We come to it, the great battle of our time. Great line. I don't think it was Aragorn because he didn't get any great lines like that, at least not then anyhow, I don't think. Somebody will look it up and tell me I'm wrong, but I think there's a line like that. Now we come to it, Revelation 20. The coming of the kingdom seen in vision. Is that still a hair loud, perhaps? I don't want to blow anybody out the back wall. And the first thing we need to talk about, and probably in another sense the great battle of our time, is principles of interpretation. It has been my avowed purpose in these studies on eschatology to study the clear before the difficult, the literal before the figurative, and the general truth before the detail of Scripture. In this way, I have attempted to build an understanding of the prophetic scheme from what is clear, and indisputable in the scriptures. But with this lecture I am forced, finally, to move from studying the clear to the difficult, studying the literal to studying the figurative, and from the studying of the general truths of God's Word to focus on the detailed interpretation of one portion of God's Word. I'm forced to do so because no study of biblical prophecy could pretend to be complete unless it took up Revelation 21 to 10. This passage may claim the title of the most disputed eschological passage in the Bible. Furthermore, its interpretation is also so crucial and pivotal for the premillennial interpretation of Scripture that it cannot be ignored. No premillennialist would take this lecture seriously, and justly so, if it failed to attempt the exposition of this portion of Scripture. The constant attacks on premillennialism in the previous lectures fairly raises the question, what then is the meaning of Revelation 20? How do you explain it? Well, here's the passage in dispute. Let's read it together. And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand, and he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and the Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years. and threw him into the abyss, and shot and sealed it over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer." until 1,000 years were completed. After these things, he must be released for a short time. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and the judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or its image, and not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for 1,000 years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until a thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection. Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth. Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war. The number of them is like the sand of the seashore, and they came upon the broad plain of the earth, surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Now, when we confront a disputed and difficult passage like Revelation 20, biblical hermeneutics must, of course, take center stage and precede a detailed study of the passage. I want to point out to you five features of the passage, and in light of those peculiar features of the passage, develop those particular principles of biblical interpretation that are crucial to the interpretation of Revelation 20. Feature one, the historical context of the vision. The first and most basic principle of biblical interpretation is known as grammatical historical interpretation. Simply stated, this fundamental principle says that the Bible must be interpreted in terms of the normal grammatical meaning of the language and in a way that makes sense in light of the historical context of the language of the passage. The original sense of the words for the original author and secondarily for his readers is the true sense, No interpretation that forgets the original significance of the passage for its original recipients and divorces itself from its historical meaning can be correct. Now, I am aware and thoroughly hold to the fact that grammatical historical interpretation must be supplemented by theological interpretation. That's a fundamental principle of reformed humanitics, but I'm not bringing it up here because it's not as relevant as what I'm saying right now. So what does all this to do with Revelation 20? Well, it was originally written by John the Apostle, exiled to Patmos for his faith to local churches in the Roman province of Asia, also suffering more or less for their faith. Interpretations that forget these visions were recorded by a suffering apostle for a suffering church, defy the principle of historical interpretation. A credible interpretation must exhibit a clear line of connection with this historical context. Since the premillennial interpretation of this passage asserts that this passage has to do with drastically different and distant period of time after the return of Christ, it faces up front a problem with the principle of historical interpretation. Feature two, the apocalyptic genre of the literature. When I speak of the apocalyptic genre of Revelation 20, I have used two words I need to explain. The adjective apocalyptic comes originally from the Greek word that means revelation, apocalupsis. It may also be derived more immediately