The Kingdom of Christ in the Apocalypse

By Robert L. Thomas

Professor of New Testament

In spite of admitted limitations in knowledge about the future, a fairly good understanding of the kingdom of Christ as it is portrayed in the last book of the Bible is possible. Though allowance is made for a present aspect of the kingdom, the time of the kingdom in its ultimate form is clearly future. The location of the kingdom is fixed in the earthly sphere rather than a heavenly one. The nature of the kingdom is political and outward in the common understanding of the terms and not merely spiritual and hidden. This is seen from its OT roots, the means by which it is established, and the internal conditions with which it must cope. The span of the kingdom covers the period between Christ’s second coming and the creation of the new heavens and new earth—a period of one thousand years on earth as it is now known—and then an unlimited phase after the new creation.

* * * * *

Any approach to the predictive portions of the Apocalypse must be with a full sense of limitations imposed on human comprehension of future events, even those spelled out in Scripture in nonapocalyptic terminology (cf. 1 Pet 1:10–11). Yet recognition of the impossibility of comprehending enough details to satisfy human curiosity must be balanced with a determination to know as much as the Inspirer of Scripture intended by way of doctrinal motivation for intelligent Christian life and responsibility. Basic data about the future are discernible if care is exercised to avoid foregone conclusions.[1]

The text of John’s Apocalypse yields satisfactory answers to at least four questions regarding one of its very prominent themes,[2] the kingdom of Christ: What are the time, location, nature, and duration of this kingdom? Too often studies related to the kingdom in Revelation have come only from a limited part of the book, Rev 19:11–20:10 or some comparable smaller context.[3] Answers to the above questions should arise from a consideration of the whole book as the following discussion will propose.

The Time of the Kingdom

John speaks of being a “fellow partaker in the affliction and kingdom and endurance” with his readers (1:9). A common explanation of this expression has been that the present experience of tribulation is what brings in the kingdom (cf. Acts 14:22), but endurance is mentioned to remind the readers that the kingdom in its fullness has not arrived. A struggle yet remains.[4] Because of the governance of the three words by ἐν τῇ (en tē) in 1:9, perhaps a better view of the expression is to see the three as a hendiatris, i.e. the use of three words with only one thought intended. The major element is “affliction” and the other two words characterize that affliction as being not what the world experiences, but what is particularly connected with the kingdom (Acts 14:22; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 20:6) and one which requires “endurance” or “patient waiting” (Rev 3:2, 3, 19; 3:10; 13:10; 14:12).[5] No matter which explanation is adopted, with little or no dispute “kingdom” in 1:9 refers to the millennial kingdom described more fully in Revelation 20[6] the future kingdom spoken of by Christ (e.g., Luke 12:32; 22:29), Paul (e.g., 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5), and James (e.g., Jas 2:5). Anticipation of this kingdom is an integral part of present Christian experience,[7] as is seen in the mention of “endurance” motivated by an expectation of coming deliverance (cf. “endurance of hope,” 1 Thess 1:3).

Yet the kingdom in Revelation is not only future. An isolated reference to the “kingdom” as a collective designation for believers in Christ during the present era occurs in the introductory doxology in 1:6. Such a corporate designation recalls a continuing NT theme traceable to the beginning of Jesus’ parabolic teaching regarding the mysteries of the kingdom (cf. Matt 13:1–52). This present kingdom is a theological entity noticed occasionally by other NT writers (e.g., Col 1:13), but the present kingdom pales into minor significance in the rest of the Apocalypse and may be construed as essentially negligible, since it serves only as a foreshadowing of the future kingdom.[8] Βασιλεία (Basileia, “Kingdom”) in the LXX and the NT speaks most often of the Messianic rule and kingdom,[9] an emphasis which most vividly carries over into John’s Revelation. It reaches its climax in chapter 20 where the future share of the saints in Christ’s earthly rule is expressly described (Rev 20:4; cf. 5:10; 11:15). The song of the elders in 11:16–18 is a proleptic anticipation of the millennial reign (20:6), the wrath of the nations (19:19; 20:8), the wrath of God (19:11–21; 20:10), the judgment of the dead (20:12), and the reward of the faithful (chaps. 21:1–22:5).[10] It expands the comparable announcement of 11:15 that the kingdom of God and of His Christ will have arrived at the point anticipated. This end-time event is not to be confused with the progress of the kingdom of God on earth following Christ’s incarnation.[11]

Other indicators of a dominant focus on the kingdom’s futurity in the Apocalypse include the following:

(1) To the overcomers in Thyatira and elsewhere, Christ promises a future “authority over the nations” (2:26) based on their future destruction of them “with a rod of iron” (2:27).[12] This is a clear promise of a share in Christ’s future rule over the nations (cf. 17:14; 19:14).[13]

(2) To the overcomers in Laodicea and elsewhere, Christ promises the future privilege of sitting with Him on His throne (3:21). As with the rest of the promises to overcomers in Revelation 2–3, this one too points forward to conditions described in Revelation 19–22. Christ’s throne is distinguished from the Father’s throne in 3:21. The latter is in heaven, and the other is on earth, belonging to Christ as the son of David in the future millennial reign.[14] Because He is David’s son, He will inherit David’s throne (cf. Ps 122:5; Ezek 43:7; Luke 23:42).[15] Some reject this possibility. Bruce has written, “In all his [Jesus’] recorded teaching there is not one reference to the restoration of David’s kingdom…,”[16] but on the contrary, the gospels and the rest of the NT are full of references to Christ’s Davidic lineage. Christ emphasizes His own Davidic lineage and His role as David’s Lord (Matt 22:42–45; Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44), and Gabriel explicitly states that Jesus will occupy David’s throne when He comes in His future glory (Luke 1:32; cf. Dan 7:13–14; Matt 25:31; Acts 2:30; Heb 2:5–8; Rev 20:4). The gospels use “David” thirty-nine times, once calling him “David the king” (Matt 1:6; cf. Acts 13:22; 15:16).

