Progression versus Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1–6

By Charles E. Powell

[Charles E. Powell is Pastor, Forest Lake Bible Church, Niceville, Florida.]

Revelation 20:1–6 is perhaps the most controversial passage in the Book of Revelation. Interpretation has traditionally been divided into three perspectives: amillennial, premillennial, and postmillennial. In recent years several writers have argued for what they call a preconsummationist perspective on this passage.[1] In this view the events in verses 1–6 will occur before the return of Christ to the earth. Most preconsummationists have adopted a recapitulational view of the passage, an approach usually associated with amillennialism.[2]

This preconsummationist-recapitulational-amillennial view includes the following tenets. (1) The binding of Satan represents Christ’s victory over the powers of darkness accomplished at the cross. (2) The one thousand years are symbolic of a long, indeterminate period corresponding to the age of the church. (3) At the end of the present age Satan will be loosed briefly to wreak havoc and to persecute the church. (4) The fire coming from heaven to consume the wicked is symbolic of Christ’s second coming. (5) A general resurrection and the judgment of the wicked and the righteous will occur at Christ’s coming, followed by the creation of the new heavens and a new earth.[3]

The alternate position has been called postconsummationism. In this view the events in verses 1–6 follow the second coming of Christ depicted in 19:11–21. Thus it involves chronological progression between the two passages. This view is essentially premillennial. The postconsummationist-progressive-premillennial viewpoint holds these four tenets. (1) The binding of Satan is yet future; it will take place when Christ returns. (2) The one thousand years are a literal period in which Christ will reign on the earth from Jerusalem with His people. (3) Satan will be loosed for a brief period at the end of the millennium, and this will be followed by the resurrection and judgment of the wicked at the Great White Throne. (4) The new heavens and the new earth will be created after the millennium, that is, a thousand years after Christ’s second coming.[4]

The purpose of the new terminology of preconsummationism versus postconsummationism is to help clarify the nature of the relationship between Revelation 19:11–21 and 20:1–10. However, though amillennialists and premillennialists agree that Revelation 19:11–21 refers to the physical second coming of Christ, the interpretive discussion centers on progression versus recapitulation, that is, whether 20:1–10 recapitulates 19:11–21 or follows it in a chronologically progressive order.[5]

Previous Arguments

Premillennialists have often used four arguments to support the progressive view. First, a consistent, literal hermeneutic allows Israel and the church to fulfill their respective promises. Thus a literal reading of 19:11–20:10 supports a premillennial view.[6] Second, the binding of Satan is absolute and is a future state unknown in history.[7] Third, Satan’s consignment to the lake of fire after the thousand years (20:7–10) and that of the beast and the false prophet before the thousand years require a future millennium.[8] Fourth, the two occurrences of the clause “they came to life” in 20:4–5 argue for a future millennium.[9]

On the other hand those who hold a preconsummationist/recapitulation view argue as follows. First, no other passage of Scripture mentions a thousand-year period. Second, a symbolic interpretation is consistent with an apocalyptic text. Third, the historic creeds of the church do not mention an intermediate messianic kingdom between the present age and the eternal kingdom.[10]

Strimple argues there will be no future earthly millennial kingdom because the following end-time events, he says, are concurrent: the second coming of Christ, the resurrection and rapture of believers, the resurrection of the unjust, judgment for all, the end, the new heavens and the new earth, and the inauguration of the final kingdom of God, the eternal state of the redeemed.[11]

Several facts may be noted in response to his view. First, it is true that occasionally the New Testament mentions the above-listed events as if they are concurrent or are events that rapidly succeed one another. However, the Book of Revelation portrays several events as separated by a thousand years.

Second, when so many events are associated with the return of Christ, why is it difficult to believe that an intermediate earthly thousand-year kingdom can be part of this complex, especially since an eternal one is associated with it?

Third, several Old Testament passages associate certain time periods with the end. Ezekiel 39:9,11 speaks about burning the weapons of Gog and Magog for seven years after the end-time battle and of burying the dead for seven months. What is the point of such activities if the new heavens and the new earth and the eternal state immediately follow the return of Christ and the conclusion of this battle? Daniel 12:11–12 mentions 1,290 days and 1,335 days associated with the end. These days certainly overlap with the 1,260 days of Revelation 12:6, but what is the significance of the extension? Some may argue that the numbers are symbolic, but few amillennialists would argue that the actual duration of time is less than the literal referents of the supposedly symbolic numbers.[12] Thus at least seven years would occur between the coming of Christ and the new heavens and the new earth.

