My Facebook friend Scott Strickland posted a very good explanation of Revelation 20:6 which I like and wanted to share. First, let’s read what the verse says:
Scott calls his view “Kingdom Theology.” His comment on my Facebook post:
In order to understand the millennial reign, it is important to understand it as the 1st century Jews understood it. They knew that the time was at hand due to the fact that the prophecy of Daniel foretold it. Seventy weeks were determined to occur and once Messiah came, He would restore Israel and the 1000-year reign would begin. Pretty cut and dried.
So, what happened? Well, the seventy weeks were fulfilled, Messiah came, and Israel was restored, just like God promised. Pretty cut and dried. But sometimes we can’t see the forest for all of the trees, and it doesn’t help that the vines of dispensationalism have grown up and tangled the view. But if we grab on to one of those vines and give it a good yank, what falls out of the tree will help us in our understanding of when the millennium occurs, for the dispensationalist understand that it comes right after Daniel’s 70th week, just like the 1st century Jews believed. This is why they teach that there is a long pause between week 69 and week 70, they look in the rear-view mirror and see no millennium and conclude that God has called a time out in prophecy.
They see no millennium in the rear-view because they, like so many in the 1st century, “savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” This is why the disciples asked the risen Christ in Acts 1, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” They understood that the time was at hand for the millennium reign to start. So why didn’t it start then and there? Maybe because it already had. All four Gospels record the triumphant entry of Christ as KING into Jerusalem in fulfilment of prophecy.
“Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.” (Matthew 21:5).
“Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.” (Mark 11:10).
“Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.” (Luke 19:38).
“All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet…” (Matthew 21:4).
Scripture refers to Jesus Christ as the KING, not as a Pretender to the throne. Even Pontius Pilate understood this fact when he wrote out the formal charge under which Christ was crucified: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Matthew 27:37). The religious leaders also understood that He was the King as we read in Matthew. “Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.” (Matthew 27:41-43).
The disciples did not yet understand this though in Acts 1, hence Christ tell them: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” Or in other words, “That’s above your paygrade for now.” They as of yet had not “received power” but Christ told them they would “after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Then the long-awaited conquest of the Gentiles would begin, not by sword, but by Spirit. “…he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.” (Zechariah 9:10).
In John’s account of the triumphal entry, he writes: “These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.” (John 12:16). “The times and the seasons” that had been above their pay grade they now understood.
The millennial reign came just as foretold and we are further told in scripture that Christ will reign until the “end.” 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 26 “Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”
The restoration of Israel, the Church, the Israel of God, occurs during the millennial reign of Christ and is the symbolic 1000 years spoken of in Revelation, which was ushered in during His first coming and culminates at His second coming. The use of the number 1000 symbolizes completeness or all authority just as it does in Psalms 50:10: “For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.” God owns the cattle on hill 1001 also, and Christ is still King even though it has been almost 2000 years since He ascended to heaven.
Then, on the LAST day of history Christ returns in Judgment on this world. Right before that day, Satan is loosed on the nations and has power to deceive them once more as we see going on all over the world today. When Christ returns, He calls His own up to Him and the Wrath of God falls on the world of the lost. After which, there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth will have passed away, having been melted with “fervent heat” as Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:10.
(End of Scott’s comments.)
This is similar to what another friend, Dr. John Gideon Hartnett says in his article, Does Isaiah 65:17-25 refer to an earthly Millennium rule of Christ on Earth? But he doesn’t cover Isaiah 2:4 which says,
To be honest with you, I’m still not sure which is the correct interpretation of Revelation 20:6 due to the fact I don’t see how Isaiah 2:4 has been fulfilled in the past. I would like to think Revelation 20:6 is talking about a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on Earth over the people who survived the wrath of God at the coming of Christ, but I can’t be dogmatic about that because it was first taught to me 40 years ago by a pastor who was under the influence of Darby and Scofield’s Dispensationalism. To his credit, he broke free of two of the main doctrines of Dispensationalism, the distinction between the Church and Israel, and the doctrine of a secret pre-tribulation rapture of the Church which is connected to the dispensational doctrine of the distinction between the Church and Israel. However, he still held to the doctrine of the 70th Week of Daniel being yet in the future. Nobody’s perfect, right? I’m sure not.