Likewise, from beginning to end, Revelation in particular emphasizes Christ’s assumption of the Davidic throne (cf. 1:5, 7; 3:7; 5:5; 22:16). He promises the overcomer a share in this earthly throne.[17]

(3) Revelation 5:10 refers to the future kingdom again: “You have made[18] them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” The redeemed people of God will not only be a people over whom He reigns, but also share in God’s rule in the coming millennial kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 4:8; 6:3).[19] The future tense of βασιλεύσουσιν (basileusousin) in 5:10 shows this kingdom to be the goal toward which the program of God is advancing (cf 20:4, 6). The present kingdom serves only as a faint preview of the ultimate kingdom that is future insofar as the Apocalypse is concerned, with only one reference in the entire book pointing to it (1:6). That believers will serve as reigning powers means that they will be the equivalent of kings in this forecast epoch.[20] Spelled out more particularly regarding the millennium in 20:4 and the new heavens and new earth in 22:5, this means their joining with Christ in His millennial and eternal reign following His second advent.

The futurity of the kingdom is a foregone conclusion for John. It was future not only for him, but also for the entire period of the representative churches whom he addresses in the last decade of the first century.[21] Its futurity is expressed in all three types of literature in Revelation—the narrative (1:9), the epistolary (2:26–27), and the visionary or apocalyptic (5:10). Raber’s peremptory dismissal of futurism in the book’s treatment of the kingdom[22] is oblivious to overwhelming evidence in the text. So thoroughly imbedded in John’s words is this perspective that Ladd has written, “This is the central theme of the book of Revelation: the establishment of the Kingdom of God on the earth.”[23] In light of the prevailing focus of the book, the kingdom can hardly be dated anytime but in the future. If Rev 20:1–10 is that “ultimate institution” or a part of it, as subsequent discussion in this essay will verify, this fact in essence rules out any theory that Rev 20:1–10 is in any sense a recapitulation of a previously described period before and including the personal return of Christ.[24]

The Location of the Kingdom

The existence of God’s kingdom in heaven cannot be questioned. When Jesus offered a model for the disciples’ prayer—”Your kingdom come…as in heaven, [so] also on earth” (Matt 6:10)—He verified the existence of such a kingdom in heaven, but in so doing, also gave notice of a future kingdom upon the earth to be modeled after it.[25]

Revelation is not a mythical or other-worldly book. Of eighty-two NT occurrences of γῆ (gē), the word for “earth,” fifty come in Revelation, far more than in any other book. The key throne-room scene in 4:1–11 portrays God as creator of the earth, with the creation motif incorporated into other scenes as well (e.g., 10:5–6; 14:7). The Apocalypse is not other-worldly or dualistic. “The historical this worldliness of this [i.e., Revelation’s] entire schema, including its extremities, should be clearly seen.”[26]

The Apocalypse in a number of ways focuses on the earth in its expectation for the future:

(1) The explicit promise to the Thyatiran overcomer cited above (Rev 2:26–27) is the exercise of authority over the nations after crushing them. The locale of the subjugated nations is the earth.

(2) The explicit promise to the Laodicean overcomer cited above is to join Christ in sitting on David’s throne on earth (Rev 3:21; cf. 3:7). Only by an unwarranted hermeneutical lapse can David’s throne be said to be a heavenly one.[27] David ruled the first time on the earth, and His descendant will do so in the same place in the future (2 Sam 7:12–16).

(3) The song of four living beings and twenty-four elders in 5:10 explicitly verifies that the redeemed “will reign upon the earth.” Words could hardly be plainer regarding the place of this future rule.

(4) According to the song of the heavenly voices and the twenty-four elders in 11:15–18, the future rule of God with His Christ will have as its subjects the nations, whose habitat is planet earth.

(5) The scene of the final battle resulting in the establishment of Christ’s future kingdom is an earthly one. In 16:12 the drying up of the great river Euphrates, a specific geographical spot in this world, has a part in preparing the way for the kings from the East to be involved in this battle. Whether “east” means the territory currently known as Iraq and Iran or areas of the Far East with their heavy population, these are spatial designations in this world as currently known. Nor is it necessary to determine whether these kings from the East are distinct from or included among the kings of the whole earth in 16:14. The fact remains that οἰκουμένη (oikoumenē) (16:14) throughout Revelation denotes this world order as presently identified (cf. 3:10; 12:9).

Perhaps further evidence of the earthly location of the kingdom is unnecessary. An additional note regarding the kingdom of Christ extending into the new creation (22:5) must complete the picture, however. The passing of the old heaven and earth are a matter of record in 20:11 and the introduction of a new heaven and earth comes in 21:1. The presence of the throne of God and of the Lamb in this new order (22:3) dictates that the kingdom carry over into the new conditions also. Further confirmation of this extension is the participation of God’s servants in His eternal reign in the new creation (22:5).

The Nature of the Kingdom

The nature of the future kingdom on the earth according to the Apocalypse is discernible by several means: from the OT roots of the kingdom, from the means by which the kingdom is established, and from internal conditions with which it must cope.[28]

OT Roots of the Kingdom

Revelation never quotes directly from the OT, but it has many allusions and much imagery that are thoroughly permeated with OT thought. Of the 404 verses in the book, 278 contain about 550 allusions to the Jewish Scriptures.[29] An investigation of several key OT passages provides insight regarding the nature of the kingdom in Revelation.

Of particular importance are the words a ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι (ha dei genesthai) in Rev 1:1. This expression summarizes the broad content of the revelation to John[30] and depicts a theme of longstanding interest. These “things that must happen” appear first in Daniel’s description and interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about the great statue (Dan 2:28 [LXX]; cf. also 2:29, 45). The statue represents four kingdoms, and a stone cut without hands from the mountain that destroys the statue represents a kingdom that will supersede the other four. Using Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as a vehicle, the prophecy predicts an eventual establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.[31]

Jesus Himself on Tuesday of the week He was crucified picked up that theme from Daniel with the identical wording δεῖ γενέσθαι (dei genesthai) (Matt 24:6; cf. Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9). Jesus pointed out that these things which “must happen,” spoken of by Daniel, had not yet run their course. Happenings described generally in that Olivet Discourse, and more fully in the seven seal judgments, were still future. Jesus anticipated in summary fashion what He was to show John some six decades later on the island of Patmos.

John picked up the baton of communicating this long-awaited series of events and developed them in greater detail. The same expression from Daniel is used in Rev 4:1 and 22:6 in marking off the central core of the book.