White has advanced three additional arguments for recapitulation: (a) the discrepancy between the events depicted in 19:11–21 and 20:1–3, (b) the similarity of events in 19:11–21 in 20:7–10, and (c) the motif of angelic ascent and descent in Revelation.[13] The strongest of these arguments is the similarities between 19:11–21 and 20:7–10. However, if the case for recapitulation fails in 20:1–6, then 20:7–10 cannot recapitulate 19:11–21.

The current article presents three arguments in defense of premillennialism that have often been overlooked. These concern (a) the imprisonment of Satan compared with imprisonment and binding imagery mentioned elsewhere in Revelation and the New Testament, (b) the reign of the saints in 20:4–6 compared with the saints’ reign mentioned elsewhere in Revelation, and (c) the significance of the accusative case for the extent of time in reference to the thousand years.[14]

The Imprisonment of Satan in Revelation 20:1–3

Amillennialists argue that the binding and imprisonment of Satan mentioned in Revelation 20:1–3 is not absolute. Instead they say it only restrains him from preventing “all people” throughout the earth from being drawn to Jesus (John 12:31–32).[15] They base this limited interpretation of the imprisonment on the purpose statement in Revelation 20:3, “so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed.” Beale argues, “Therefore, the context, and not the metaphor itself, must determine what degree of restriction is intended.”[16] While this is true, a purpose statement can only state why an action of imprisonment is taken, not the degree of restriction intended. For example, if a warden says he is putting a prisoner in solitary confinement, so that the man will no longer kill other prisoners, this does not mean the prisoner is free to steal and commit other crimes.

Imprisonment of Demons in Revelation 9

Two instances of imprisonment and binding imagery are recorded in Revelation, both in chapter 9.[17] The first is associated with the fifth trumpet. In this vision an angel (lit., “a star from heaven”) releases demonic locusts who are imprisoned in the bottomless pit (vv. 1–3). The abyss (“bottomless pit,” NKJV, NASB) is usually associated with Satan and his allies (Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1; 11:7; 17:8).[18]

It is also a place that is undesirable to the demonic legions. The Legion of Luke 8:27–33 pleaded with Jesus not to send them to the abyss. The demons of Revelation 9:1–11 are confined in the abyss, as is Satan in 20:1–3. If the abyss is part of the realm of the dead, then those who dwell in it do not have access to living humanity. The use of confinement language reinforces this understanding. On their release the demonic locusts will inflict harm on unbelievers.[19] This suggests that the demonic locusts confined to the abyss have had no contact with the realm of the living from the time of their imprisonment until their release.

The second instance of binding and imprisonment imagery in Revelation is in 9:14–15, which states that four angels bound at the Euphrates River will be released to kill a third of humankind. Some might argue that they are only restrained from killing humans before the appropriate time. However, the wording of the sentence suggests that this is their sole function and that they have been bound so that they would not execute this function before their time.[20] Thus the binding seems absolute.

Binding of Satan in the Gospels

When the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan (Matt. 12:24), He responded by saying that if Satan were to do such a thing, his kingdom would fall and his power would be broken (vv. 25–27). Jesus then spoke of a strong man, who is bound by a yet stronger person who plunders the first man’s house (v. 29). Many amillennialists appeal to this parable to argue that Satan’s binding in Revelation 20:1–3 is not absolute.[21] That is, the binding of Satan does not restrict all of his activities; it simply demonstrates that Jesus is sovereign over him and his demonic forces. However, the binding imagery in Jesus’ parable is about a thief plundering a house. This binding was not completely restrictive or permanent. In this case the context limits the extent of the binding but not through the use of a purpose statement. Instead Jesus’ activity was clearly revealed and the consequences for Satan were delineated.(The parallel in Luke 11:22 demonstrates that the binding is an image of conquest, not imprisonment.)

Several differences can be noted between the binding of Satan in Matthew 12:29 and Revelation 20:1–3. First, the latter passage is part of a vision in which Satan’s imprisonment has an impact on the sequence of other events. Such a sequence is lacking in the Gospels with respect to the binding of Satan. Second, in the Revelation passage an angel imprisons Satan so that Satan is prevented from deceiving the world, whereas in Matthew 12:29 Christ Himself binds Satan, and Satan is helpless to keep Christ from exercising His authority over the demons. Third, in Matthew the purpose of binding Satan is so that Christ may plunder Satan’s house by casting out demons, but the purpose of the binding of Satan in Revelation is to prevent him from deceiving the nations. Fourth, in the Gospels Satan is bound within his own “house,” that is, his own domain, but in Revelation Satan is removed from his domain and cast into the abyss. Fifth, the emphasis in Matthew 12:29 is the plundering of Satan’s domain, whereas the emphasis in Revelation 20:1–3 is the incarceration of Satan.

