PREVIOUS | UP | CONTENTS | NEXT |
We now come to Rev. [[20:1-6|bible.87.20.1-87.20.6]]+ which was so universally held by the early Church to teach a literal resurrection, and to be so thoroughly consonant with Jewish views, that the Apocalypse narrowly escaped proscription by the enemies of Chiliasm . . . If we reject the early Church belief in this particular, the veracity of Apostolic Fathers, who assert that they received their interpretation of it from the Apostles and their associates . . . is impeached, and the teaching of the Apostles themselves which directly led to such a faith in all the churches established by them is open to grave suspicion. . . . Popery . . . almost crushed the early interpretation of the passage; but others held fast to it, as e.g. Paulikians, Waldenses, and Albigenses. Various writers, some men of acknowledged ability and talent, have continued from the Reformation . . . down to the present, to entertain the same, and today some of the most able men in nearly all, if not all, denominations, accept of this ancient faith.1
In accord with our A Policy of Inoculation, we will present elements of alternate views--together with what we view to be their weaknesses--so that the reader is better equipped to judge these matters for himself. Let the reader take note: whether or not one grasps firmly to the Golden Rule of Interpretation will to a large degree determine what meaning is derived from the text. Most agree that a plain, literal reading of the passage results in the premillennial understanding which we hold--that a future, literal reign of Jesus Christ on earth will follow His Second Coming and precede the eternal state:Kuyper, in trying to refute chiliasm, makes admissions which substantially give his position away. In commenting on the passage Rev. [[20:1-7|bible.87.20.1-87.20.7]]+, he notes: "Reading this passage as if it were a literal description would not only tend to a belief in the Millennium but would settle the question of chiliasm for all who might be in doubt concerning the same . . . If we take it for granted now, that these thousand years are to be taken literally, that these thousand years are still in the future, and that this resurrection was meant to be a bodily resurrection, why then we may say, that at least as far as Rev. [[20|bible.87.20.1]]+ is concerned, the question is settled. Then we must admit that Rev. [[20:1-7|bible.87.20.1-87.20.7]]+ is a confession of chiliasm with all it contains." -- Kuyper, A. Chiliasm, p. 9.2
It was this very matter, opposition to what the book of Revelation describes regarding The Arrival of God's Kingdom on earth, which inhibited its Acceptance into the Canon. See Millennial Kingdom. See The Millennial Kingdom in the Early Church.I saw an angel coming down from heavenThe Angel with the Key to the Bottomless Pit
It is not difficult to ascertain by what means Satan is bound. The chain is the Gospel. Wherever a soul is released through the preaching of the Gospel there Satan is restrained and limited. . . . Unfortunately the Church of today does not realize the power that Christ has given her. Christ has placed in her hands the chain by which she can bind Satan. She can restrain his influence over the nations. But today the Church bemoans the fact that evil is becoming stronger and stronger. She bemoans the fact that the world is coming more and more under the control of the Devil. Whose fault is that? It is the Church. She has the chain and does not have the faith to bind Satan ever more firmly. Satan is bound and the Church knows it not! Satan can be bound ever more firmly and the Church does it not! [emphasis added]4
According to amillennialism, the chain is riddled with lack of faith. Its ability to restrain is compromised because the Church doesn't realize it already has this chain. Satan would be bound ever more firmly if she would just realize this fact. Immediately we meet with a characteristic of amillennialism which fails to do justice to the text: the binding is not truly a binding. It is "loose" and needs to be ever more firmly pulled in. Amillennialism teaches that Satan was bound at the cross:According to the preterist view, Satan is currently bound (Revelation [[20:2-3|bible.87.20.2-87.20.3]]+) and crushed (Romans [[16:20|bible.66.16.20]]). The enemy was not just defeated de jure (legally) at the cross, but has been crushed de facto (in fact). Therefore, there is no external spiritual roadblock prohibiting Christians from reigning and ruling now.5
If the binding of Satan is now and its ineffectiveness is found in the weak faith of the Church, then what hope is there that he will ever be bound by this means? By the measure of amillennialism, even the "super apostle" Paul was unable to muster the necessary faith to get the job done:And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2Cor. [[12:7-9|bible.68.12.7-68.12.9]])
Paul was unable to "bind" Satan because Satan is not bound in this present age. His binding is future, after the Second Coming of Christ and during the Millennial Kingdom.Notes
1 George H. N. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1978, 1884), 2:264.
2 Charles Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1936), 212.
3 The angel with the key to the pit seen with the angel showing John the New Jerusalem in the background. Albrecht Durer (1471 - 1528). Image courtesy of the Connecticut College Wetmore Print Collection.
4 J. Marcellus Kik, Revelation Twenty: An Exposition (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1955), 19-20.
5 Thomas Ice, "Some Practical Dangers of Preterism," in Tim LaHaye, and Thomas Ice, eds., The End Times Controversy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 423.
PREVIOUS | UP | CONTENTS | NEXT |