The revelation in this book, therefore, climaxes an expectation beginning at least as early as Daniel 2.[32] In fact, it is no overstatement to say that Daniel 2 pervades the fiber of the Apocalypse. This is the ultimate detailed account of events that must transpire in the outworking of God’s program to institute the kingdom on earth that will replace other earthly kingdoms. This is the subject of the proleptic announcement of 11:15 that is sometimes taken as the main theme of the Apocalypse:[33] “The kingdom of the world has become—i.e., will have become—the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.”

If the other kingdoms of Daniel 2 are political in nature, so will be the coming kingdom of Christ. The term “political” connotes “organized in governmental terms.”[34] This is a governmentally organized kingdom with its accompanying social order as this world understands such.[35] It is not a kingdom that is spiritual only. It is not a kingdom whose identity is hidden from most or even many. It is not a kingdom that is restricted to the recesses of human hearts. It will be one whose existence will be completely visible to earth’s inhabitants just as Nebuchadnezzar’s governmental authority and rule were quite evident to all the citizens of his kingdom. The goal toward which the Apocalypse moves is the institution of such a universally acknowledged government on earth.

Other OT Scriptures on which John builds his concept of the kingdom include the following:

(1) Immediately before his first reference to the kingdom in 1:6 he introduces Christ with three titles: “the faithful witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:5). All three titles are from Psalm 89 whose fifty-two verses, particularly vv. 19–37, are a commentary on God’s covenant with David recorded in 2 Sam 7:8–16. The first—”the faithful witness”—is repeated in Rev 3:14. It alludes to Ps 89:37 where regarding the throne of David it is written, “It will be established forever like the moon, and the witness in the sky is faithful.” Jesus Christ is the seed of David and will sit on the Davidic throne, which will endure forever as the sun (Ps 89:36).

The second title—”the first-born from the dead”—recalls God’s promise to David’s seed as God’s first-born. This is from Ps 89:27 and is almost identical with the title of Christ in Col 1:18. John follows Paul in adding to Christ’s Davidic heritage an indication of His resurrection.

The third title—”the ruler of the kings of the earth”—also comes from Ps 89:27. He, as David’s seed, is “the highest of the kings of the earth.” This is a clear foreshadowing of His future role as “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev 19:16; cf. 17:14). The three titles taken together allude to Christ’s future dominion over the earth,[36] but they contribute also to an understanding of the manner of His dominion. The nature of His kingdom will be the same as that of David’s, i.e., a political rule. His dominion over other kings and lords speaks to the same effect, that is, his government will be of the same nature as governments have always been conceived in this world.

(2) Repeated references in the Apocalypse to His destruction of (or rule over) the nations recalls another OT passage where political rule is conspicuous: Psalm 2. Besides the promise of such authority to the Thyatiran overcomer (2:26–27; cf. Ps 2:8–9), references to the psalm come in 11:15–18 where a transference of power from heathen nations to God is anticipated (cf. Ps 2:2), in 12:5 where the male child’s future destruction of the nations is anticipated (cf. Ps 2:9), in 14:1 where the presence of the King on Mount Zion is described (cf. Ps 2:6), in 16:14 where the kings of the earth set themselves against Him (cf. Ps 2:2), in 17:18 where the world’s kings align themselves for battle against the Lamb once again (cf. Ps 2:2), and in 19:15 and 19 where the smiting of the nations and of the kings of the earth is once again described (cf. Ps 2:2, 9).[37] The first Christians applied Psalm 2 to the treatment of Christ by political entities represented by Antipas and Pontius Pilate (Acts 4:25ff), but the outlook here is wider and more ultimate.[38] This is hostility of the whole world against God and God’s response to it.

(3) The theme verse of the Apocalypse, 1:7, offers a further occasion to ascertain the nature of the future kingdom. The theme is a conflation of Dan 7:13 and Zech 12:10. Earlier Jesus used the same combination in His Olivet Discourse to describe His second advent (Matt 24:30; cf. Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27), a statement heard by John about sixty-five years before penning these words (cf. Mark 13:3). The statement in Daniel 7 is part of a context describing the future coming of the Son of Man to assume rule over a worldwide kingdom that is to supersede all previous kingdoms under the whole heaven (Dan 7:13–14, 27). Like Daniel 2, Daniel 7 looks forward to the crushing and displacement of the kingdom of Rome by the kingdom of God.[39] The text of Revelation alludes to various parts of Daniel’s seventh chapter in over thirty instances besides the one in Rev 1:7.[40] The allusion to Zech 12:10 is from a context immediately after another prediction of the exaltation of the house of David and the defeat of nations that come against Jerusalem in the future day of the Lord (Zech 12:8–9).

In none of these allusions to OT political entities does John drop even the slightest hint that he intends his words to be understood in a nonpolitical way. He in no way differentiates his kingdom from the kind of kingdom explicitly indicated in each of the respective contexts. Human governments of the future will be replaced by Christ’s government in the existing order of creation as it is currently known.[41] Instead of cancelling the political overtones of these OT sources, the Apocalypse strengthens them as the following discussion will show.

Means by Which the Kingdom is Established

The forceful way by which Christ will gain control of His future kingdom is another indicator of its political nature. The proleptic song of the twenty-four elders in 11:17–18 celebrates the demonstration of God’s great power at the sounding of the seventh trumpet. “Your great power” is not primarily the divine attribute of power, nor is it just the normal exercise of divine power. It is instead that final and overwhelming display to which all prophecy points.[42] This is the power of God on display as He overcomes His enemies in the final great conflict.[43] This is His resumption of direct rule over His creation. In 11:17 he is called “the Almighty” in recognition of the demonstration of naked power as His all-embracing sovereignty takes control.[44]

Human response to this display of unparalleled power is not positive. The nations are enraged by it (11:18) because it represents the institution of the hated kingdom of God on earth.[45] The hostility of earth’s inhabitants against God is at its peak because, through this future visitation, He removes the world from their control and assumes control Himself. Their assault on His force is the fiercest ever, but it avails nothing against His omnipotent judgments.[46] Their kingdom will become His kingdom despite their utmost efforts to resist the change in rulership (11:15).