Binding of fallen angels in 2 Peter and Jude

Second Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 refer to fallen angels who sinned.[22] In 2 Peter 2:4 the angels are committed to Tartaras and kept in chains for judgment. Jude 6 describes the angels as kept in eternal bonds under darkness for judgment. Both passages may be related to 1 Enoch 10:4–14; 18:11–16; 19:1; 21:7–10; 54:1–6; 88:1–3; 90:23–26; and Jubilees 5:6–14, in which fallen angels are said to be bound and imprisoned. Some argue that the imprisoned angels refer to all rebellious angels who live in spiritual darkness and are chained to await their sentence of divine judgment.[23] However, this waters down the imagery and ignores the parallels in the Pseudepigrapha. The fact that Revelation 9:1–21 describes two different groups of imprisoned angels also suggests that the entire demonic realm is not imprisoned. The imagery of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 is similar to that of Revelation 9:1–3. Perhaps the demons who are released at the blowing of the fifth trumpet are those who are imprisoned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Whatever the case, the imprisonment imagery is absolute.[24]

The Binding and Imprisonment of Satan in Revelation 20:1–3

In this passage Satan is bound with a great chain, cast into the abyss, and then the abyss is locked[25] and sealed. This is the most extensive description of imprisonment anywhere in the New Testament. If the other references to the imprisonment imagery refer to absolute confinement, then this passage must also. John’s words make it clear that Satan is to be cut off from the realm of humanity for one thousand years. In the above cases where imprisonment, and not simply conquest, are involved, the imagery should be taken in a straightforward manner and is comparable to the effects of imprisonment in the human world in the first century A.D. Humans who were imprisoned, especially those in solitary confinement, had little or no contact with the outside world. When Satan is imprisoned, he will have no contact with the world outside the abyss.[26]

Beale argues that the scenes in Revelation 9:1–11; 12:7–11; and 20:1–3 refer to the same event.[27] Though some similarities may be noted, a number of differences are evident, as seen in the following table.

Rev. 9:1–11	Rev. 12:7–11	Rev. 20:1–3
	Heavenly scene (v. 7)	Heavenly scene (v. 1)
	Angelic battle against Satan and his host (vv. 7–8)	Presupposed angelic battle with Satan (v. 2)
A star falls from heaven to earth (v. 1).	Satan is cast to the earth (v. 9).	Satan is cast into the abyss (v. 3).
The star is given the key to the abyss (v. 2).		The angel holds the key of the abyss (v. 1).
The star opens the abyss and releases the demons (vv. 2–10).		Satan is sealed in the abyss for one thousand years (v. 2).
The king over the demons is the angel of the abyss, Abbadon/ Apollyon (v. 11).	The angel’s evil opponent is “the great dragon. .. the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world” (v. 9).	The angel’s evil opponent, who is “the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan,” is restrained from deceiving the nations any longer (vv. 2–3).
	Satan expresses “great wrath because he knows he has only a short time” (v. 12).	Satan is to be “released for a short time” after his imprisonment (v. 3).

In 9:1–11 a fallen angel, possibly Satan,[28] opens the abyss and releases the demonic forces. In Revelation 20:1–3 the key is in the hands of a good angel, who then casts Satan into the abyss and uses the key to lock him in for a thousand years. While there may be some flexibility in apocalyptic imagery, two visions cannot contradict each other. Nor can the two visions be synchronous, because Satan cannot be using the key to open the abyss to release demonic forces and at the same time be cast into the abyss and locked in it. To interpret the visions as synchronous events violates not only the imagery but also the plot of Revelation itself. Thus Satan will be enclosed in the abyss some time after the demons are released.

The parallels between 12:7–11 and 20:1–3 are perhaps more striking, but the differences are just as significant. The first difference involves the origin and destination of the casting of Satan. In 12:7–11 Satan is cast from heaven to the earth, and a place for Satan in heaven is no longer found. Heaven rejoices over this because Satan, the “accuser” of believers (v. 10), is thrown down. This suggests that Satan no longer has access to heaven.[29] His activity is confined to the earth. However, in 20:1–3 Satan is cast into the abyss. This difference confirms the fact that Satan will have no access to earth, the realm of humanity, during the thousand-year period. His confinement is absolute.[30]

The second difference between 12:7–11 and 20:1–3 pertains to the results. The former event results in increased persecution for believers and deception for unbelievers, whereas Satan’s confinement in the abyss prevents him from deceiving the nations and persecuting believers.[31]

The third difference relates to the length of time. In 12:12 the dragon has only a “short time,” which is apparently the three and a half years in the second half of the Tribulation (11:2–3; 12:6, 14). However, in 20:3 Satan is imprisoned for one thousand years and then will be released for a short time. Beale argues that there is a temporal overlap between the “short time” of 12:12 and the “short time” of 20:3.[32] He says the thousand years are the church age and the three and a half years refer figuratively to a long era in which the saints are ultimately victorious.[33]

