Satan today allows for the gospel to spread as we are seeing it do so. Does light have no power over the darkness? Is Satan such a force that he has the power to prevent the gospel from being spread? Surely not. I believe, in conjunction with 1 Peter 5:8, the devil is not just casually “prowling around seeking for someone to devour”, but he is frantically prowling around because he is extremely overwhelmed. He is terrified because his plan is failing despite his intervention. This better demonstrates the spiritual war going on in our world today. Satan has no real power against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Amillennial argument suggesting that Satan’s binding “allows” the gospel to be spread is a faulty one.
The Amillennial explanation for how Satan could be bound today lacks biblical support and directly contradicts Peter. It is simply not a good enough defense.
A Kingdom Already, but Not Yet
Vodie rightly acknowledges that we are living in a time where the Kingdom of Christ is already here, yet not here in its fullness. It will be here in fullness when Christ returns and makes all things new. Believers will trade in their corruptible flesh for incorruptible glorified bodies. This is an unargued point. But I think that Vodie adds too much emphasis on the “already” part of the phrase. In other words, he equates the spirit living inside believers as evidence that Christ is reigning and ruling this world. That’s why the Millennium, in his eyes, is merely figurative or spiritual. It is merely a reiteration of the story told from a spiritual perspective. Spiritually, he would say, Christ is reigning and ruling over this world. That is practically the definition of Amillennialism. BUT what this interpretation fails to acknowledge is how often we see the apostles in their ministry describe this age or this kingdom, as being ruled by Satan. For example, Ephesians 2:2 says,
“You used to live in sin, like the rest of the world, obeying the devil – the prince of the power of the air. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God.”
He is the spirit who is at work in the heart. This is a spiritual reign Satan is currently having over this unbelieving world. If this was merely a physical/literal rule being described in this passage, then the Amillennial interpretation would still be ok. But it’s spiritual in nature; therefore, contradicting the idea that Christ is currently ruling “spiritually” today. John 12:31 also says,
“Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.”
Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 4:4 says,
“In their case 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, who is the image of God.”
Who is the ruler of this world and age? Satan! Who is not currently bound? Satan! The reason we acknowledge the kingdom of God as “a kingdom that is already, but not yet” is because there is still a kingdom here on earth ruling. Satan rules this world still. He is its spiritual prince. He can’t do that if he were already bound in the bottomless pit. We cannot deny the kingdom still at play, dealing recklessly with this world. Only when Christ returns will we see Christ ruling with an iron rod, as scripture states he will do in the Millennium. Amillennialism doesn’t fit the how the Apostles label this world. They name this world and age as belonging to Satan. Christ’s kingdom is already here in part by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but not yet fully because Satan is currently the ruler of this age.
It’s Literally Allegorical
I know that Vodie hates this last area of criticism, but to a reasonable extent it must remain. A strictly allegorical interpretation of Revelation 20 is a very slippery slope that blurs the lines of interpretation rules. Allegory isn’t outrightly wrong when it is paired with a literal interpretation. In other words, take Origen’s allegorical interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan:
He explains that the man beaten and robbed represents Adam. The robbers represent Satan. His wounds represent sin. The man’s destination, Jerusalem, represents Heaven, or paradise. The good Samaritan represents Christ, and the Donkey represents Christ’s body who bears the weight of the man upon him. The inn represents the Church, and though the Samaritan provides enough money to take care of the man for now, his leaving and promising to return once again represents Christ’s promised second coming and the provision of the Holy Spirit.
There is beauty in allegorizing a text. But it’s not to replace the literal interpretation. This allegorical interpretation of Luke 10 doesn’t deny the literal event or literal characters involved. It merely supplements it and gospelizes it. Alone, allegory is fluff. You can do what Philo of Alexandria did with the entire Old Testament. He allegorized the entire Old Testament, and in doing so, determined that the literal historical events recorded did not really happen. They were written merely to be allegorically understood, nothing more. Granted, this is an extreme. But when rules aren’t followed, where does the line get drawn? Who determines that? Vodie says context does. I agree as well. He says that the context of Revelation 20 is apocalyptic literature, which is largely metaphorical. He’s got the right word, but I think he applies that rule of thumb lazily. “Revelation 20 is Apocalyptic literature, so we should read that allegorically.” So, what about chapter 19? What about 18? What about 10? What about 2? What about the entire rest of the book that is also Apocalyptic literature? If that’s the rule, then why not just allegorize the entire book and say none of it is literal at all? Why not? Because the context, even the context of Apocalyptic literature, will tell you what is to be understood as literal and what is to be understood as metaphorical. That’s why labeling chapter 20 as Apocalyptic literature is not good enough to justify completely allegorizing it. There’s more to it. We need to keep our eyes and ears open for words and symbols the passage uses. We need to let the text demonstrate what is going on and how it is to be understood.