Another perspective of the force to be utilized in the removal of the kings of the whole earth appears in Rev 16:14, 16 and its sequel in 19:11–21. In the earlier passage the three unclean spirits gather the kings for “the battle of the great day of God Almighty.” The battle is so named because in it the omnipotence of an almighty God will be fully displayed.[47] This day is explained in 19:17–21 as the day of God’s reckoning with the nations led by the beast from the sea.[48] Almighty God assumes His power and begins to reign at this point.[49] The beast and the kings of the earth will gather to make war with Christ the returning Divine Warrior, the same type of deadly warfare as waged against the saints just prior to Christ’s return (cf. ποιῆσαι πόλεμον [poiēsai polemon] 13:7 and ποιῆσαι τὸν πόλεμον [poiēsai ton polemon] 19:19), and will fall victims to His righteous wrath (19:19–21). Included among the victims will be kings, chiliarchs, strong men, free men, slaves, the small, and the great (19:18). It will be an overwhelming show of power in battle such as the world has never seen.

Violence and warfare never provide a pretty picture, but they are almost inevitable whenever a sudden and radical change in governments occurs. The victor in battle becomes the new political ruler and institutes his laws and the means of enforcing them. This is the purpose of war in general, and the future victory of Christ is no exception. He returns as a victorious warrior and His kingdom on earth results from the battle.

Internal Conditions with Which the Kingdom Must Cope

The removal of all enemies and the institution of Christ’s government over the earth does not mean an end to all opposition, however. After a substantial period of His kingdom’s existence on earth, Satan is able to muster an enormous army of those who have apparently resented Christ’s authority over human affairs: “He [Satan] will go forth to deceive the nations who are in the four corners of the earth…and to gather them for battle” (20:8) against the existing government. This is a vivid indication that the future kingdom of Christ on earth will not be devoid of those who oppose the King.

This raises a question about the kinds of people who will inhabit the earth during the kingdom. Some might suppose the Apocalypse to be inconsistent with itself on this point, because Christ’s enemies have all been killed in the final great battle before the kingdom (19:18, 21).[50] Those faithful to Christ, on the other hand, will have been martyred by the beast (13:15; cf. 13:9–10; 14:13; 16:6; 17:6; 19:2), so they will be unavailable to populate the kingdom.[51] Yet this is not the complete picture, because it ignores the woman who has been providentially preserved from the antagonism of the dragon (12:6, 13–17). She represents the protected remnant of mortals who will be left to populate the kingdom at its beginning. This remnant will survive in a mortal state when Christ comes to destroy His enemies (19:19–21) and will remain as a beginning for repopulating the earth.

This faithful remnant does not account directly for opposition to Christ’s government in His kingdom, but it can do so indirectly. Presumably, among continuing generations to be born after the kingdom begins, some will not choose to be Christ’s faithful followers. To be sure, outward rebellion against His throne will meet with immediate enforcement of kingdom laws, but secret rebellion may go undetected for extended periods. It is apparently from among such secret rebels that Satan will collect his “sands-of-the-seashore” army for a final desperate attempt to overthrow the King of kings and Lord of lords.

Whatever the source of the opposition, enemies will be present in the kingdom and will necessitate a political structure suitable for dealing with them.

The Duration of the Kingdom

Does the kingdom have a fixed and limited duration? The answer to this question is in two parts: “yes” and “no.” The “yes” answer pertains to the period immediately after Christ’s second advent, and the “no” answer relates to eternal conditions in the new heavens and new earth.

The Period Immediately after Christ’s Second Advent

Is there an interval of time between Christ’s second coming and the instigation of eternal conditions? Mounce concludes that John taught a literal millennium, but that its essential meaning does not require a temporal fulfillment.[52] He denies that John’s millennium is the Messianic age foretold by the prophets of the OT.[53] This denial is hard to sustain, however, in light of the ultradeep roots of the Apocalypse in OT prophetic portions that foresee this future political entity.

One clear indicator that the future kingdom on earth does have duration, and that the return of Christ is not followed immediately by an eternal kingdom, is the above-mentioned revolt that occurs at the end of the thousand years. This Satan-led uprising has no place in an eternal kingdom, because by its very nature that kingdom is eternal and can tolerate no interruption. Besides, Satan will have been relegated to his eternal fate in the lake of fire before the eternal kingdom (20:10). A period separating Christ’s removal of His enemies at His triumphant return and the end of the thousand years is necessary to account for a new group of rebels that arises and revolts against Him after the millennium and preceding the eternal kingdom.[54] The revolt will end with “final and everlasting destruction of the forces of evil,”[55] paving the way for an eternal kingdom where no evil will exist.

Several other considerations require that the kingdom have a finite duration:

(1) Two bodily resurrections separated by a thousand years in 20:4–5 are commonly acknowledged.[56] All efforts to dispute this explicit statement of the text[57] have proven fruitless. If two separate bodily resurrections will transpire, as validated in the text, the latter of the two must be separated from the former by a time lapse.

(2) The battle just before the millennium is distinct from the defeat of the Satanic army at its end.[58] The former victory comes through Christ’s personal intervention, and the latter through fire from heaven that consumes the enemies. A significant amount of time must transpire for a second opposing force to arise, because at the beginning of the thousand years no opposing forces remain as the result of their utter destruction by Christ (19:20–1).[59] The location of the two battles differs also, the former being at ῾Αρμαγεδών (harmagedōn) (Rev 16:16), a hard-to-identify location, and the latter in the vicinity of “the beloved city” Jerusalem.[60]

(3) In the climactic battle at Christ’s second advent the beast and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire (19:20). At some time subsequent to this, a thousand years according to the text (20:7), the devil will be cast into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already are (20:10). These are chronologically sequential events separated by elapsed time.[61] The sequence makes inescapable the conclusion that the thousand years constitutes that interval of time.

The Length of the Period. A sixfold repetition of the thousand-year designation tells the duration of the period after Christ’s second advent. Explicitly, it is the duration of Satan’s binding (20:2), the duration of his imprisonment in the abyss (20:3), the duration of the resurrected saints’ reign with Christ (20:4), the period separating the two resurrections (20:5), the period of the reign of those participating in the first resurrection (20:6), and the period before the loosing of Satan (20:7). Contextually, it is also the period between two battles pitting the forces of Satan against those of God. Also, a thousand years separates the casting of the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire from the casting of Satan into that same lake.

Should the thousand years be understood as a literal one-thousand calendar years or in a figurative way to designate a period of some other length? Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century, was the earliest church father to view Revelation 20 in a nonfuturist fashion.[62] Yet at one point he still took a literal interpretation, making the period refer to a thousand years in the present era rather than to some future period.[63] Besides problems posed for Augustine’s initial view by indications of the period’s futurity cited above, a present-era millennium supplies no suitable explanation of how Satan could be bound during the present.