However, this would make the “short time” of three and a half years longer than the “long era” of a thousand years. This overly symbolic approach strips these designations of time of all temporal significance. But the frequent use of temporal units in Revelation suggests otherwise. It is inconsistent to relativize the different temporal periods to such a degree. Whatever the merits are of literal versus symbolic interpretation of numbers and periods of time, the designation for a brief period of time (three and a half years) should certainly not exceed the designation for a long period of time (one thousand years).[34]

Beale follows White in arguing that “the nations” in verse 3 refer only to unbelievers in the nations, since that is the referent in 19:15 and 20:8.[35] He then uses this point to argue that the visions in 19:11–21 and 20:1–3 do not logically cohere if they are taken progressively. Since the nations have been destroyed in 19:21, it makes no sense, Beale and White say, to speak of protecting the nations from deception in 20:1–3. True, the nations are destroyed in 19:21, but that does not mean that they cannot be reconstituted later under the messianic King (Isa. 2:4; 11:10–16; Zech. 14:16–21). Believing survivors will be in the nations; they and their descendants will make up the reconstituted nations at the end of the millennium.[36] God will protect the nations from Satan’s deception during the entire millennium, not just at its beginning. Thus it is preferable to see the nations as entities as a whole and not as unbelievers only. True, unbelievers were victims of Satan’s deception in 16:1–16 and 19:20, and will be in 20:7–10, but the nations will be protected from his deceptions.

It is a bit unclear how amillennialists view Satan’s deception. Beale refers to this deception several times but never in quite the same way.[37] Apparently he sees two sides to the deception of the nations. He says Satan is not able to deceive the nations in the sense that first, he cannot stop the spread and reception of the gospel, but then second, he cannot deceive a worldwide force into attempting to destroy God’s community of saints. Also Beale seems to view the latter as a result of the former. This is not necessarily a problem in itself, but it does pose a problem with his view of the nations. Beale articulates his view of the deception in such a way that the emphasis is on preventing Satan from deceiving the elect. And yet, inconsistently, he sees the nations as referring to unbelievers in the nations, rather than the elect. This problem is removed if he adopts the view of the nations that has been suggested above, but in so doing he must abandon the only substantial objection against the progressive interpretation.

Beale admits that ἔτι (“any longer,” v. 3) refers back to Satan’s previous deceptive activities. However, Beale sees the imprisonment imagery as merely preventing Satan from deceiving the nations as he once did, that is, in the Old Testament era. This idea, though, has several problems. First, Beale seems to interpret the deception in terms of its degree of success or failure, not in terms of its attempt. While admitting that Satan will ultimately fail in his objective of destroying the community of believers, nevertheless Beale views Satan as continuously attempting such a goal, and only at the end will he succeed in mounting a worldwide lethal attack. However, the imprisonment imagery shows that Satan will be prevented from even making an attempt at deceiving the nations, and the purpose clause makes it clear that he will not have any success, not simply limited success.

Second, Beale says Satan’s deception in 12:7–13:18 occurs throughout the church age. However, this is the very deception Satan is prevented from carrying out. While Beale may be correct that the deception in 13:14 is the worldwide deception reflected in 19:20 (cf. 20:8), 13:14 also reflects a worldwide deception in reference to the worship of the beast and his image. John made no distinction between the deception in 13:14 and 19:20.

Third, the deception of the nations seems to be broader than what Beale has suggested. It does not refer simply to a worldwide lethal attack against believers. It also includes the worship of the beast and rebellion against Christ, as 13:14–18 and 19:19–20 make clear. Beale and other amillennialists say this worldwide worship of the beast takes place during the church age. But again 20:1–3 states that this deception will not occur.

Fourth, this view of deception is historically insensitive. Deception and persecution of the church have been widespread throughout the present age. Persecution was initiated under the reigns of Nero, Domitian, and Diocletian, the last of which was throughout the Roman Empire. The bastions of Christianity in Asia Minor and North Africa in the first six centuries have all been under Muslim control for the past several centuries.[38] Three quarters of the earth’s population are still Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu. Communism in the twentieth century threatened to stamp out Christianity.[39] All this suggests that in the present age Satan is “deceiving the nations” and is having more success than failure.[40]

To summarize, the recapitulation/amillennial view of Revelation 20:1–3 fails in the following ways. (1) Its nonabsolute confinement interpretation is inconsistent with the imagery and confinement imagery used here and elsewhere in Revelation and the New Testament. (2) Identifying Revelation 9:1–11; 12:7–11; and 20:1–3 as the same or synchronous events either makes the visions contradictory or introduces inconsistent elements into the symbolism. (3) The amillennial view of “the nations” is inconsistent with its interpretation of the deception. (4) The amillennial interpretation of the deception is inconsistent when Revelation 13:14 and 19:20 are compared. (5) This view is historically insensitive.