from the name of the book of Revelation. In some traditions, of course, this book is called the Apocalypse. In the present context, the word apocalyptic has reference to the highly symbolic and dramatically figurative language characteristic of the Book of Revelation, and also of large parts of the Book of Daniel. For instance, for instances of this sort of language, compare Daniel 8, 1 to 7, and Revelation 13, 1 to 4. The word genre is a word of French origin that refers to a kind, type, or sort of literature. or in other things as well, but here literature. Thus, the apocalyptic genre of Revelation 20 refers to the fact that it is a kind of literature that utilizes highly symbolic and figurative language. It is not ordinary literal prose. If you interpret it as ordinary literal prose, you will misinterpret it. Now, the principle of biblical interpretation that is relevant here is that biblical literature must be interpreted in a way appropriate to its genre. Genre analysis is therefore crucial for the Bibles to be properly interpreted. R.C. Sproul has these helpful comments on the subject of genre analysis. analysis in biblical hermeneutics. Genre analysis involves the study of such things as literary forms, figures of speech, and style. We do this with all kinds of literature. We distinguish between the style of historical narratives and sermon, between realistic graphic descriptions and hyperbole. Failure to make these distinctions when dealing with the Bible can lead to a host of problems with interpretation. Literary analysis is crucial to accurate interpretation. Now, the relevance of all this to Revelation 20, I think, should be obvious. Revelation 20 is clearly written in the apocalyptic genre and should be interpreted in a way that takes this into account. The opening words of Revelation 20, verse 1, inform us of the visionary and thus symbolic or apocalyptic character of the passage. They tell us that we're dealing here not with the real world, but with something that the prophet sees in his visions and dreams. Now, I can't take the time now to enlarge on that. But if you look at parallel passages and the use of this kind of language throughout the prophets in the book of Daniel, Daniel chapter eight, you will see that the language of and I saw marks a passage as dealing with visions and dreams as being an apocalyptic genre and necessarily interpreted as such. But that raises the question, doesn't it? If the apocalyptic genre is not so straightforwardly interpreted as prosaic language, as historical narrative, what are the important clues to how to interpret the more difficult kind of literature we know as apocalyptic? Well, several common sense answers can be made to this question. First, apocalyptic passages must be interpreted in a way that is consistent. They ought not, pardon me, they ought not be suddenly interpreted literally and then figuratively at the whim of the interpreters. For instance, there's no good reason, for instance, as I'll argue more in detail in a bit, to exclude indications of time, i.e. the thousand years, from the overall symbolic or figurative character of the passage. But apocalyptic passages must also be interpreted in light of the clues or explanations given in the immediate passage. And here we confront a complication. I suppose in historical narrative, you may occasionally have a symbolic insertion that gives a symbolic illustration of something the historical narrative is talking about. Well, in the same way, in apocalyptic language, you have occasional insertions of interpretation. And that's true, for instance, in Revelation 20, verse 2, where it says, and he laid hold of the dragon. Now, obviously, the dragon's a symbolic figure. But then the dragon is identified. You have another symbol, the serpent of old. And then you have the interpolated interpretation, who is the devil and Satan? So here we have, in an ongoing symbolic narrative, the interpolation of a short, helpful, clarification of what this particular symbol means. It doesn't change the overall symbolic character of the passage. It only gives us a clue to help us onward with the interpretation of the apocalyptic vision. So in the vision, John sees the dragon, the serpent of old, but this is figurative language, and so he interpolates an explanation or interpretation for what he sees. A third thing we have to say, this distinction that we are assuming here between the world of the vision and the real world where we live suggest what I think we can call another important skill or principle of interpretation when interpreting apocalyptic passages. We must both be able to distinguish and yet properly relate these two worlds. Think about it. The vision which the prophet sees does not literally exist anywhere in the space-time continuum. It's not something simply that we can't see. It doesn't exist in the space-time continuum. It doesn't exist in the real world. It exists inside the prophet's head, put there by God. It is a visionary world that exists only before the inner eye of the prophet through the revealing power of the spirit of God. None of it exists exactly as the prophet sees it with the inner eye in the outer world, which can be seen by