Warfield rejected a literal interpretation, understanding it as a figurative way of referring to the intermediate state of the saints in heaven.[64] This ignores earlier indications in the Apocalypse that the future kingdom must be on earth.

Swete also took the period figuratively to refer to a long period of time of indefinite length, the duration of the triumph of Christianity.[65] The occurrence of bodily resurrection immediately before the period belies this understanding, however, as does the previously cited indication that the period is in the future, beyond the present era.

Kuyper took the language to refer to the exceeding fullness of divine action,[66] but his basis for that generalization was the prior assumption that no such period could transpire after Christ’s future coming in judgment. Earlier discussion has shown this assumption to be fallacious.

No exegetical ground exists for any understanding of the thousand years in a nonfuturist, nonearthly, nonliteral way.[67] This is not an allegory.

Yet among those who recognize the literality of the thousand years, some do not conceive of the period in terms of a transient period of history.[68] They rather pursue a hermeneutical course of denying anything more specific in the millennial teaching than the truth that the martyr’s steadfastness will win for him the highest life in union with God and Christ.[69] This perspective on a literal, nonallegorical understanding of the passage is said to reflect “the immediacy of the culture” in which John lived. It suggests a distinction between the form of a literal millennium and its content, a literal thousand years but no temporal fulfillment.[70]

Besides the difficulty in reconciling the seeming self-contradiction of such an explanation,[71] the explanation is vulnerable to the challenge of whether this was in fact the way people of John’s time understood his words. Available evidence indicates they did not. Those closest to John’s situation do not support that understanding.[72] Papias and Irenaeus who lived closest to the same period in the area where the Apocalypse was composed and received did not understand the millennium that way.[73] Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Nepos, who lived elsewhere in the Mediterranean world during the same general period, did not share this interpretation.[74] They all perceived of the millennium as a future thousand-year period of history on earth—the climax of all other periods of world history.

The straightforward meaning of the text of Rev 20:1–10 is the best and only logical answer. It speaks of a one-thousand year period in the future political and social history of the world.

Eternal Conditions in the New Heaven and New Earth

The promise that God and His Christ will reign forever and ever (Rev 11:15; cf. Luke 1:33) finds its eventual fulfillment in the eternal kingdom portrayed in Rev 21:1–22:5. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in this new holy city Jerusalem that descends from heaven (22:3; cf. 21:2), and the servants of God will participate in this eternal reign (22:5). Several features differentiate the eternal kingdom from the millennial one:[75]

(1) No secret opposition such as that in the millennial kingdom will be tolerated in the eternal kingdom (21:8, 27; 22:15). Righteousness will prevail even in the inner recesses of the human heart, because conditions of mortality with its accompanying depravity will no longer exist.

(2) Unlike the millennial kingdom, the eternal kingdom will not pertain to the old creation, which will have been replaced by a new creation. There will be no further place for earth and heaven as currently known. God promises to make all things new, an apparent reference to the new heavens and the new earth (20:11; 21:1, 5).

(3) “The beloved city” (20:9) will be replaced by “the new Jerusalem” (21:2, 10). “The beloved city” is the scene of the final great conflict after the millennium, and is most probably the Jerusalem that belongs to this creation.

(4) The reign of God’s people in each of the two phases of the kingdom differs from that in the other. In one its extent is limited to a fixed period of a thousand years (20:4), and in the other it is described as lasting “forever and ever” and is therefore unlimited (22:5). Another difference is in the nature of the reigns. In the former phase the reign is one of kingship and priesthood (20:6), but in the latter it is a reign of kingship only (22:5).[76]

Details about conditions under the new order of creation defy definitive comprehension by finite minds, but enough is understandable to distinguish differences between the two phases of the future kingdom.

The Apocalyptic Kingdom Summarized

Without question, the kingdom described in the last book of the Bible is predominantly, but not exclusively, a future one. The sphere of its domain will be first the entire earth and then the new heavens and the new earth. Its nature will be political and social with a central government making and enforcing laws throughout the realm, yet a degree of secret opposition will exist without detection until the very end of the present world order. The duration of the kingdom will be one thousand years on the earth as currently known, but in the new order of creation beyond the thousand years its existence will be unlimited. Eventually it will be conspicuous to all that God and His Christ are sovereign over the present creation and the one to come. This assurance provides ample motivation for His servants to persevere through the trials of the present era, no matter how severe, as they await the coming kingdom.