However, I am very dogmatic about the correction interpretation of Daniel 9:27 and the 70th Week of Daniel! This doctrine has far more impact on my life and service to God than the interpretation of Revelation 20:6 and whether it’s past or still in the future. But there’s no doubt in my mind about Revelation chapters 21 and 22. They have yet to be fulfilled because they can only be fulfilled after the second coming of Jesus Christ which has not happened yet.
Related posts:
Who Are The True Citizens of Israel? Those in Christ Jesus!
The Two Babylons Chapter IV. Section IV — Extreme Unction
The Papacy And The Civil Power - R. W. Thompson
The 70th Week of Daniel is all about Christ, not the Antichrist!
The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Doctrine
Revelation 9:12-19. The Sixth Trumpet
Revelation 8:1-5. The Seventh Seal
1948 Statehood of Israel does not fulfill Bible prophecy!
The Focus of the Prophecies of the Book of Revelation is NOT about Israel
This is what the Jesuits taught to bring the Reformed back to the Romish fold? Why would you then indulge in such a belief?
The Roman Catholics have always believed it was their mission to subdue all nations so Christ could come back after His enemies were made His footstool.
Jesus; however, said that His coming would be like the days of Noah. Did Noah subdue the world and bring in righteousness?
I’m curious.
Did the Jesuits teach the Millennium to bring the Reformed back to the Romish fold? Please give me a source of that.
Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism When I get more time I will find better sources if you don’t trust Wikipedia.
BTW, It’ll be in March, because I promised the Lord I would not be on social media during February and I feel this is the same.
The doctrine of the millennial reign of Christ is NOT part of Jesuit preterism! You may call it Futurism, but not preterism. And Revelation chapter 20 verse six teaches it! How do you interpret that verse?
Brother Mark, I’ll give you this: Because the doctrine of the Millennium is also part of Dispensationalism, I also wonder about it. But it’s the only doctrine of Dispensationalism I think it would be great if true. I know all the other views as well. Some of my friends are Amilillennial, but I can’t completely agree with them. Has there ever been a time in history when Satan has been bound so he could not deceived the nations? The Popes of Rome murdered millions and millions of Bible believers over 1260 years. Satan wasn’t behind those popes? I believe he sure was.
James, we shall have to amicably, but seriously disagree about all of this.
I am troubled by the impact amillennial views might unwittingly have on the publishing of the gospel. If it is true, as Scott writes, “Right before that day [of Judgment], Satan is loosed on the nations and has power to deceive them once more as we see going on all over the world today,” then Satan was not deceiving the nations at the time the church of Rome received its power. Doesn’t this mean that in the amillennial view, Rome can not be Satanic in its origins? There are many evangelicals who believe this. Isn’t this a complete undermining of the verity of the historicist doctrine concerning Rome?
I sincerely believe there is a fundamental contradiction underlying the amillennialist and historicist doctrines. I don’t think you can be both without compromising first principles.
For instance, The coming of the Man of Sin is said to be after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness. If Satan was not deceiving the nations, but rather was bound at the time of the appearing of the papacy, and thus he was not able to deceive, then, can not one safely conclude the Popes until now are not the Man of Sin? This contradicts Historicist doctrine, and compromises the gospel. Just look at Ecumenism and the widespread acceptance of Spiritual Formation practices, all of which are led by Roman Catholic intrusions into the Protestant Evangelical churches.
Who, then, is the Man of Sin, according to amillennialist doctrine? Will they say that the Pope may become the Man of Sin now that Satan is deceiving the nations once more? Wouldn’t this be a tacit form of futurism?
It’s not that I disagree with you, Ron. I’m just not sure. There are points on both sides of the debate I like.
Thank you , James, for all your hard work helping to restore the Historicist view into its proper place.It is very exciting to follow.
A couple of questions about Scott’s facebook post. Certainly the 1st century Jews were waiting for the Messiah to appear, but was it under the auspices of a 1000 year reign? I am not sure this concept was universally anticipated by them, or even by a significant percentage of the 1st. century Jews. Perhaps I am wrong about this?