Vodie uses examples of metaphors and symbols found in revelation to bolster his reasoning for allegorizing Revelation 20. There’s a dragon, for example. That’s metaphorical. An angel coming down from heaven holding a key to the bottomless pit: is that a literal key? No. It’s metaphorical. We’ve heard that language used before. Will Satan be wearing a literal chain around him? No. It’s metaphorical. I’ll add a few more just to give him more credit. There’s also “A beast with seven heads and ten horns”. Is this literal? No. There’s a “slaughtered lamb with seven horns and seven eyes”. Literal? No. Metaphorical. Do any of these examples of metaphors or symbols justify allegorizing an entire passage? Absolutely not. Every single one of these metaphors, though symbolic in nature, represents something very literal. The dragon symbolically represents a very literal Satan. A slaughtered lamb with seven horns and seven eyes symbolizes a very literal Jesus Christ. The key symbolizes the very real authority of God. The chain symbolizes a very real binding of Satan. We don’t ever deny the literal nature of the object being figuratively described. We cannot possibly allow these symbols to justify allegorizing away an entire passage. It is simply not the same. The most I can bend is to say that the use of the number, “one thousand” could symbolize “a very large number”, as Vodie described, instead of it meaning literally 1000 years. In other words, I could see Christ’s literal earthly reign not necessarily be exactly 1000 years and be merely a “very large number of years”, as the number “one thousand” is commonly understood to symbolize. Notice how even in considering the number, “1000” as symbolic, it doesn’t eradicate the literal nature of the event/object it is describing. That would be a much better way to interpret this passage while considering the potential symbolism it presents.
Recapitulation?
It’s not the first time we have heard claims that parts of Revelation are to be understood as “recapitulations” or “repeats” of the eschatological timeframe from a different perspective. I too have made that claim. My claim is simple: split the book in half at chapter 12. You will see that the story resets and repeats itself to give more information concerning the same events and characters. Amillennialism is doing something similar with chapter 20. What makes my proposed reiteration correct and their proposed reiteration wrong?
There are a few significant differences that ought to be pointed out. Number one is context. There is a natural break from the chronological narrative in chapter 12 that can be observed plainly. We go from talking about the seventh trumpet blast bringing upon God’s wrath upon the earth to then, in chapter 12, talking about a woman, baby, and a dragon. All of which that are unquestionably talking about Israel, Jesus’ birth, and Satan prepared to kill Him. Does all this happen after the 7th trumpet blast? No! It happened in the past. The context proves that this is a resetting of the story. This same test fails in regard to Revelation 20. At Revelation 19, we observe a picture of Armageddon. Revelation 19:19-20 says,
“Then I saw the beast and the kings of the world and their armies gathered together to fight against the one sitting on the horse and his army. And the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who did mighty miracles on behalf of the beast—miracles that deceived all who had accepted the mark of the beast and who worshiped his statue. Both the beast and his false prophet were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.”
At the finality of this grand battle between good and evil, the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the fiery lake of fire. If they represent Satan’s demise in the supposed “reiteration” of chapter 20, then we should see no indication that the narrative is continuing from there. At chapter 20 there are indications that we are being introduced to something new, but unfortunately for amillennialists, there are certain phrases that connect us to the narrative in chapter 19 and prove quite clearly that this is the same narrative. In chapter 20, after we observe Satan being bound for a thousand years, he is released for a short time and stirs up his rebellion. He attacks the beloved city (Jerusalem) and is immediately wiped out. But at verse 10 of Revelation chapter 20, it says this:
“Then the devil, who has deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur; joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
Who will the devil join in the lake of fire for all eternity? The beast and his false prophet. Does this really sound like a reiteration of God’s judgement, or rather, a continuation of God’s judgement? This passage makes it clear that the beast and the false prophet are completely different entities from the devil. They do not symbolically represent him. They are two of the three members of the unholy trinity who meet their demise before the head of the unholy trinity meets his. He joins them in their destruction. They dwell in the lake of fire while Satan himself is merely bound in the bottomless pit for one thousand years. Satan is then released for a little while afterwards. This is the case because there is still a purpose for him. God will use him to expose man’s need for Christ to dwell within them, not just among them. Behavior modification because “dad” is home, is not what Christ is looking for. There is a heart problem with mankind that needs to be addressed through genuine salvation by way of repentance. (Check out my post called, The Millennial Kingdom, for more on that) The context of Revelation 19 and 20 demonstrates a continuous narrative that we would be foolish to dismiss.