The Reign of the Saints in Revelation 20:4–6

The recapitulation view argues that the reign of the saints in 20:4–6 refers to the reign of martyred saints in heaven throughout the church age.41 The major problem with this view is that it is inconsistent with the references to the saints’ reign elsewhere in Revelation. Revelation emphasizes a future reign on the earth that is part of the reward that saints will receive at Christ’s coming. While 2:5 and 16 seem to express “conditional comings,” these verses refer to judgments within the church, not to rewards for the overcomers: “I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand” (v. 5), and “I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them” (v. 16).42 Rewards for the saints, on the other hand, are explicitly associated with the Second Coming in 11:18 and 22:12. Thus the reward of the reign of the saints also refers to Christ’s second coming. The reward of ruling the nations in 2:25–29 fits better with the eschatological reign, since Psalm 2:8–9 is also alluded to in Revelation 19:15. Christ’s coming in 3:11 is mentioned in reference to the reward of verse 12, which is associated with the New Jerusalem. This latter verse refers to sitting with Christ on His throne as a reward for maintaining a faithful witness. This reward refers primarily to the rule granted to overcomers at the Second Coming.[43]

Revelation 5:10 clearly states that the saints will reign on the earth. If one adopts the reading of the future indicative βασιλεύσ-ουσιν, then the reign mentioned in that verse is also future and will occur only after the Second Coming, not in the present age.[44] This reference and 20:6 draw together the two significant concepts of the believers’ priestly service and their reigning with Christ. Revelation 20:6 may be John’s focal point for fulfilling the reign-on-earth promise of 5:10 (cf. 1:6).[45] Revelation 22:5 also refers to a future eternal reign on the new earth. While this is not synonymous with the reign of the saints in 20:4–6, there may be a temporal overlap. The reign of the saints in the millennium could be included in the reference to the eternal reign. Even if the two references should be distinguished, the eternal reign still emphasizes a future reign on the earth. Therefore because of the absence of any explicit reference to heaven in 20:4–6 and the emphasis of a future reign on earth as a reward presented at Christ’s second coming elsewhere in Revelation, the reigning of the saints should also be understood as referring to a postconsummationist reign of believers on the earth with Christ.

The Significance of the Accusative for Extent of Time

Each reference to the thousand years in 20:1–6 is in the accusative case and is used to denote the extent of time as opposed to the kind of time (which would be in the genitive case) or point in time (which would be in the dative case).[46] Thus Satan will be imprisoned for the entire thousand-year period, and in this same time period the saints will reign with Christ. The significance of the accusative in 20:4–6 is that all the saints will reign for this period. All believers in the entire group begin the reign together and continue to reign. In the amillennial view the martyred saints enter into their reign with Christ when they die sometime after the “thousand-year period” has begun. This means that the entrance of martyred saints into their reign is distributed throughout the millennial period, some not entering into it until the period is almost over. However, if this understanding were correct, the genitive of time would be more suitable. All other occurrences of groups or plural subjects with the accusative of extent of time in the New Testament have the entire group beginning and ending the period of time together.[47] This then means that the millennium will begin after the church period and following the return of Christ, since this is the first time the martyred saints could begin a reign as an entire group, including every individual.

Conclusion

A progressive/premillennial view of Revelation 20:1–6 is preferred over the recapitulation/amillennial view for the following reasons: (a) the absolute nature of Satan’s imprisonment in verses 1–3, (b) the future and earthly orientation of the saints’ reign throughout the Apocalypse, and (c) the use and significance of the accusative for the extent of time for one thousand years (χίλια ἔτη) in reference to the reign of the saints in verses 4–6. These three arguments make a strong case for the progressive/premillennial view of Revelation 20:1–6.