his external eye. And yet the inner world symbolizes the outer world. It symbolizes that real world, but it is not that real world. One unique feature of apocalyptic literature like that found in Daniel and Revelation is the continued character of the symbols. You do not have a symbol here and there sprinkled in a passage. You have long continued whole symbolic passages with perhaps here and there sprinkled in an explanation. of what this points to in the literal world. This is the character of the vision of Revelation 21-10. It is continuously symbolic throughout, with occasional exceptions like the opening words, and I saw, and the words of verse 2 we just talked about. This means that we must not take the vision literally, even though we must take the vision seriously. We must not cut symbols out of the vision and bring them into the real world. You can't take Aslan the lion and bring him through the wardrobe into our world in the Chronicles of Narnia. You're making a horrible mistake if you can't distinguish Aslan in the land of Narnia and who he stands for in our world. Everything must come through the wardrobe. You can't just transplant stuff out of the land of Narnia and put it into our world. It has to come through the wardrobe. There must be a process of symbolic interpretation, and if you fail to do that, you just take stuff and cut it out of the land of Narnia and smack it down into our world, you're violating everything C.S. Lewis is trying to do, and you're doing the same kind of violation if you do that with the symbolic visions of the book of Revelation. We must not cut symbols out of the vision and bring them into the real world. They may only come into the real world through the gate of symbolic translation. Let me give you an illustration of this and why it's so important and how failing to do it leads to all sorts of confusion. In the history of the interpretation of Revelation 20, not a few have puzzled over the beheaded martyrs of verse four. It's those who are beheaded, who sit on thrones in the vision and reign with Christ. Now, a failure to understand the principle I've been articulating has led some to affirm that only beheaded martyrs, or being a little bit flexible, at least only martyrs, or perhaps only especially martyrs, share in the reign of Christ. Now, such affirmations raise all sorts of silly questions. Is beheading more heroic or meritorious than burning? Does a person actually have to die to be a martyr for Christ? Does other suffering short of death allow one to reign with Christ? How much do you have to suffer to reign with Christ? But you see, all such reactions to the text fail to see that the beheaded martyrs are symbols in the world of vision. They are part of the world of vision. In the vision, they are beheaded by the beast, for a failure to accept a tattoo indicating allegiance to him in their foreheads or hands. So that's what the vision, what's what he sees in the vision? That is really there, I almost want to say literally there in the vision, but what's really there in the vision isn't necessarily the same thing in our world. None of this must be taken literally. The beast, the tattoo, and even the beheaded martyrs. We must beware of taking things seen in visions, cutting them out, pasting them without symbolic translation to the real world. The vision may only be saying, if we suffer, we will reign with him. Biblical symbols, another thing, in apocalyptic passages must be interpreted by means of their biblical origin background, and usage. If they are not explained in the immediate context, great help can be derived in interpreting New Testament symbols by studying Old Testament passages from which such symbolism is derived. The reference to the birds of the air nesting in the mustard tree in the parable of the mustard seed in Luke 13, 19 is illuminated, for instance, by a study of the use of this phrase in two Old Testament passages, Ezekiel 17 and Daniel chapter 4. word is used, of the nations coming under the reign of a great kingdom. And then the interpretive principle known as the analogy of faith. This is interesting, too, because Matt Wehmeyer in his book has a big problem with the analogy of faith and difficulty with it. He doesn't like the way it's used. But the interpretive principle known as the analogy of faith must also be applied here. No interpretation inconsistent with the analogy of Scripture is tenable. Say it without fear, and more so because our confession teaches the same thing. The Westminster and the 1689 Baptist Confession agree in asserting that the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. The Bible is inerrant and infallible. No interpretation is acceptable that creates internal conflict in the meaning of Scripture. One plain and important application of this principle of the analogy of faith is noted in the further statement of the Old Confessions in the same paragraph. And therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, which is not manifold but one, it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly. The application of this to the language, to the highly figurative and disputed language of Revelation 20 is really manifold. The symbolic language