Also when Scott writes the day of Christ’s return to judgment, that, “Right before that day, Satan is loosed on the nations and has power to deceive them once more as we see going on all over the world today.” Surely to imply that Satan has had no power to deceive in centuries past is a very bold conclusion. This, I think unfortunately, is the position that Amillennialists are forced into.
Certainly the Reformers were often Amillennialists, but I think this is a consequence of the abiding influence of Augustine, whom they held in high regard.It is the next generations of prophetic interpreters who began to synchronize their doctrine about this matter. This came to fruition in the 19th century with such men as T.R. Birks, E.B. Elliott, and H. Grattan Guinness among others. All of these premillennial in their views.
In Birks’ book on this subject, he makes the comment at one point, “It is strange indeed that any reader could assign the binding of Satan to the [present] period, when the word of God describes him as a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour; or make the season in which he is chained in the abyss the same in which the apostasy is ripening, till it issues in the full-blown blasphemies of the Man of sin, whose coming is expressly referred to the working of Satan. (Birks, Outline of Unfulfilled Prophecy, p79)
As for Elliott’s view of Amillennialism, he writes, “Yet it must be once more considered, by Protestants at least, as a direct historical contradiction to this theory, that for above 1200 out of the 1800 years during which it would represent Satan to have been bound and resticted from deceiving the nations, and Christ with his saints to have been reigning, I say that for above 1200 years of this period there should have prevailed over both Eastern and Western Christendom the two grand Satanic delusions of Popery and Mohammedanism. Had Augustine himself lived to see this, considering his evangelical views of Christian doctrine, that he would have been the first repudiate his own millennial theory.” (Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, Vol IV, p143-144)
For H Grattan Guinness’ view: http://historicism.com/Guinness/Light/light19.htm
As for John Hartnett’s view of Isaiah 65:17-25, he makes a good case that these verses refer to the Church in this present age. Perhaps it does, but it does not mean that this is necessarily the 1000 year period spoken of in Revelation. This is an assumption he makes which I think is impossible to prove.
His conversation with Mitch Cervinka appended to his post, he says some things which makes me wonder if he should be so sure of his conclusions. For instance he writes, “The Millennium idea is relatively new. Darby’s dispensationalism is less than 200 years old. It is quite ludicrous to believe the Church was without this as a major doctrine of truth for 1800 years.”
The early church, contrary to this thought, was significantly premillennial.
He also does not seem to give much credence to the Historicist view either in a comment just in passing, when he writes, “one could hardly say of Revelation or Daniel that those visions of beasts are historical narrative.” Certainly I attribute this to his never really having looked at the matter. I believe this is a grave mistake.
I wonder if there is not a tendency for Amillennialists to discount the Historicist viewpoint? If I remember correctly, Michael Newkirk does the same, in his otherwise very interesting book. There is also a tendency to conflate Dispensational Premillennialism with Historic Premillennialism, as if the two were not completely opposing views.
Ron, I think there are good convincing arguments on both sides of the issue. And I think we would have great fun ruling the world 1000 years with Jesus if the pre-millenlial view is true. Ruling over who? According to my former pastor who was influenced by dispensationalism but who rejected two points of it, namely pre-tribulation rapture and physical Israel continuing to be God’s covenant people, the Millennium is going to be a time when the curse is removed and we will be ruling over the people who were not yet saved in Christ but who fought against the Antichrist and did not worship him. They survived both the battle of Armageddon and the wrath of God! My former pastor who is now with the Lord called these survivors the “anti-Antichrists”! How’s that for some biblical eisegesis! But the Bible does say, “they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” If this is literally after the return of Christ, we must be priests of God over people who did not yet receive Christ in this life. Or if you say none of the unsaved will be around then but will all be waiting somewhere in the spirit world for the final White Throne Judgement, it could be a good argument against pre-millenialism in my opinion. Either way, these interpretations don’t impact what I am doing today. On this website I want to expose the enemy and false doctrines that mislead Christians today.