Notes

1. This would apply to those who hold both amillennial and postmillennial views of Revelation 20:1–10, although the postmillennial view holds to chronological progression between 19:11–21 and 20:1–6 rather than seeing 20:1–6 as going back to the beginning of the church age (recapitulation). However, postmillennialists and amillennialists interpret 20:1–10 in much the same way; their differences lie in the interpretation of 19:11–21.
2. Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 144–51, 972–1031; Don Garlington, “Reigning with Christ: Revelation 20:1–6 in Its Salvation-Historical Setting,” Baptist Review of Theology 4 (spring 1994): 4–37; Vern S. Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Revelation 20:1–6, ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (March 1993): 41–54; R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:1–10, ” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (fall 1989): 319–44; idem, “Making Sense of Rev 20:1–10? Harold Hoehner versus Recapitulation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (December 1994): 539–51; and idem, “On the Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Rev 20:1–3: A Preconsummationist Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (March 1999): 53–66.
3. Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 457.
4. Amillennialists and premillennialists agree that Revelation 19:11–21 refers to the second coming of Christ.
5. Some argue that Revelation 20:1–10 records events that will be part of the seventh bowl judgment (16:17) and are thus yet future. This seventh and final plague, Thomas suggests, involves all judgments that follow it, including the Great White Throne judgment and the destruction of the present heavens and earth. Like the seal and trumpet judgments, the bowl judgments are introduced by καὶ εἴδον, “and I saw.” Like the seventh seal judgment and the seventh trumpet judgment, the seventh bowl judgment indicates a series of judgments that are sequential and chronological (Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 6–22, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1995], 567–85; and idem, “A Classical Dispensational View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998], 204).
6. Herman A. Hoyt, “Dispensational Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 66–68.
7. David J. MacLeod, “The Third ‘Last Thing’: The Binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1–10),” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (October–December 1999): 479–82; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 699–703; Thomas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” 205; idem, Revelation 8–22, 405; and Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and the Millennium Debate (The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian, 2004), 15–31.
8. Thomas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” 205.
9. Jack S. Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (January–March 1978): 65–69; George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, 17–46; Osborne, Revelation, 706–9; Thomas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” 206; idem, Revelation 8–22, 416–17; and Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and the Millennium Debate, 33–44.
10. Sam Hamstra Jr., “An Idealist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 121.
11. Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999) 100–101; and idem, “An Amillennial Response to Craig A. Blaising,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, 264.
12. This is especially true of the 1,290 days and 1,335 days of Daniel 12:11–12, since Beale and other amillennialists argue that the 1,260 days refer to the church age, which now includes about two millennia (The Book of Revelation, 993).
13. White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:1–10, ” 219–44; and idem, “Making Sense of Rev 20:1–10?” 539–51.
14. These arguments do not address the previously cited arguments as such, although they do address White’s first argument. For a critique of White’s third argument see Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, 215–17 n. 86.
15. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 985–96; Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120; Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 121–24; and White, “On the Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Rev 20:1–3, ” 62–65.
16. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 985.
17. The reference in 2:10 to the devil casting saints into prison for ten days is not considered here because it is a literal referent and does not involve the imprisonment of Satan or his minions. However, it is interesting to see that while the saints are confined for ten days, their “warden” will himself be imprisoned for one thousand years. It is possible that the passages are related in some way. What was true of the saints’ imprisonment may be even more true of Satan.
18. Beale sees the abyss as a synonym for “death and Hades” (The Book of Revelation, 984). However, it seems that they are distinct. In Revelation only the demonic are related to the abyss; death and hades are usually related to humanity. In 6:8 death and hades are personalized and represent the judgment of death on humanity; death is the experience and hades is the destination. Death and hades are again used figuratively in 20:13–14 of those who dwell in hades and have experienced death as judgment. In the New Testament, hades is always the place of the unbelieving dead (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; 10:15; Luke 16:23; 2:27; Acts 2:31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14) and is a realm from which they cannot escape. Beale also argues that “the abyss is one of the various metaphors representing the spiritual sphere in which the devil and his accomplices operate” and this sphere “represents a spiritual dimension existing alongside of and in the midst of the earthly” (ibid., 987). However, this does violence to the imprisonment imagery of both 9:1–11 and 20:1–3. In every reference to the abyss the being or beings in it must emerge from it in order to interact with humans. This suggests that the sphere of the abyss, like the realm of the dead, is separate from the realm of living humanity, and that those who dwell in the abyss have no contact with those outside that sphere. This may explain why the demons of Luke 8:31 pleaded with Jesus not to send them to the abyss. It is a place of judgment where no contact with human beings is possible. Thus it is not “overly literalistic” to see the abyss as separate from the earth (ibid.).