of Revelation 20 must be interpreted. in light of other and plainer scriptures. The paramount question, for instance, when is saint and bound, must be answered on the basis of searching the rest of scripture. Furthermore, no interpretation of a highly symbolic passage that contradicts the plain meaning of straightforward, literal, or prosaic passage can be acceptable. It demands that plain passages must be given priority over and must interpret obscure passages. Given the considerations brought forward in previous lectures, a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20, 1 to 10, certainly contradicts these principles. To give only one example, the general judgment according to the clear and really uniform teaching of Scripture occurs at Christ's second coming, Romans 2, 2 Peter 3, Matthew 25. In Revelation 20, 11 to 15, subsequent to the millennium, at least in terms of the order of the visions, and this is commonly acknowledged by the premillennialists, subsequent to the millennium of verses 1 to 10, the general judgment is depicted. Now, if Revelation 20, 11, 15 is regarded as chronologically subsequent to Revelation 20, as it is by premillennialists, then the analogy of faith demands that the thousand years and the little season precede the second coming of Christ. considerations are particularly crushing to premillennialism when we remind ourselves of the state of the doctrinal question. And this is another place where I was really shocked and dismayed by the way Waymeier argues. You see, the state of the doctrinal question is this. We don't, as amillennialists, need to come up with an absolutely lock solid interpretation of Revelation 20, we have to only suggest with regard to Revelation 20 that there is a viable alternative. Because Revelation 20 is not foundational to our system of eschatology. We only have to have an interpretation that fits. Premillennialism, however, is built, if not entirely, almost entirely, and depends exegetically on Revelation 20. Their job is not the same as our job. Their job is to show that Revelation 20 can only be interpreted in a premillennial fashion and that no other interpretation is at all acceptable. That's the state of the question. And therefore, if we suggest a reasonable alternative, Even if we don't put it forward as absolutely indisputable, we have done all we need to do to defend our millennialism. They, however, must argue that their premillennial interpretation is indisputable. Feature three, the nonconsecutive structure of the Book of Revelation. Biblical prophecy often has a nonconsecutive structure. that recapitulates or repeats different perspectives about the same period of time. After the fine exposition he gives of Matthew 24 and 25, John Murray underscores this in one of his conclusions, and he talks about the recapitulatory nature of the Olivet Discourse, and says that we have to be ready for that in other passages, and I'm sure he has in mind the Book of Revelation. So the Book of Revelation is also not a consecutive chronological prophecy of history. Neither futurism nor preterism nor historicism, what I'm talking about right now, is an appropriate interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Some interpreters, like both historicist and futurist schools, have begun with Chapter 4 and assumed that each prophecy occurs in consecutive chronological order in history right through Chapter 22. The seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls, for instance, occur in consecutive chronological order in history. Now, whatever one's conclusion about the best way to structure the Book of Revelation, this view must be rejected. there are clear instances of repetition and recapitulation in the book of Revelation. And I think the clearest illustration of this, although I think there are others, is Revelation 11, 18, which speaks of the final judgment, while the immediately following passage, Revelation 12, three and five, returns to the period of Christ's first advent. And so you have the last, well, look at it, Revelation chapter, Just prior, you have the language of the seventh trumpet. Verse 15, then the seventh angel sounded, the last angel, and there were loud voices in heaven saying, the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever. The 24 elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, we give you thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign. And the nations were enraged, and your wrath came. And the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward your bondservants, the prophets and the saints, and those who fear your name, the small and the great, and destroy those who destroy the earth. And the temple of God, which is in heaven, was opened, and the ark of his covenant appeared in his temple. And there were flashes of lightning, and sounds and peals of thunder, and an earthquake, and a great hailstorm." Now, clearly, that's a description of the final judgment. It's certainly a description of what happens at the second coming of Christ. But then you have in Revelation 12.1, A great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And she was with child, and she cried out, being in labor and pain, to give birth. And