The second reason why chapter 20 fails to be correctly interpreted as a reiteration is, quite frankly, because of more contextual problems. The setting itself is wrong. If this passage is a recapitulation of God’s judgement upon Satan, then why are the final battles completely backwards? In Revelation 19, the antichrist has made Jerusalem his stronghold. He and his army will trample it underfoot, ravage the women and children, and plunder all the houses. We know this because of a parallel Old Testament passage found in Zechariah 14:1-5. In Revelation 19, and in Zechariah 14 it is very clear that the antichrist has taken Jerusalem. The heavens are then opened and an immaculate image of Christ sitting upon a white horse fills the sky. The armies of heaven are standing behind him with no fear in their eyes. This is the picture of Armageddon. In Revelation chapter 20, we see quite the opposite. We see Satan gathering his army and going where? Revelation 20:9 says,
“And I saw them as they went up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded God’s people and the beloved city.”
At the end of the Millennial reign of Christ, God’s people reside in Jerusalem and are attacked by Satan and his rebels from the outside. This is not the same battle that we see in chapter 19. Furthermore, we have supplemental texts to show continuity in the narrative between Revelation 19 and 20. What broad plain of the earth is Satan and his army marching towards the beloved city on? Is it any broad plain we can observe today? Doubtful. The stage is set, however, for the battle of Armageddon described in Revelation 19. The word, “Armageddon” is a twist on the Hebrew word, “Har Megiddo”. It literally means, “the mount of Megiddo.” This is an actual location in Israel today and has had quite an important history already. Megiddo and specifically the Jezreel Valley is a large open plain that has been the setting of 34 significant battles in the past 4000 years. Napoleon Bonaparte once stated an oddly prophetic statement when he stood at the valley of Megiddo. He said, “All the armies of the world could maneuver their forces on this vast plain.” Furthermore, he rightly stated that there is no more suitable place in the world for a battle to take place than here. Little did he know that the Bible, in Revelation 19, confirms that. It will be the home of the greatest battle the world has ever seen. All the armies of the world will line up to challenge the Lord and His heavenly army of saints. At that time, as prophesied in Zechariah 14, something interesting will happen to the land. Zechariah 14:9-11 says,
“And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day there will be one Lord – his name alone will be worshipped. All the land from Gebba, north of Judah, to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become one vast plain. But Jerusalem will be raised up in its original place and will be inhabited all the way from the Benjamin gate over to the site of the old gate., then to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s winepresses. And Jerusalem will be safe at last, never again to be cursed and destroyed.”
A literal chronological interpretation of these passages places the Battle of Armageddon before Satan’s rebellion at the end of the 1000-year reign of Christ. At Armageddon, when Jesus comes with the Armies of Heaven, (believers in Christ) he will create an enormous plain surrounding Jerusalem and raise Jerusalem up. With all the geographical references in this passage, it is highly unlikely that it is meant to be read metaphorically. Then, as it plainly reads, the Lord will be king over all the earth. This parallel is undeniable to Revelation 19, connecting it directly to the events concerning Armageddon and the Millennial reign of Christ to follow. It further provides understanding to the great plain Revelation 20 speaks of. Christ creates a great plain and raises Jerusalem up following Armageddon, at the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign. Then, at the end of Christ’s earthly reign, Satan is released and deceives the nations one final time. He gathers his army and marches towards the beloved city, Jerusalem, upon “the broad plain of the earth” that was created at Armageddon, 1000 years prior.
These little connections may seem insignificant to some. But I share them because anyone can make broad, generalizing statements. Amillennialism sounds good when scripture is gazed upon at the surface. But a truly good interpretation has depth. You shouldn’t be able to find scriptural contradictions or inconsistencies. You shouldn’t dig up a handful of contextual problems the deeper you dig into a good interpretation. That is what we find in Amillennialism. It sounds good, but the deeper you dig, the more it doesn’t line up with scripture. It is vain deceit; lacking substance.
The final, perhaps the most obvious point of difference between the reiteration of chapter 12 versus the supposed reiteration of chapter 20 is that it is a literal interpretation. I have not allegorized away chapter 12 and on. Everything, (though symbolism is seen all throughout), is understood as having a literal chronology. These are literal events that happen. It is a literal retelling of the story, using symbolism and metaphors along the way, clearly observed. That is the most significant difference between the proposed reiteration of Revelation 12 and the proposed reiteration of chapter 20 that Amillenialists claim exists. We are not in the same boat. I did not allegorize away the literal chronology of Revelation 12 and on as Amillennialists do to Revelation 20.
We should not use allegorical methods of interpretation to explain away entire passages. We especially should not when there are chronological clues within the context of the passage to demonstrate that it is, in fact, chronological. This is not a rigid literal interpretation. We always must take note of allegories when they present themselves. This includes metaphorical language we find a lot of in Apocalyptic literature. But we should never stay too far from what the text literally says when narrative language is clearly being used. That is when we stumble into “philosophy of vain deceit”, as Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8.
Please heed this warning. Take every text at face value. Let the text and context itself tell you when to begin thinking metaphorically or allegorically. That is my simple note on Amillennialism. God bless.
Softly Spoken Truth 