19. Amillennialists say this refers primarily to spiritual harm (ibid., 496; Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, 177). However, demons have always been able to bring about spiritual harm. Therefore the demonic locusts have not had this ability and thus they have not had contact with the realm of living humanity.
20. The inclusion of the adjectival participial clause “who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year” suggests that the angels were prepared solely for this purpose at this time. If the four angels are identified with the four winds of 7:1 (see Beale, The Book of Revelation, 507–8) this understanding would be reinforced.
21. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 985; Hamstra, “The Idealist View of Revelation,” 120; and Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 122.
22. First Peter 3:19 mentions “spirits in prison” to whom Christ preached between His death and His resurrection or between His resurrection and His ascension. It is uncertain whether these spirits refer to fallen angels or the spirits of wicked men during the time of Noah. If it refers to fallen angels, then this reference would parallel 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Either way, the spirits are confined absolutely.
23. Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 378–79.
24. Beale seems to admit this, but he says the imprisoned angels are active on earth following their imprisonment (The Book of Revelation, 989–990). It is uncertain whether he thinks the entire realm is involved. Nevertheless Revelation 9:1–17 depicts two different groups of imprisoned demons, so the entire demonic realm is probably not in view. Beale does see absolute confinement for demons in Tobit8:3; 1 Enoch 18:11–19:3; 88:1–3; and Jubilees 5:6–14. But he says that Testament of Levi 18:12 and Jubilees 48:15–17 do not refer to absolute confinement. However, the binding imagery in the former reference does not include imprisonment, so it probably suggests conquest and authority. In Jubilees 48:15–17 Mastema, “prince of demons,” is bound and imprisoned “so that he might not accuse” the Israelites. Beale again wrongly assumes that this purpose clause limits the degree of confinement. But an absolute confinement would also be compatible with that imprisonment. Beale may be correct that Gospel of Nicodemus 22:2 refers to nonabsolute confinement, since the time is specifically designated as being between the death of Christ and His second coming. This passage may reflect an early preconsummationist understanding of Revelation 20:1–3, if the author was familiar with Revelation. More likely it is an imaginative elaboration on Matthew 12:29 (cf. Gos. Nic. 20:2 and the dialogue between Satan and hades). Most commentators agree that the imprisonment imagery of Revelation 20:1–3 may reflect Isaiah 24:21–22, which states that the Lord will confine the hosts of heaven and the kings of the earth like prisoners in a dungeon until the day of their final judgment. This also suggests absolute confinement, since prisoners in a dungeon have no contact with the outside world. White argues that the dragon’s fate is analogous to but not identical to the fate of Satan in history. He says that John in Revelation adopted the victory-house building paradigm, which includes God’s conquest of the dragon, as explanatory of the historical events linked with Christ’s death and exaltation. He also argues that in other texts where anticreative/antiredemptive animal imagery is applied to an entity in history, the monster’s fate in the epic idiom is only analogous, and not identical to its fate in history (“On the Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Rev 20:1–3, ” 62–63). There are three problems with this view of Revelation 20:1–10. First, in the examples cited the anticreative/antiredemptive animal imagery depicts nonpersonal entities, not personal beings. In Revelation the dragon represents a personal being (i.e., Satan), and this is also true of the beast and false prophet. Second, the anticreative/antiredemptive animal imagery in the examples cited, as well as elsewhere, is incidental to the argument of the passage. In Revelation 12–20 the plot and argument are centered on the dragon and the beast. Third, the analogous versus identical hermeneutic runs into problems with the fate of the beast and false prophet in 19:20 and the dragon in 20:10, who all are consigned to the lake of fire. Is this depiction only analogous to their fate in history? What would be the analogy to the lake of fire? Would this also be true of the dead in 20:15? On the other hand, if the depiction of the ultimate destiny of the beast, false prophet, Satan, and the dead does correspond to their fate in history, on what basis would one make an exception in this case, but not in the case of Satan’s imprisonment in 20:1–3? In view of these problems it seems best to see the epic imagery as not necessarily analogous in 19:11–20:15, but indeed corresponding to the respective fates in history.
25. The idea of “locked” is implied (ἔκλεισεν, “shut,” v. 3) since the related word κλεῖν (v. 1) refers to the key. Also the purpose of the chain in the imagery may be to bind the dragon to the wall of the prison.
26. Although not mentioned explicitly, it is implied that those under Satan are also imprisoned. This may also be the case in Revelation 20:10, which states that the devil is thrown into the lake of fire. Although no mention is made of the fate of Satan’s minions, it is unlikely that they would be excluded from the judgment of Satan, their master. Also the images of the abyss and binding in the Jewish writings and the New Testament do refer to demons being imprisoned, and this suggests that this would also be the case in verses 1–3. Beale argues that the concept of the “abyss” in Revelation is nonabsolute (The Book of Revelation, 990). He notes that in 6:8 hades exercises influence over the people of the earth. However, he mistakenly assumes that the realm of the dead (hades) and the satanic realm are the same. While Satan has the power of death, he does not have power over the dead; he cannot raise the dead or release the dead from hades. In fact only when the key is given to him is he able to release the demons in 9:1–11 and presumably the beast in 11:7. In 6:8 death and hades are personifications of the judgment of death that is carried out on the earth. The shutting up of the pit suggests a complete removal of influence rather than a limited curtailment of influence. In other words the spiritual world has no access to the physical world.