we read then that another sign appeared in heaven. Behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, threw them to the earth, and the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth. And so that when she gave birth, he might devour her child, she gave birth to a son, a male child, who was to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, and her child was caught up to God and to his throne. So there's a messianic birth after the last judgment of Christ's second coming, right? Christ is born after the final judgment. Now that's what a consecutive chronological interpretation of the passage leads to, and it's obviously wrong. What we have here is the beginning of another path of recapitulation in the book of Revelation. Now, the significance of this for our present discussion is simply this. Simply because Revelation 20 follows the description of what is apparently the second advent of Christ in chapter 19, and granting that for the sake of argument, This does not demand that the historical fulfillment of the visions in Revelation 20 be chronologically subsequent to the historical fulfillment of the visions in chapter 19, no more than that the vision of Revelation 12 be chronologically subsequent to the vision of Revelation 11. So you have my attempt. to illustrate this with regard to the chronological view of these visions and the recapitulationist view. Feature four, the kingdom theme of Revelation 20. Here I want you to really sit down and duly consider what we're seeing in the New Testament scriptures. What is the theme of Revelation 20? Well, the theme of Revelation 20, indisputably clearly, is the millennial reign of Christ. That's his theme. Verses two to seven, where I think if my memory serves, the thousand years are mentioned six times. Like Matthew 13 and 1 Corinthians 15, 21 to 28, the theme of Revelation 20 is the coming of the kingdom, the reign of Christ. Now this points us to the normative importance of less figurative passages like Matthew 13 and 1 Corinthians 15 for the interpretation of Revelation 20. When a comparison is made with those passages, startling similarities and parallels appear. The significance of this observation against premillennialism is obvious because it demands that the millennial reign be placed prior to Christ's second coming. and the following chart attempts to show the striking character and significance of these parallels. So in Matthew 13, you have the coming of the kingdom in two stages. Messiah comes as sower, and then Messiah comes as harvester. In 1 Corinthians 15, you have the kingdom coming in two stages. First, Christ resurrected and thrown, then the reign of conquest, and then Christ's peoples are resurrected, and then the consummate kingdom. And in Revelation 20, You have the kingdom coming in two stages, first with Satan bound and then with Satan burned. Now, you're wise and you're smart enough to see the incredible parallels between these three passages and how it suggests that if we allow the clear and less figurative of passages in the New Testament to exercise a normative importance for our interpretation of Revelation 20, that it must lead us to the conclusion that the time between Satan's being bound and Satan's being burned is the same as the time between the Messiah coming as sower and the Messiah coming as harvester, and the same as the time between Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of his people. Well, I think that those parallels are both obvious and striking. But then feature five, the internal structure of Revelation 20, 1 to 10. Any proper interpretation of scripture involves an honest evaluation of its own structure and development. And this evaluation of the structure and development of a passage begins with the identification of its theme. Thankfully, both the theme and the development of Revelation 20 are in their essential features clear. The common theme of these verses is the millennial reign of Christ. The thousand years both as the period of Satan's binding and the period of Christ's reign is mentioned six times in the passage, once each in verses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. These verses clearly divide themselves into three major sections. Verses 1 to 3, verses 4 to 6, and verses 7 to 10 are the three paragraphs. And from one point of view, the arrangements of these verses is chronological. Verses 1 to 3, the inauguration of the reign of Christ. Verses 4 to 6, the continuation of the reign of Christ. Verses 7 to 10, the completion of the reign of Christ. From another point of view, an ABA structure may be discerned. Verses 1 to 3, the millennial reign on earth. Verses 4 to 6, the millennial reign in heaven. And then verses 7 to 10, the millennial reign on earth again. A, B, and then A superscript B. Now, of course, the full justification for saying that verses 4 to 6 deal with the millennial reign in heaven must await the following exposition. But even at the outset, it's clear that the subject matter of verses 4 to 6 is clearly distinct from the subject matter of verses 1 to 3 and 7 to 10. Isn't that clear? The subject matter of verses 1 to 3 and 7 to 10 is Satan and the nations and the binding of Satan. The