Notes

1. Contrary to many current opinions on hermeneutics, preunderstanding is not an element to be factored into the hermeneutical process. It is rather the goal of the interpreter to repress personal bias and to let the text speak for itself.
2. McClain furnishes impressive statistical data that demonstrate the prominence of kingdom-related terminology in Revelation by itemizing the frequency of θρόνος (thronos), βασιλεία (basileia), διάδημα (diadēma), στέφανος (stephanos), βασιλεύω (basileuō), ἐξουσία (exousia), ποιμαίνω (poimainō), κρίνω (krinō), κρίσις (krisis), κρίμα (krima), θυμός (thumos), and ὀργν́ (orgē) (Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959] 442-43).
3. E.g., R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:1–10, ” WTJ 51 (1989) 319-36.
4. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (4 vols.; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903) 4:553; Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: Macmillan, 1906) 12; Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (New York; Macmillan, 1919) 443.
5. E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord” (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, n.d.) 149.
6. R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John (2 vols., ICC; New York: Harper, 1920) 21.
7. Swete, Apocalypse 12.
8. Fiorenza describes the present and future kingdoms in the Apocalypse this way: “The Kingdom of God, which in the eschatological future will be realized in the entire cosmos, is now through the reality of the Christian community present on earth in the midst of the worldly demonic powers” (Elisabeth Fiorenza, “The Eschatology and Composition of the Apocalypse,” CBQ 30/4 [Oct 1968] 559–60).
9. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), p. 77.
10. Lee, “Revelation” 4:645.
11. Cf. Lee, “Revelation” 4:645. It can hardly be accurate to conclude that the resumption of God’s direct rule began at the birth of Jesus as Sweet assumes (J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation [Pelican; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979] 192).
12. Some have preferred a milder meaning “shepherd” or “rule” for ποιμανεῖ (poimanei) in 2:27 (William Lee, “The Revelation of St. John,” in The Holy Bible [F. C. Cook, ed.; London: John Murray, 1881] 4:530; John F. Walvoord, The ReveLation of Jesus Christ [Chicago: Moody, 1966] 77), but this is hardly strong enough to match the shattering of clay containers mentioned later in the verse (James Moffatt, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament [W. Robertson Nicoll, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.] 5:363; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972] 54). The same verb refers to actual destruction in 19:15 (Charles, Revelation 1:76), and in the LXX rendering of Ps 2:9 it translates the Hebrew רָעַע (rāʿaʿ) which means to “break” in the sense of “devastate” or “destroy” (BDB, 949; Alford, Greek Testament 4:578; R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John [2 vols., ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920] 1:75–76). Charles points out how the translators of the LXX erred at Ps 2:9, but how John avoided their error by rendering the Hebrew text independently.
13. Beckwith, Apocalypse 470.
14. Bullinger, Apocalypse 209–10; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966) 99.
15. Bullinger, Apocalypse 210.
16. F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971) 170.
17. The opinion based on Acts 2:32–35 that Jesus took His seat on David’s throne at His resurrection (I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978] 68) rests on one of several interpretations of the Acts text. A preferable interpretation is that Peter’s statement views Christ’s resurrection as a necessary step to facilitate His ultimate assumption of the Davidic throne, but does not say He assumed that throne at the time of His resurrection. He is presently at the Father’s right hand, not on David’s throne, until His enemies become His footstool. Then He will ascend David’s throne (McClain, Greatness 400–1).
18. Consensus is that ἐποίησας is a proleptic aorist: “you will have made them” (Swete, Apocalypse 81; Beckwith, Apocalypse 512–13). As is commonly the case in heavenly songs of this book, this tense anticipates the culmination of the process that is in progress at the point the song is sung. Another possibility could be a constative aorist, in which case it would be a reference to the present kingdom as in 1:6. In this unlikely case, it would show the inseparability of the present kingdom and the future kingdom.
19. Charles, Revelation 1:148; George Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 91-92.
20. Charles, Revelation 1:16–17; Beckwith, Apocalypse 429.
21. A recently revived theory of dating the Apocalypse in the A.D. 60’s seeks to limit the period covered by the Apocalypse to only the very beginning of the church era. This date is suggested in lieu of the traditional date of the A.D. 90’s. The early-date preference has characterized one element of the Theonomist movement (i.e., Reconstructionism) (David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, an Exposition of the Book of Revelation [Fort Worth, TX: Dominion, 1987] 4; Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation [Fort Worth, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989] 1-353). This movement’s postmillennial perspective and consequent optimism about Christianity’s success in gaining control of secular society necessitates this dating because of Revelation’s acknowledged pessimism about society’s increasing hostility toward Christians. An early dating of the Apocalypse allows the Reconstructionist to seek fulfillment of its prophecies in the events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but leaves him to face an uphill battle forging a convincing argument that the book was written this early. Testimony of early Christianity opposes such an early date by putting the book’s composition in the 90’s (cf. G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1966] 6; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Revelation [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978] 37-38; Sweet, Revelation 27; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation [NICNT, F. F. Bruce, gen. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977] 36; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament [2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982] 2:250–51). Besides, an early date would create the unlikely probability of John’s being side-by-side with Paul in simultaneous personal ministry to the churches of western Asia Minor. According to extant sources, John could not have arrived in this area in time to have written the Apocalypse from there during the 60’s.
22. Rudolph W. Raber, “Revelation 21:1–8, ” Int 40/3 (July 1986) 297.
23. Ladd, Revelation 161. In essence, Fiorenza agrees with Ladd’s assessment when she writes, “This main theme of the Apocalypse is shortly but precisely expressed in the hymn in 11, 15–19” (Fiorenza, “Eschatology and Composition” 569), since the theme of this hymn is the future establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
24. Contra White, “Evidence for Recapitulation” 319–20, 343–44.
25. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 151-52; idem, “The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus” and “Comments on Craig Bloomberg’s Response to ‘The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus,’“ JETS 35/1 (March 1992) 23–24, 37. To understand a kingdom to be established on earth is not contrary to Jesus’ statement to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36a), a statement not intended to designate the location of the kingdom, but rather the origin of it. To debate whether the kingdom referred to in John 18:36 is spatial or temporal (Robert Hodgson, Jr., “The Kingdom of God in the School of St. John,” in The Kingdom of God in Twentieth Centuty Interpretation [Wendell Willis, ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987] 164) misses Jesus’ point here. The preposition ἐκ conveys nothing about time or space. Immediately after those words about His kingdom, Jesus verified that His intended reference was to the source of the kingdom by adding “My kingdom is not from this place (ἐντεῦθεν)” (John 18:36b). The consummated kingdom of Christ on earth was the constant anticipation of early Christians (Mounce, Revelation 358; Donald K. Campbell, “The Church in God’s Prophetic Program,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost [ed. by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer; Chicago: Moody, 1986] 155).
26. M. Eugene Boring, “The Theology of Revelation: The Lord Our God the Almighty Reigns,”’ Int 40/3 [July 1986] 268).
27. Herbert W. Bateman IV (“Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament,” BSac 149/596 [October-December 1992] 438–53) apparently locates the Davidic throne in heaven on the basis the words of the LORD in Ps 110:1, “Sit at My right hand….” Elliott E. Johnson (“Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation of Psalm 110, ”BSac 149/596 [October-December 1992] 428–37) details the weaknesses of this conclusion by pointing out distinctions between God’s heavenly throne and David’s earthly throne.
28. In his discussion of the nature of the kingdom in the Apocalypse, McClain uses Rev 20:4, 6 to conclude that the three governmental functions in the kingdom will be judicial, sacerdotal, and regal (McClain, Greatness 497).
29. Swete, Apocalypse cxl; McClain, Greatness 443.
30. Beale goes so far as to call this expression the title of the book (G. K. Beale, “The Influence of Daniel upon the Structure and Theology of John’s Apocalypse,” JETS 27/4 [Dec 1984] 415).
31. Daniel 2 foresees the time when God’s kingdom will intercept and replace the stream of human sovereignties. The predicted kingdom of God cannot be the church, because the church became a part of world history before the four kingdoms in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream had run their course. The establishment of God’s kingdom in Daniel’s interpretation of the dream comes after the Roman Empire (Eugene H. Merrill, “Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost [ed. by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer; Chicago: Moody, 1986] 222).
32. Beale reaches essentially the same conclusion regarding the content of the Apocalypse: “Therefore if this allusion in Rev 1:1 is understood by John in the light of the eschatological context of Daniel 2—and there is good reason to believe this is the case—then he may be asserting that the following contents of the whole book are to be conceived of ultimately within the thematic framework of Daniel 2” (G. K. Beale, “Influence of Daniel” 416). He adds, “If it can be concluded that these Daniel 2 allusions in Revelation are intentional and draw with them the contextual idea of Daniel 2, then there is a basis for proposing that this idea provides the framework of thought for the whole of the Apocalypse—i.e., eschatological judgment of cosmic evil and consequent establishment of the eternal kingdom” (ibid., 420). The Apocalypse has about ten additional allusions to Daniel 2 besides the one in Rev 1:1: cf 1:19 with Dan 2:28–29; 1:20 with Dan 2:29; 4:1 with Dan 2:29, 45; 11:13 with Dan 2:18; 11:15 with Dan 2:44; 12:8 with Dan 2:35; 17:14 and 19:19 with Dan 2:47; 20:11 with Dan 2:35; 22:6 with Dan 2:28–29, 45.
33. Fiorenza, “Eschatology and Composition” 569. A comparable proleptic announcement celebrates the inauguration of the future kingdom when in 12:10 a significant step leading to that inauguration—the casting from heaven of the accuser of the brethren—is taken (Lee, “Revelation” 662; Lenski, Revelation 378; Robertson, Word Pictures 6:393).
34. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiale Dictionary, 910.
35. George Eldon Ladd, The Last Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 110, has written, “The idea seems to be that God has determined that there shall be a thousand year period in history before the Age to Come when Christ will extend his rule over the nations; that is, that there will be a period of political, social, and economic righteousness before the end.”
36. Bullinger, Apocalypse 142–43.
37. Sweet, Revelation 191.
38. Swete, Apocalypse 143. The uses of Psalm 2 in Acts 4:25ff and in the Apocalypse furnish a prime indication that a NT nonliteral application of an OT prophecy, in conjunction with Christ’s first advent or the church, does not necessarily exhaust or nullify the divine intention of its ultimate and future fulfillment in a literal way. See note 41 below.
39. Merrill, “Daniel as a Contribution” 222–23. Longman finds a continuation of an OT theme of the Divine Warrior as a “Cloud Rider” in this verse because of its use of Dan 7:13 (Tremper Longman III, “The Divine Warrior: the New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif,” WTJ 44/2 [Fall 1982] 296). The Warrior image is a frequent one in Revelation, especially in 19:11ff (ibid., 297–300). Beale also notes the prominence of Daniel 7 in the plan of the Apocalypse (Beale, “Influence of Daniel” 419 n. 31).
40. Cf. Rev 1:13 with Dan 7:13; 1:14 with Dan 7:9; 5:11 with Dan 7:10; 7:1 with Dan 7:2; 11:7 with Dan 7:3; 11:15 with Dan 7:14, 27; 11:17 with Dan 7:21; 12:3 with Dan 7:7, 24; 12:14 with Dan 7:25; 13:1 with Dan 7:3, 7, 24; 13:2 with Dan 7:4–6; 13:5 with Dan 7:8, 11, 20; 13:6, 7 with Dan 7:7, 21, 25; 14:14 with Dan 7:13; 17:12 with Dan 7:20, 24; 19:20 with Dan 7:11; 20:4 with Dan 7:9, 22, 27; 20:12 with Dan 7:10; 22:5 with Dan 7:18, 27.
41. The suggestion that Israel has been superseded by the church and that fulfillment of OT prophecies will take an unexpected form (Joel B. Green, How to Read Prophecy [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984] 103-5, 116–18; cf. Martin Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John [Moffatt NT Commentary; New York: Harper, 1940] 325-28.) can hardly be sustained. This assumption rests upon taking the NT application of various OT prophecies to Christ’s first advent or the church as the exhaustive fulfillment, cancellation, or reversal of the grammatical-historical sense of these prophecies and is not well-founded. NT writers as authors of inspired books had the prerogative of seeing added meanings in these prophecies, but not of divesting them of their original sense. These citations did not “set aside, correct, or affect the literal interpretation of the OT prophets” as VanGemeren and others hold (Willem A. VanGemeren, “Israel as a Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy [II],” WTJ 46 [1984] 271-97, esp. 272). See note 38 above.
42. Swete, Apocalypse 143.
43. Mounce, Revelation 231.
44. Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 50.
45. Lee, “Revelation” 4:645.
46. Swete, Apocalypse 143; Beckwith, Apocalypse 609.
47. Walvoord, Revelation 237.
48. Beckwith, Apocalypse 684.
49. Mounce, Revelation 300.
50. James Moffatt, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (W. Robertson Nicoll, ed.; Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, n.d.) 5:471; Arthur H. Lewis, The Dark Side of the Millennium: The Problem of Evil in Rev 20:1–10 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 23-25.
51. Mounce, Revelation 355–56.
52. Ibid., 359.
53. Ibid.
54. White argues that 20:1–10 is a recapitulation of 19:11–21 by noticing that in 20:1–3 the binding of Satan is designed to prevent his deception of the nations that Christ has just removed in 19:19–21 (“Evidence for Recapitulation” 321). In his critique of premillennial explanations of the origin of the nations in 20:3, he disregards the possibility of an emergence of new nations to oppose the Lord in the generations subsequent to the first generation in the future kingdom, though he does mention the possibility of surviving believers after Armageddon (323–24 n. 10). He rightly insists on the destruction of all the wicked, but does not pursue the possibility of a role for the remaining righteous in repopulation after the Lord’s second advent. The emergence of a new set of enemy nations is explained above under the heading “Internal Conditions with Which the Kingdom Must Cope.”