27. Ibid., 986, 992.
28. Ibid., 492, 987.
29. If Satan’s being cast down from heaven resulted from Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, then 12:9–11 would mean that Satan is no longer permitted to accuse the brethren in the present age. However, several texts suggest Satan continues his accusing activities during the present age. Romans 8:33–34; Hebrews 7:24–25; and 1 John 2:1–2 refer to Christ as Intercessor and Advocate before the Father. This courtroom imagery suggests that there is an accuser, even though his accusations are overruled.
30. William J. Webb makes the same argument, although he does not discuss the significance of the casting imagery (“Revelation 20: Exegetical Considerations,” Baptist Review of Theology 4 [fall 1994]: 24). Beale simply dismisses this argument by asserting that the different portrayals interpret each other (The Book of Revelation, 994). This is partly due to his misconception that the abyss is a sphere of demonic activity rather than captivity.
31. Webb, “Revelation 20: Exegetical Considerations,” 21, 24. Beale replies to this point by arguing that the increase in persecution of the church does not mean an increase in deception (The Book of Revelation, 995). However, in 12:9 Satan is called “the deceiver of the whole earth,” and in 13:14 he stands behind the deceptive activities of the beast and false prophet.
32. Ibid., 993.
33. Ibid., 995, 1018. Beale confesses that the meaning of “long era” is not the primary point, but he seems to suggest that it is part of the meaning. Other amillennialists do see this as the meaning (e.g., Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, 466, 468).
34. The different time designations in Revelation 11:2–3 and 12:6, 14 should be taken literally, since they designate the same length of time. Also, even if the numbers are symbolic, they should at least have some approximation to the length of time designated.
35. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 981; White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation,” 321; and idem, “Making Sense of Revelation 20:1–10?” 540–41.
36. To argue that the redeemed from among the nations will be placed within the divine Warrior’s kingdom-protectorate, as White argues (“Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation,” 324), is of little value since the Messiah’s kingdom will extend over the entire world. The nations will be subgroups within this protectorate.
37. See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 983, 985, 986–88, 90.
38. This includes all the churches addressed in Revelation.
39. See MacLeod, “The Third ‘Last Thing’: The Binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1–3),” 480–81.
40. White argues that Satan’s deception of the nations refers strictly to the gathering of nations worldwide “for the age-ending battle against the Divine Warrior” (“On the Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Revelation 20:1–3, ” 65). However, this still has the problem that 20:3 would refer back to a previous worldwide battle against Christ (19:11–21). Also the deception of the nations mentioned in 19:20 is associated with the beast and the false prophet. Thus there seems to be little basis for seeing a distinction between the deception of the dragon and that of his agents.
41. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 991–1007; Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, 464, 466, 468, 470, 472; Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 84–85; and Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 125–27.
42. Beale argues that the “coming” in 1:7 and elsewhere in Revelation is a process occurring throughout history and that the process is concluded by the “second coming” (The Book of Revelation, 197–99). These “comings” in blessing and judgment throughout history, he says, are a manifestation of Christ’s eschatological authority. Beale’s argument that the reference to Christ’s coming with the clouds in Daniel 7:13 includes the whole course of church history is a bit weak. Beale is wrong in denying that Mark 13:26 and 14:62 refer to the Second Coming, since Jesus may have had both A.D. 70 and His second coming in view. Beale also overlooks the fact that Daniel 7:13 is also alluded to in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, which is certainly a reference to Christ’s coming for His saints (and the Second Coming according to amillennialists). Revelation 22:12 may form an inclusio with 1:7, so that the “coming” of Christ is His second coming, not a series of comings.
43. This reward should be distinguished from the spiritual reality of being seated with Christ in the heavenlies as part of the believer’s union with Christ (Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1–3). From the moment of conversion every believer enjoys this reality, but the reward of ruling with Christ (Rev. 3:21) is future. See Daniel K. K. Wong, “The Pillar and the Throne in Revelation 3:12, 21, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (July–September 1999): 297–307, for a fuller discussion.
44. Though the present indicative βασιλεύουσιν may be the more difficult reading, the context points toward the future tense. Even if the present indicative is read, it may have a proleptic sense. See R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1920), 148. Beale presents arguments in favor of the present indicative and an inaugural-reign interpretation (The Book of Revelation, 562–64).
45. Webb, “Revelation 20: Exegetical Considerations,” 33–34.
46. For more on this issue see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 202–3. See also A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 469–71.
47. Matthew 20:6; 28:20; John 2:12; 11:6; Acts 21:7; and Revelation 2:10; 9:10.