subject matter of verses 4 to 6 deals with souls who reign with Christ. Now, the outline of the following exposition is derived, then, from analysis of the passage. We're going to look first at the millennial reign on earth, verses 1 to 3 and 7 to 10. and then come to the heart of the passage and in some places, hermeneutically, the heart of darkness, and that's the millennial reign in heaven, all right? So everybody take a deep breath, because we're going to begin, I don't think we'll get through in this particular lecture, the millennium on earth. Revelation 20, one to three, verses seven to 10. The assertion that we are in the millennium now is met in many quarters by, well, a sympathetic smile like you'd give to some person you meet on the street who talks to you and isn't quite all there. Who would not feel sorry for someone so deluded that he can believe an evident falsehood? Now I hope to show in this lecture that such an assertion is not so far-fetched as many seem to think. We've divided our study of Revelation 20 into two divisions, the millennium on earth and the millennium in heaven. Lecture then, we take up the first of these divisions. The millennium on earth in Revelation 20 is, as I just said, treated in verses one to three and again in verses seven to 10. These verses deal respectively with Satan bound and Satan loosed. First of all, verses one to three, Satan bound. Now several questions regarding the binding of Satan must be answered in the exposition of this passage. In the first part of this lecture, not the last lecture, we argued that we must interpret the figurative or apocalyptic language of the Bible on the basis of the clear teaching of the rest of the Bible. The clear and literal passages of the Bible set limits and give guidance for the interpretation of the obscure and figurative. Often the figures of the Bible are drawn from other places in Scripture where those figures are used And the use of such figures of speech in those places may wonderfully clarify the meaning of figurative passages that at first seem terribly difficult. So we come to the first of these questions. When was Satan bound? The teaching of the rest of the Bible on this question of when Satan was bound may be cataloged under four headings. First of all, Old Testament passages that may be relevant are Isaiah 49, 53, and 52, But as might be expected, these Old Testament prophecies are somewhat obscure as to this question. Their language may allude to the spoiling of Satan as the strong one, and if it does, associate that spoiling of Satan with the time of Messiah's sacrifice. But that's all rather obscured by the shadowy character of the Old Testament. The Gospels contain at least three passages that are of clear relevance to the question of when Satan was bound. Christ in several places refers to the effect of his first advent on the power of the evil one. Speaking of his mighty power in casting out demons, he says in Matthew 12, 28 and 29, but if I cast out demons by the spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property unless he first binds the strongman, and then he will plunder his house. Now, perhaps in the first place, Jesus is speaking of his power to exorcise demons, but of course, there's a larger context here which speaks of the binding of Satan's possessions and the evangelization of the world. Now, these same two ideas, however, of binding and Christ's kingdom are associated in Revelation 20, 1 to 3. The Greek word translated binds is, of course, the same word used in Revelation 20, verse 2. And these parallel concepts in this identical root present powerful reasons for finding here a parallel passage to Revelation 20, 1 to 3, which teaches that Satan was bound in conjunction with the events of Christ's first advent. Luke 10, 17 to 19 describe Satan falling from heaven as an effect of the preaching of the coming of the kingdom. Luke 17, 9, and the 70 return with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name. And he said to them, I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall injure you. One of the great effects of Christ's first advent is the worldwide preaching of the gospel. The text suggests that if we had spiritual eyes, we might see Satan falling from heaven again and again. John 12, 31 and 32 explicitly associates the time of the casting out of Satan with Christ being lifted on the cross. Now judgment is upon this world, now the ruler of this world shall be cast out, and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. The word translated cast out is derived from the same root used in Revelation 20 verse 3 to refer to the casting of saint into the pit. Two ideas associated in Revelation 21 to 3 are also associated here, the curtailing of Satan's power and the blessing of the nations with a day of salvation. Again, the parallels with Revelation 20 1 to 3 are too obvious to be denied. In the epistles, a number of passages teach the destruction of saints' power by the events of Christ's first advent. Colossians 2.15, for example, speaks of the disarming—or, spoiling, I really prefer the translation, disrobing—of the rulers and authorities as a completed result of Christ's death and resurrection, when