55. Ladd, Revelation 270–71. In building his case to prove that the OT picture of the Messianic kingdom is void of evil and death, Lewis argues that Ps 110:1, interpreted by Paul l Cor 15:25–26, 54), eliminates death after Christ’s return (Lewis, Dark Side 31–32). This is not true, however, because Isa 65:20, a prophecy regarding the future Messianic kingdom, acknowledges the presence of death during the period. He tries to avoid the direct sense of this passage through vague inferences from the larger context of Isaiah 65 (ibid., 37), but the plain sense of the verse must be partly determinative of what the larger context expresses. Another example of an effort to delete evil from the coming kingdom is Lewis’ denial that Zech 14:17 indicates the presence of the wicked in the millennium (ibid., 23). His rationalization simply evades the obvious meaning of the statement in this case too (cf. Jeffrey L. Townsend, “Is the Present Age the Millennium?” BSac 140 [1983] 209-12).
56. Alford, Greek Testament 4:732; Mounce, Revelation 356. Walvoord correctly points out that the first of the two occurrences of ἔζησαν (ezēsan) (20:4–5) cannot refer to the beginning of spiritual life as amillenarians so often assume, because included among the subjects of the verb are saints who have been beheaded by the beast. “People who receive the new birth are not those who have been beheaded” (John F. Walvoord, “The Theological Significance of Revelation 20:1–6, ” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost [ed. by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer; Chicago: Moody, 1986] 235).
57. E.g., Lewis, Dark Side 58.
58. Charles, Revelation 2:47. White’s strongest argument that the battle of Rev 19:17–20 and the one in Rev 20:7–10 are identical is based on allusions to passages from Ezekiel 38–39 in connection with both battles (cf. also 16:17–21) (“Evidence for Recapitulation” 326–28). He uses this as a basis for a prima facie assumption that the two are the same and that this proves the recapitulatory nature of 20:1–10. The weakness of his assumption is at least twofold: (1) its inadequate allowance for the characteristic of OT prophecy whereby it “compresses” or foreshortens future sequences without necessarily reflecting extended periods that may separate events named in the same prophecy; and (2) its inadequate consideration of John’s independence in his allusions to OT Scripture. John’s freedom in this latter regard negates the possibility of using any more than broad concepts of OT contexts to reach conclusions contrary to what the context of Revelation more explicitly reflects. The distinctions between the two battles as outlined in the above discussion points clearly to two separate battles.
59. William Henry Simcox, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Cambridge: University Press, 1893) 184.
60. Swete, Apocalypse 265.
61. Wilber B. Wallis, “The Coming of the Kingdom: A Survey of the Book of Revelation,” Presbyterion 8/1 (Spring 1982) 62-63; Townsend, “Is the Present Age the Millennium?” 213. Those who choose to see 20:1–10 as a return to a time prior to Christ’s advent of 19:11–21 rather than as sequel to it (e.g., Lewis, Dark Side 49), whatever their reason, fail to account for this explicit indicator of chronological progression from chapter 19 to chapter 20. White proposes that 20:10 requires only that the devil be cast into the lake of fire only a short time after the beast and the false prophet and thus does not preclude the possibility of 20:7–10 being a recapitulation of 19:17–20 (“Evidence for Recapitulation” 326). This reconstruction is quite improbable, however, because in the natural flow of the context one event precedes the thousand years and the other follows it (cf. 20:7). It fails to explain why consecutive sections consign the beast and the false prophet to one fate (19:20) and the devil to another (20:3) and then later assigns the devil to the same fate as the other two (20:10).
62. Some sources credit Origen with being the earliest to initiate allegorical interpretation and its consequent shift to amillennialism as the dominant method of interpretation in the church (Thomas Cornman, “The Development of Third-Century Hermeneutical Views in Relation to Eschatological Systems,” JETS 20/3 [September 1987] 285), but Mounce indicates that Origen only rebuked those who looked forward to bodily pleasure and luxury in the millennium (Mounce, Revelation 358).
63. Aurelius Augustine, “City of God,” in Basic Writings of Saint Augustine (Whitney J. Oates, ed.; New York: Random House, 1948) 20.7, 22.30 (pp. 518,663); idem, “Sermon 251” and “Sermon 259,” in The Fathers of the Church (vol. 38, M. S. Muldowney, trans.; New York: Fathers of the Church, 1959) 322,368–69. Augustine later changed his view to a symbolic understanding of the thousand years, making the period to coincide with the whole interval between the first and second advents of Christ (cf. Swete, Apocalypse 265–66). Lewis calls his position the same as Augustine’s later view and characterizes the position as “preterist” and “futurist” regarding the book of Revelation (Lewis, Dark Side 55).
64. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford University Press, 1929) 649.
65. Swete, Apocalypse 257,263.
66. Abraham Kuyper, The Revelation of St. John (tr. by John Hendrik de Vries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1935) 277.
67. Mounce, Revelation 358.
68. Beckwith, Apocalypse 736–38; Mounce, Revelation 359. Walvoord calls Mounce a premillenarian (Walvoord, “Theological Significance” 229) and White does the same (“Evidence for Recapitulation” 323), but this is questionable. Mounce specifically rejects the millennial reign as an actual period of political and social history to follow the return of Christ and denies that it is an eschatological era (Mounce, Revelation 359).
69. Mounce, Revelation 359.
70. Ibid.
71. This appears to be a case where some would recommend the hermeneutical principle of recognizing the primacy of imagination over reason, of treating the text as a picture-book rather than as a theological treatise (Green, How to Read 75). But is it not fallacious to put pictorial and rational faculties at odds with each other? Must the right brain be in opposition to the left brain?
72. See discussions of second-century opinions regarding the millennium in Derwood C. Smith, “The Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ: Some Observations on Rev 20:1–10, ” ResQ 16 (1973) 220-21; Barbara Wooten Snyder, “How Millennial Is the Millennium: A Study in the Background of the 1000 Years in Revelation 20, ” Evangelical Journal 9/2 (Fall 1991) 51.
73. Papias, cited by Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.11–13; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33.3–4, 5.28.3. Crutchfield lists seven second-century fathers as reputed premillenarians who were related in varying ways to Asia Minor and John the Apostle: Polycarp, Papias, Melito, Apollinaris, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. The premillennial views of Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus are explicit in their writings. The evidence for premillennialism in the other four is more indirect, but still convincing (Larry V. Crutchfield, “The Apostle John and Asia Minor as a Source of Premillennialism in the Early Church Fathers,” JETS 31/4 [Dec 1988] 413–26).
74. Justin Martyr, Dial. 80–81; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 3.24; Nepos, cited by Eusebius, H.E. 7.24.
75. For a similar description of differences, see Lewis, Dark Side 62–63.
76. Charles, Revelation 2:186.