he had disrobed the rulers and authorities he made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through him." Hebrews 2.15, in bold language, speak of the destroying or rendering powerless of the devil by Christ's death. Since then, the children sharing flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 1 John 3.8. It also speaks of the destructive power of the first advent on the kingdom of Satan. The one who practices sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Now, the book of Revelation contains at least one passage that is closely parallel in thought to Revelation 20. Revelation 12, 5 to 10, has already been mentioned as one proof that the recapitulationist view of Revelation is correct. It also impacts on the view we take of the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, verses 1 to 3. Revelation 12, 5 to 10, speaks of figurative language of the casting of Satan out of heaven. Clearly, this language is parallel to that of Revelation 20, 1 to 3. This casting of Satan out of heaven is associated with the birth of Christ, however, and his ascension to the right hand of God. Now this recitation of the biblical evidence proves conclusively that any interpretation of the passage that professes to interpret it in accord with the analogy of faith must conclude that Satan was bound by the events of and at the time of Christ's first advent. We say you're not being fair. You didn't turn us to all the passages that say that Christ is going to be bound in Christ's second coming. Why didn't you turn us to all those passages? You wanna know why? because there aren't any. The Bible knows of no binding of Satan outside of Revelation 20. The Bible knows of no binding of Satan at Christ's second coming. It speaks repeatedly of the binding of Satan by the events of Christ's first advent. So a future provisional binding of Satan is unknown elsewhere in Scripture. and is therefore purely speculative and conjectural. Its sole exegetical basis is the premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 here being challenged. A binding of Satan at Christ's second coming cannot be adopted without defying the most obvious applications of biblical hermeneutics to Revelation 20. But in the second place, for how long was Satan bound? Well, the passage plainly says that Satan was bound for 1,000 years. But the question is, of course, how we are to interpret this language of 1,000 years and whether it is to be understood literally or figuratively. The answer to this question must again be determined by an application of the principles of biblical interpretation explained in this lecture previously. One of those principles was that each passage of Scripture must be interpreted in a way appropriate to its literary genre. Genre analysis must be practiced for a proper interpretation of the Bible. We determined in the same lecture that Revelation 20 was written with little exception, in the apocalyptic genre. This is a highly symbolic and dramatically figurative kind of literature, and that dramatic symbol is a continued feature of the passage. Now, it is inconsistent with this apocalyptic or symbolic character of Revelation 20 to insist that the thousand years is intended as a literal period of time. Such a number occurring in such a passage must I think we may say, must be taken figuratively. These verses speak, don't you see, of the imprisonment of Satan. The language connected with Satan's imprisonment is clearly symbolic in other respects. The prison chain, the prison key, and the prison itself, the abyss, are all symbolic. Now, if the prison itself and everything associated with it is symbolic, by what rationale can the prison sentence, 1,000 years, be dogmatically asserted to be literal? The presumption must rather be the opposite that is intended figuratively. Well, the 1,000 years is then symbolic of an age-long but definitely limited period of time. But that brings us in the third place to why Satan was bound. One of the premier objections to the interpretation followed so far is it seems to imply that Satan is completely unable to impact life here on Earth at all during the present age. Isn't he cast into the abyss? Isn't the key turned and the prison sealed? How can he have any influence Here on Earth, well, again, remember that that's the world of vision. It must come through the little wardrobe gate to get back into the real world, and so we must ask what that casting of the dragon into the abyss and the sealing of the prison with lock and key and chain, what that means in our real world. Because the visionary world and the real world are not the same. They are related symbolically, but they are not the same. Now, there are several reasons to reject the idea that Satan's binding means his total inactivity. on planet Earth during the thousand years and the conclusion that he cannot be bound in this present age. First, and I've already said this, it's necessary to remember that the language of Revelation 20 is that of vivid apocalyptic symbol. Everything in the symbol must come through the gate of symbolic translation before we just drop it wholesale and whole cloth into the real world. Second, such language is not adapted to make fine distinctions. It's intended to give great and general impressions. Just as we may not press the details of Christ's parables beyond reason, so also our interpretation of apocalyptic language must be moderate. We must remember that Christ's parables must not be made to walk on all fours and certainly not apocalyptic language. We should not come to the parable of the Good Samaritan and attach a symbolic significance to the oil and wine he poured into the wounds of the stricken man. This must be the law and the gospel, you know, or something else. This is allegorizing. Such allegorizing is wrong when we come to apocalyptic language as well. It is possible that the language of Revelation 20 means nothing more than that Satan's activity during the thousand years has been restrained in some important respect. Third, if we adopt the kind of mentality that presses the binding of Satan to mean his complete inactivity, I should read, During the present age, we will be forced to object to other clear assertions of the New Testament about Satan. Hebrews 2.14 and 50 asserts that he is rendered powerless by the cross of Christ. Colossians 2.15 asserts that the evil powers are disarmed and disrobed. John 12.31 and 32 asserts that the rule of the world has been cast out. Will the objector complain that if these passages were true, it would contradict the plain indications of the New Testament that Satan and his host continue to exercise great power in the world today? We hope not. We hope that the objector would realize that he is missing the forest for the trees. Fourthly, when we examine Revelation 20, Clear statements are made which indicate the specific purpose and meaning of this restraint that we have reference to in Revelation 21 to 3. And that purpose is, according to the languages of the passage itself, that he should not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were completed. Now, the undeceiving of the nations has often been equated with their salvation. But this is a misconception, which is corrected if by nothing else than by the fact that this undeceiving is temporary. Salvation, of course, not temporary. What then does the undeceiving of the nations designate? Well, the undeceiving of the nations may be understood in terms of its opposite. The opposite, the deceiving of the nations, is explained in Revelation 27 to nine. And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war. The number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints in the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. The undeceiving of the nations in verses eight and nine is their being roused through the activity of Satan to a unified, worldwide, global, concerted effort to destroy the church. Satan, therefore, is not bound today from deceiving individuals, even many individuals, even many individuals throughout the world, to some degree or another. He is bound or restrained from so deceiving the nations that they make a concerted, unified, intense, and prolonged effort to destroy Christianity in the world, which is what they will try to do when Satan is loosed. Think in terms of the big historical perspective. Satan's power was so complete till his binding, and it will be so complete after his loosing, that he could easily do this. Why didn't Satan, with the most mighty empire in the history of the world, destroy the small, unprotected church in Palestine, praying in a house afraid for their lives? of 120 people. Well, Revelation 20 provides the answer why He did not destroy them. They were protected because He is bound. Now, I said above that the undeceiving of the nations through Satan's binding does not mean that they are saved. The binding is, however, closely related to the preaching of the gospel and the salvation of men. It provides the necessary context in which the eschological preaching of the gospel may occur. Remember the parallel passages, and especially John 12, 31 and 32. The casting out of the ruler of the world is there connected with the sovereign drawing of all men, that is to say all the nations, to Christ. And so what you have here is the creation of a context by the binding of Satan which the gospel may be preached to all the world, as Jesus said in Matthew 24. before the end shall come. So in conclusion, we may say that when the passage itself gives further clues as to the meaning of the binding of Satan, it turns out that the perspective of the passage is global and universal. It is in respect to the final worldwide assault on the church of God that Satan is bound. The binding of Satan then may be consistent both with the fierce temptation of individuals and the ferocious attacks on the church in different locales It is only inconsistent with such a level of temptation and persecution as would destroy the missionary outreach of the church in the world. Well, that's a good place to, I think, conclude this present lecture. And we'll come on in the next lecture to Satan loosed and then to the millennium in heaven. Take just a little, you can jog a little bit during the break and then we'll run our last lap of the marathon in the next hour. Let's go ahead and be back at 5 till. We'll take a 10 minute break and be back at 5 till.